The Sun.
London, England, 1805-07-30 00:00:00

TVIATIIESTER, JULY 18.

THE business of the Western Circuit commenced
here on Wednesday last. Mr. Justice LE BL NC pre-,
sided at Nisi Prius, and Mr. Baron .GEAnAm in the
Crown Court.
The first trial at' Nisi Prins was an sndi&meat of
John Hornby, Esq. for an assault on Elizabeth Mans-
field. The, Prosecutrix stated that she had been hired
as Housekeeper and Lady's Maid in Mr. Hornby's
family ; that after she '.had:: been there about 50
days, se had (unintentionally, according to her
statement) ()Wended Mrs. H. who .complained to
Mr. Hornby that she had been very impertinent •
that her maiter, in consequence, desired to speak
to her in the housekeeper's room, and on her at-
tending him there, 'and asserting that she had been
guilty of no impertinence, he told her, is great heat,
that if she did not hold her tongue, he would knock
her down—that she should instantly go out of the
house—and on her expressing her readiness to go,
but demanding a month's. wages, he struck her on
the chin' with his knuckles, and afterwards with his
open hand on the cheek : she avoided other
blows by stepping back, and shrieking loudly for
help. Mr. H. soon after quitted the room. A man
servant said he heard the noise and bustle in the house-
keeper's room, but saw nothing of the assault, as he
was prevented entering the room by the butler. 'A
female servant said she heard the Prosecutrix shriek,
and saw her shortly after she came frdm the room,
when she appeared in great agitation, and her face
looked as though she had received a blow.
'Mr. Serjeant LEws, for the Defendant, argued,
that as the proof of the blows rested solely` on the'
testimony of the Prosecutrix, and as she had, even in
that Court, deported herself in a way which mady
it not at' all uncharitable .to conclude she could be
both 'pert and artful, it was to be considered whether
such a woman might not have given her own face
the appearance of its having received a hicr.v. It was
more probable that she had done so, than that Mr.
Hornby'had so far for!txtimu himself as to strike her.
The JLiry, after saute hesitation, pronounced a
verdi& of Gailty. , • .

WoOnwmtri •p. -CoATEs was an Mtion for 2.5
guineas, 'agreed to be paid for a .mare' sold by the
Plaintiff to the Defendant, The 'sale and delivery
of the mare.hiving been ,proved; it was argued for
-the'Defendant that, he had a&ed .for' Mr. Mount,
his ,Master and, Seeondiyithat .the mere Wasbroken
winded; though she had been warranted -sound:—
Witnesses were called to prove that the mare Wits
sound N'vhen delivered 'owl 'as more than three
weeks had elapseiNetwe;,en the tinie,' of, her being
delivered to the purchaser and returned: to the. sel-
' la, it was inferred that she had Centraaed the eoin-.
plaint in that time. letter. Was ids 6 produced,. in
which Mr: Mount disavowed being the purchaser.---
.Uncler these circumstances, the Jtiry gave a verdict
for the Plaintiff foi '25 guineas.
• lIMILJNG.V:TIMAivsott—An Mtion limn& by
a Linen-draper in the Isle of Wight, against a Gen-
tleman in the Commissary Department; for the price'
of ene curtains, bed4tangings; payment of
with was resisted on the Statute,..of faimitations,
and on the ground that the,ChargeshOuld haVe come
into the account of ~iinother tradesinati ; but there •
.
was evidence clearly to refute both pleas, and cons&
,ciuently a verdi& forthe,Plaintiff. . •
JAcoB v. Morraeseit, an Aaien 'for money lent.,
The Plaintiff is a Slop-seller, the DefendautTi:st
'Lieutenant of the Montague. ,John Thonriaso'sailer •
on board the ship, had paid the Plaintiff. three
guineas, which ,he afterwards wished: to borraiv for.•
his family : Mr.Montresor had said, Jacob would
oblige him if lie lent' the money to Thomas. • but .
it was contended that the Plaintiff had declinedlend-
ing it to the seaman, and had actually lent it to Mr.
Mon tresor himself ; and the evidence stipporting, this
statement, the Jury gave. the minair a. verdi& for
three guineas.
MALLARD v. BKARD.---An Mtion for an, assault
at tecock-light at Freshwater, in: which a verdict of
w.e. given to the: Plaintiff, the Jury adopting the
opinion ache Learned Judge,,, that. it was
.proper to
punish both the parties by the payment of costs
Lewis u. PE;AiisE.-t-The. Defendant, mho is
Brewer,: employed the Plaintiff, a Millwright, to
censtrat machinery, &c. iii lli, brewhonge ; the lat-
tr, claimed 491. ti,;. . more than the Defendant chose
to. pay. The Jury gave a verdict for the whole
amount. ,

•
Mums. v. GagATur.in, Widow.---Thig was an
EjeCtment brought by - HarriS,. Esq. fbr the re-
covery of certain: lands and premises situate in the
Hautlet of Longharn, in the parish of liampreston,
as heir at law to the late Edward Greatheacf,
Thitl Gentleman in his will had bequeathed all his
lands in die county of Dorset to_his Widow fbr life,
with ,remai n der to the next brother of the Plain-
tiff.- The (11.1.e:Stioll to be deterniinedby this A6tiou
was, whother the 1 Aught to be recovered by: the
Plaintiff 'were in the County of Hants or in, the
County of Dorset because, if in the fortneklknin.•
ty .these landi did not pass by the will of lice •de-..
ceased, hut: descended to The On the
part the. ,Plaintiff,it. was cl*arly prove 4, that the
larfd-tax. payable for the preiniges in question wag
aSSeased in 'Hanipshire, and•paid to the Receiver-
General of that-County, and that former owners lutd
voted at contested Elections, served on Juries, &c.
fOr.the saline (WI:Ay for wore. than a century laSt
paSt.,-4he Jury gave a verdi for the Plaintiff.

At Northaloptan Assizes -the farm ing Causes
we:LI t ried . -

B(v ter, 'u.t,AN A.:!rt) Tzar was an ,ac-
tioif against the Delodanti;, ivhar are propyietors of
the 'tirottingbani coach, fig negligetvie in their coach-
in)an, who, -?iltitc3d,Of keeping • the regular road, at -
tcmpted to dr', through..thu Red tioninn yard, at
r , wh4,r(!by. the coach was .oVer :and
it. Plaintiff intiolf hart ; azid t o Definiltutts' baying'
slifil;red jatignictir to go by default, a %stilt of intjAtiry,
was csocuref (Jn Wednesday lag,- whin the Utify
giwe t tic 001. (I:ulge3 and costc • - • •
Cu.% PM.t N WAS" an ataion broritht.,
by the Ph:tint;tr, a lia!r-dress-er, against the Defend,
ant, a millcr, 4,-01- criminal conversation-with hks
VCrdia for the Viaiiitiff--JYarnagosi 35 0 i , 1

TAYLI) It V, CLE s -was a • atlioti
sech icing and tl,,hins.cliing the Plaintiff's ditt,,,r,litcr,
br wbieh he her,serviee ; *hen the Plaintiff
obtained a. yard ,for a ttl.