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 V. MAGAN.

This case was an action brought by a young lady,
the daughter of Mr. William Miles, of Sherbourne, against
Capt. Megan, the member for 'Westmeath, to recover com-
pensation in damages for a breach of his promise to marry
her. The damages were laid at £lO,OOO. The case excited
great 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—la the case of Miles v. ➢iagan, which was
specially fixed for this morning, I am happy to say that
your lordship will be spared the trouble of going into a very
long and painful 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 he was very glad to find that
such a course had been adopted.
Mr. Collier— My lord, I entirely concur in what my
learned friend has said, that it is certainly for the best that
we should be spared a❑ investigation which could lead to
no useful result. At the same time I cannot allow the matter
to c!ose without saying on the part of Capt. Megan, as
indeed I am instructed to do, that there is not the slightest
imputation on the character of Miss Sines as regards her
purity and virtue ; and I may, perhaps, be farther permitted
to express my belief that had 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The record was then withdrawn.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 Defendant to pay X-2,000 and costs, all original
letters between the parties to be returned on both sides, and
all printed copies of the correspondence to be destroyed.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LIVERPOOL, AUG. 18.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
lIOL3IES V. LAWTON,

This was an action of trespass to recover compensation in
damages for an assault whereby the plaintiff lost two of his
teeth.
arr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Quain appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. T. Jones for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a contractor, and a hale,
hearty man, between 60 and 70 years of age, and the defend-
ant is a surgeon and a young man of 26 sears of age, and
both reside at Sheffield. On the 19th June last the defendant
was called out to see a patient, and went ha 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
prevent him by holding the
wheel, on seeing which the defendant dropped the cart shaft
and knocked the plaintiff down by a blow on the mouth.
This blow knocked two of the defendant's teeth out, and on
his getting up the defendant again knocked him down, and
very severely ill-used him. The plaintiff himself proved
these facts, and in his examination said that the defendant
took up a atone 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 replied, " Yes, I have a
licence to kill people." (Laughter.)
His Lordship (to witness).—Did you go to any medical
man after you were abused by him ?
Plaintiff—" Nay; not likely." (Renewed laughter.)
For the defence the defendant and his groom were called,
and their evidence was that the plaintiff was the aggressor,
and that the defendant took up the stones to defend himself
from the "navvies," the groom stating that the plaintiff
first came forward in a fighting latitude—(laughter)—and
told his men to " kill the devil, but not to touch his man."
(Great laughter.)
His Lordship having summed up the evidence, the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £2O.

THE MAYOR &C., OF LIVERPOOL V. REGBY AND
ANOTHER, OVERSEERS, &C., OF RUNCORN.
This was an action of trespass for distraining for poor-
rates on the property of the corporation of Liverpool at
Runcorn. The defendant pleaded that they were justified
in so distraining for poor-rates due in respect of the pro-
perty of the corporation. The corporation replied that the
only property they had there was the right to town dues
and anchorage, which were not liable to rates. This replica-
tion was traversed.
Ni', Atherton, Q.C,I sad Mr. iklilveard appeared for the