The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-22 00:00:00

.ASSIZ,

MOE,

Mr. James said that the plaintiff was actuated by no
vindictive feeling in the matter, and he was quite willing
to leave it to his lordship to say what should be done.
Mr. Baron Alderson then expressed his opinion that it
would be a fair settlement of the case for the defendant to
pay all the plaintiff's costs out of pocket, and a certain
sum as the nominal value of the dog, and both parties
consented to this arrangement.
Both Courts at their rising adjourned to Monday
morning at 11 o'clock.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT,---YORK, March 20.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
TAYLOR V. DEMPSEY.
This was an action to recover damages in trespass for
an assault.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Hall appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Price and Itlr. Bayley for the defen-
dant.

The plaintiff, it appeared, is a journeyman talor
in
York, and a freeman of Micklegate-ward. The defen-
dant is the pasture-master, elected by the freemen of
the ward of certain common pastures, on which the free-
men have a right of common, but which, by some ar-
rangement, are let to the freemen who have. cattle, at a
low rate, and the money thus raised, about 8001. a-year,
after defraying necessary expenses, is distributed among
such of the poor and needy freemen of the ward as
choose to apply for it by the pasture masters of the
year, according to a certain kale. In June last the
plaintiff, as a freeman, went to inquire about the pro-
portion to be paid to his brother, ale° a freeman, about Paying whom there was sown dispute, and becomin
abusive it was alleged the defendant ordered a man in
attendance, named Ellisnn, to put him out of the room.
This,-the plaintiff'allezeil, he did by taking him up in
his arms and flinging him out of the door down three
steps '`like a bag of old clothes or a deal dog." He
fell on his hande with his head against a box placed in
the gar !ea and cut and bruised his face and broke his
arm ; acid since then he had been unable to use his arm
as forintrly ; and, being the one he stitched with, he
could not earn as much wages as he used to do. For
this damage he brought this ectie.e.
For the defence, it was contended that the plaintiff
went drunk to the hind's cottage where the freemen wen,
paid, and seeing the pasture-masters sitting round a
table, with 20 or 30 sovereigns en the table and gem,
silver, said, "Well, you won't pay me, I will pay
myself," and then inado a snatch at the money on the
tatile. In his attempt to
(1,1 tin,' he was seized and put
nut of the door, and, as &e struggled violently to keep
inside, he slipped and fell ; that this fall did him no se-
rious injury, as he was afterwards seen drinking in
public-house, and that he had broken his arm with some
other fall on his way borne.
His Lordship having slimmed up the evidence, the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 101.
His Lordship granted a stay of execution till after the first four days of next term.

CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
MARSTON' V. KIRBY.
This was an action of trespass for upsetting the plain-
tiff's doggcart and injuring him.
Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Kemplay appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton, Q:C., and Mr. Un.
thank for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action was an innkeeper at South
Cave, re r* Hull, but now lives in lodgings with his
mother-in-law. In December last he was driving bom3
i n his dog-cart, with his mother-in-law, when he met the
defendant, also in a dog-cart. The defendant drove in the
Middle of the road, aad, although the plaintiff drove off ,

WESTERN CIRCUIT—EXETER, MARCH 20.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Channel.)
CHARGE OF MIIRDER.—SENTENCE 01 DEATH.
Mary Weeks, a young woman aged 28, was indicted
for the wilful murder of her male child, a boy between
three and fours years old, at Exeter, on the 3d of Jan.
last.

Mr. Kingston and Mr. Phear appeared for the prose-
cution, and Mr. Ring defended the prisoner.
It appeared that on the 7th of Jan. the body of a male
child, aged between three and four years, was discovered
in the river Exe, near Hancross, by a fisherman named
Lyddon. Its head was enveloped in a black apron, which
covered the eyes and nese, and which was pinned under
the right year. The medical gentleman who made an exa-
mination of the body, Mr. Pycroft, gave it as his opinion
that death had been caused by drowning, there being no
marks of violence or signs of disease upon the body. The
evidence to connect the prisoner with the offence was that
she became acquainted with a widower, named Warren,
to whom she was engaged to be married ; but she re-
presented that she had only one child, and that was at
home with her mother, whereas she had two, and one
day this little boy was brought to Warren's house. He
accused the prisoner of deceiving him, and the intended
marriage was broken off. The child still remained at
Warren's house until the evening of the 3d of January,
when Warren seat to the prisoner to take it away, as
he (could not afford to maintain it any longer. She
came and took up the child in a fit of anger, and carried
it away. That night a female, resembling the prisoner,
was seen near a mill-leat, in the Exeter Bonhay, which
runs into the river Exe, and she was leaning against a
tree, and crying. A child's frock and petticoat were
picked up afterwards close by the lent, which were iden-
tified by several witnesses as those which the child wore
on the night in question. The prisoner did not arrive
home to her lodgings until nine o'clock, and then she ap-
peared much distressed in mind. She stated in answer
to inquiries, that she bad sent home her boy to her
mother's house at South Lawton ; but the mother, an
aged woman (who was much affected) was called, and
stated that she brought the child, whose death the pri-
soner was charged with having caused by drowning, to
Exeter a few weeks before, and she had never seen it
since. The prisoner had left Exeter soon after the body
was found, and suspicions were aroused against her, and
she was apprehended at Ashburton, on her road to Ply-
mouth. Whilst the prisoner was in gaol, it was alleged
that she made a confession to another prisoner, who
slept in the same cell, named Davey, and which state-
ment was to the effect that Warren had refused to marry
her on account of the child, that he said that many chil-
dren were picked up drowned, and nobody found it out,
and that she replied, " Good God ! you don't mean for
me to do it ?" and it was upon this suggestion that she
was induced to commit the crime. The apron which was
pinned round the child's head was identified by several
witnesses as the one which they had seen worn by the
prisoner,

- Mr. King, for the defence, contended that the evidence
was not conclusive as to death having been caused by
drowning, and that Warren hal been actuated by a lust
of gold i❑ giving information which led to the apprehen-
sion of prisoner—a reward of 501. having been offered
by the Crown—and, that his testimony was not to be
relied upon.
His Lordship summed up with great care and ability,
and the jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver-
dict of Guilty, recommending the prisoner to mercy on
account of the treatment she had received from Warren.
His Lordship then paled sentence of death in the
usual form, saying that he would forward the recommen•
dation of the jury to the proper quarter, but desiring
her to entertain no hope of mercy.
Mr. King then prayed the court to stay execution, on
the ground that the prisoner was "quick with child."
A jury of matrons was then empanelled, who decided
that such was the case, and his lordship thereupon or-
dered execution to be deferred until after the prisoner
was delivered.
The trial lasted the whole of the day, and did not con-
clude until 11 o'clock at night.

HOME CIRCUIT.
KINGSTON, MARCH 20.
(Before Mr. Baron Alderson and a Common Jury.)
CLEGG V. HODDER.
The plaintiff in this action was a gentleman residing
at Surbiton, near Kingston, and the defendant is a small
farmer at Ditton. The action was brought to recover
the value of a dog that bad been shot by the defendatft.
Mr. E. James, Q C., and Mr. Turner were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Honoyman were
counsel for the defendant.
It appeared that the dog in question was a retriever
puppy, three months old, and very well bred. He strayed
away from home on the 31st of Sept., and, although a
reward was offered for his discovery, nothing was heard
of him for several days, when he was brought home
dead. It turned out that the dog had gone into a field
belonging to the defendant where there were some fat
sheep, and that while he was chasing them about the
defendant came with a gun and 'at once shot him dead.
Baron Alderson inquired of the plaintiff what kind of
retriever the dog in question was ?
The plaintiff replied that he really was unable to tell
how he was bred. All he knew was that ho was a re-
triever, and that his father was a very valuable dog.
Baron Alderson said that all sorts of dogs might
be
termed retrievers, and he had even heard of a pig being
a retriever.

Mr. James—Yes, ray lord, for truffles. (A. laugh.)
The learned Judge said he should like to be informed
something more relating to the breed of the dog.
Mr. James—My lord, the father of the dog is here,
and he shall be produced presently. (A. laugh.)
Baran Alderson—You mean the father of the de.
ceased? (Much laughter.)
Mr. James—Exactly, my lord.
Witnesses were examined to prove the fact that the do;,-
was shot by the defendant ; an,i the •' deceased's father"
was then placed on the counsels' table. He was a fine,
handsome animal, and it was stated that, in addition to
hie sporting qualities, which were first-rate, he perfcrmed
a good many extraor.iinary tricks. He at first appeared
very much dis,atisfied with hii novel poAition among so
many wigs, and appeared inclined to make a bolt among
the counsel ; but he was a', length pacified and allowed
himself to be exhibited to the Court and jury.
Mr. Bovill addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendant, and he said the fact was that, at the time in
question, the sheep that were in the field were fat and
ready for the butcher. They had been worried by a dog
two or three nights before, and on this night the defend-
ant supposed it was the same dog, and upon his going
into the field he found him chasing the sheep about, and
thought that lie was justified, under such circumstances,
in protecting his own property.
The defendant was examined, and he stated that he
had gone to bed when some one came to inform bin that
a dog was worrying his sheep, and he immediately got up
and took his gue, and proceeded to the field, where he
found the dcg chasing the sheep, and he at once shot him.
Baron Alderson said that in so doing he had undoubt-
edly acted illegally. Even supposing the doff had really
worried the sheep, a person was not justified in destroy-
ing him until he had tried to call him off or get him away
by fair means. Even in the case where a thief broke into
a house, the owner was not justified in shooting him un-
til he had first tried to arrest and detain hie by other
means..