The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-19 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISToL, AUG. 18.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Special Jury.)
MILES Y. MAGAN.

This case was an action brought by a young lady,
the daughter of Mr. William Miles, of Sherbourne, against
Capt. Megan, the member' fur Westmeath, to recover com-
pensation in damages for a breach of his promise to marry
hqr. The damages were laid at £lO,OOO. The case excited
&feat interest.
Mr. Slade, Mr. Montague Smith, and Mr. Kingdon were
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Collier, Mr. Keane, and Mr. Cole
for the defence. -

Mr. Slade—ln the case of Miles v. Magan, which was
specially fixed for this morning, I am happy to pay that
your lordship will be spared the trouble of going into a very
long and plinfni inquiry. The matter in dispute has been
arranged entirely to the satisfaction of both parties, and I
think that I shall best discharge my duty by withdrawing
the record.

Mr. Baron Channel! said be was very glad to find that
such a course had been adopted. -
Mr. Collier= My lord, I entirely concur in what my
learned Mend has said, that it is certainly for the best that
we should be spared an investigation which could lead to
no useful result. At the same time I cannot aflow the matter
to dose without saying on the part of Capt. Magan, as
indeed I am instructeJ to do, that there is not the slightest
imputation ort-the character of Miss Miles as regards her
purity and virtue ; and I may, perhaps, be further permitted
to express my belief that bad the conduct of Capt. Megan
been investigated it would have been found to be equally
free from blame.
Mr. Baron Channell—l am exceedingly glad to find that
the matter is settled. _

The record was then withdrawn.
It was understood in court that the terms of settlement
were— Defendaht to pay £2,000 and costs, all original
letters between the parties to be returucd on both sides, and
all printed copies cf the correspondence to be destroyed.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT. —LivEnrooL, AUG. 18.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
HOLMES V. LAWTON,
This was an action of trespass to recover compensation in
damages for an assault whereby the plaintiff lost two of his
teeth.
Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Quail' appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. T. Jones for. the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff'is a contractor, and a hale,
hearty
man, between Wand 70 years of age, and the defend-
ant is a surgeon and a young man of 2G sears of age, anti
both reside at Sheffield. On the 19th June last the defendant
was called out to see a patient, and went ix his gig, accom-
panied by his groom. On his return he attempted to drive
over a private road which the plaintiff was employed in con-
structing. A cart was laid across the road to prevent vehicles
from passing, and the defendant got out of his gig to remove
it. The plaintiff endeavoured to prelent him by holding the
wheel, on seeing which the defendant dropped the cart shaft
and knocked the plaintiirdown by a blow on the mouth.
This blow knocked twn of the defendan•'s teeth out, and on
his getting up the defendant again knocked lain down, and
very severely ill-used him. •The plaintiff himself proved
these facts, and in his examination said that the defendant
took up a stone in each hand and offered to fight all the
" navvies" on the ground one by one. The plaintiff's part-
ner then ran up and said, "My good man, are you going to
kill somebody ?" The defendant replic4, "Yes, I have a
licence to kitl people." (Laughter.)
His Lordship (to Witness).,-Did you go to any medical
man afterjon were abused by him?
Tlaintiffi." Nay; not likely." (Renewed laughter.)
For the clatrice the defendant anti his groom were called,
and ti evidence was that the plaintiff was the aggressor,
nr..l !hp took on the stoze.=. to d.f...fit.l bitukit
Liae ty,ufii stating that the plaintiff'
first came forward in a fighting latitude—(laughter)—and
told his men 10 " kill the devil, but. not to touch his man."
(Great laughter.)
His Lordship having summed up the evidence, the jurs
found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £2O.

THE MAYOR &C., OP LIVERPOOL V. REOBY AND
ANOTHER, OVERSEERS, &c., OP RUNCORN.
This was an action of trespass f.,r distraining for poor-
rates on the property of the corporation of Liverpool et
Runcorn. The defendant pleaded that they were justified
in so distrainivg for poor-rates due iu 4,espect of the pro-
perty of the corporation. The corporation replied that the
only property they had there was the right to .town
c dues
and anchorage, which were not liable to rates. This replia-
tion was traversed.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C„ and Illilward appeared for the

S PA PE It
plaintiff; and Mr. eitif Pi the
Ceforulancs.
It appeared from the openi t el for
the plaintiff that the dues andp411.... e •••,77.'
poor-rates were claimed, wt'tre,44 t • ,41441,aitynbls
by vessels Corning from vitrietri-nAc•.-4/I,l` .76a/etuth
anchorage.
.Thcse dues and anO.bragaglitaelonged to
the cor!:toration of Liverpooldbp7bzocil!oalleo.
KlritrcBhattret,i:olr:
peration of Lo.ndm advanef:
in cot..sideratlon of which advance Its granted to :ham the
ells:oats and anchorage does vested in the Gown payable
on the river Mersey. A part of these dues wore sold by the
Corporation of London to the Lord Melyneux of that 'lay,
and in 1671, leased them for a small rentcharre to the
lte
Corporation of Liverpool for 1,000 years. In 1777 the Cor-
poration of Liverpool purchased the reversion, and became
owners of the dues to question. They had no buoys or
offices at Runcorn, and the dues were collected there by is
clerk. In 1817 they were rated to the poor in rei;eri
tenctptrfotvbeedse,
dues, and did not trspoefal.opil'hioense
ifbaacttsthbeasveinagnchorage and
His Lordship w
town dues were not paid iu any way in relation to the land,
and his opinion was that the defendants bed no tight to
distrain. By his lordship's direction a verdict was found
for the plaintiffs,—damages, 130, leave being reserved to
the defendants to move.

LEE V. NICIICILL.
This was an action for seduction.
Mr. Maule appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Temple,
Q.C., fn. the defendant.

The plaintiff, it appeared, is a widsw, residing at Brook- .
rood-house Farm, near Halifax, and the mother of six
children, of whom the subject of the prevent action was the
eldest daughter. She was 25 years of age, and was very
useful to her, keeping her Recoup: s and doing all she could
in the care of the family. The defendant is a young farmer
and cattle-dealer in the same neighbourhood, who became
acquainted with the plaintiff's daughter two years ago, and
paid his addresses to her, visiting her frequently. Towards
the close of lastyear it was discovered that she was in the
familyway. The defendant still continued his visits and
talked of marriage, but in February last he ceased to visit
her. This change in his demeanour affected the health and
spirits of plaintiff's daughter very much. In June last she
was confined. The chilli only lived 48 hours, and she her-
self died four days afterlards. This action was brought by
the plaintiff to compensige her for the loss of her daughter's
services. The plaintifinvho appeared in deep mourning,
had proved the a facts„, when
tktiNulant, consented to a verdict for
Ilse plalntt
17 otheatest end of tkawasp,„.
which was a very a tiftirirree
444.0._
r.. rl, cow., a Lilt; day it was announced that the Lord
Chief Baron will take causes to-morrow, if any can be ar-
raeged to go over; othervvise he will not remain.
The Criminal Court t3-day was occupied with the trial of
a rape case.