The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-13 00:00:00

HILLS T. THE LONDON GAS-LIGHT COMPANY.

This was a special jury taus, which commenced on Tues-
day before Mr. Baron Bramwell in the Crown Court.
The Attorney-General came down specially, and with Mr.
M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hindmarsh, and Mr. Pollock,
conducted the case for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr.
Q.C., Mr. Webster, and Mr. G. Denman were coun-
sel for the defendants.

The action was brought to establish the right of the
plaintiff to a pateut for purifying gas. A vast number of
scientific and other witnesses were examined on both sides,
and the cause is likely to occupy another day before it is
brought to a conclusion.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LANCASTER, AUG. 10.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)

ECCLES V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF BLACK.

BURN.

This was an action of trespass, for entering upon anilm
building walls on the plaintiffs' land, and for diverting the
river Blackwater. The defendants justified under a local
Act of Parliament.
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., and Mr. Crompton Hutton ap-
peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr.
Seger, Q.C., and Mr. Russell for the defendants.
The plaintiffs, it appeared, are cotton spinners at Black-
burn, and owners of a plot of land abutting on the river
Blackwater. This land is very valuable for manufacturing
purposes, from its contiguity to the liver. The defendants,
acting, as they supposed, under the authority of the Blackburn
Improvement Act, 1854, enclosed a part of this land, com-
pensating the plaintiffs by adding to their other land, di-
verted the river from its ancient bed, so that it no longer
passed over the plaintiffs' land, and ran a sewer under the
land. The plaintiffs contended that the land in question
was without the scope and operation of the Local Improve-
ment Act. .The learned counsel for the plaintiffs having
opened his case,
Mr. Atherton admitted that be could not resist many of
the facts opened for the plaintiffs, and suggested that an ar-
rangement might be come to on terms. After a conference
between the learned counsel,
A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to a refer-
ence as to terms.

An action of trespass to try the right to a piece of land,
which was of an exceedingly uninteresting character, re-
solving itself into a question of boundary, finished the civil
business of the assize.

On the cr;mi nal Ado the Lord Chief Baron tried an indict-
ment fr,r ap2 up,rn an old waman, and an assault on a she-
riff's officer, which was, in fact, a public-house row, and that
finished the criminal business.

LIVERPOOL, AUG. 12.
The learned judges of this assize. arrived here yesterday,
and opened the commission.
This morning their lordships took their sea's at 12 o'clock,
Lord Chief Baron Pollock sitting in the Crown Court, and
charging the grand jury.
The calendar contains a list of 87 prisoners. Of these 6
are charged with murder, 7 with mazslaughter, 8 with rob-
bery, 19 with burglary, 5 with rape, 10 with cutting and
stabbing, 2 with forgery, and the rest with minor offences.
The cause-list contains an entry in the first list of 21
CUISFS, and in the second of 95, or a total of 116 causes ; of
these, 11 in the first list, and 31 in the second, are maiked
for special juries.
Mr. Baron Martin commenced trying civil causes at 12
o'clock, and having disposed of an undefended action for
money lent, no other causes wereiready to be proceeded with,
and after an ineffectual attempt to call on various causes in
their order, his lordship, expressing a threat to strike out the
cases not ready, proceeded to try criminals.
None of the criminal cases disposed of were of any beyond
local interest. They were chiefly street robberies in Man-
chester.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—GLOUCESTER, AUG. 12.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Ryles and a Special Jury.)
RABOT v. BROWN AND OTHERS.

Mr. lltuldieston, Q.C. Mr. Dowdeswell, and Mr. Griffiths
appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr
Gray for the defendants.
The plainiiif in this action, Andre Rabat, was a French-
man, and master and part owner of a French brig named the
Emma, and the defendants were corn merchants at Cardiff,
carrying on business under the style of 6piller and Brown.
The plaintiffsued the defendants for maliciously and without
reasonable cause having him arrested, on December 26,18'7)7,
up n an allegation that 'hey had a claim upon him for the
sum of £515 55. for damage done by his negligence to a
care, of wheat which he had brought from Marseilles to
Cardiff, and that he was ab nit to leave Cardiff with his ship
in ballast for a fereign part. It appeared that on the. 18th
of Srpsember, 1837, the defendants, by their agent at Mar-
-861..8, had chartered the plaintiff's brig to bring a cargo of
1,262 qr. of wheat from Marseilles to Cardiff. When the
vessel arrived at Cardiff it was found that the cargo bad sus-
tained considerable injury, and the question then arose whe-
ther this was owing, as the plaintiff alleged, to the storms
and perils of the sea, or, as the defendants contended, to the
negligent conduct of the plaintiff, who was. the master of
the ship. The ship arrived at Cardiff on the 21st of Nov.,
1857, and the plaintiff then went, with three seamen, to the
French Vice-Consul there, and made a protest, and re-
quested the defendants to appoint a surveyor. They declined
to do so, but tha next day, in the absence of the plaintiff,
they sent a surveyor and opened one of the hatches. The
cargo was delivered, and a claim was made upon the plain-
tiff for damage done to it by his alleged negligence, but the
plaintiff resisted this claim, and w4en an offer was made to
refer the dispute to a judge of the County Court the plain-
tiff declined this proposal, and said he should sue the de-
fendants' agent in the French Court for the freight. The
defendants then made an affidavit that they had a claim on
the 'plaintiffin respect to the damage dyne to the corn, and
that he was about to quit England, and upon that affidavit
a capias issued, and he was arrested on the 26th of Dec.,
1857, and kept in custody till the 20th of February,
1858, when be put in bail. The defendants then pro-
ceeded with their action against the plaintiff, to re-
cover damages for the alleged negligence, and the same
came on for trial in this city at the last assizes. The defence
set up by the present plaintiff was, that there was no neg-
ligence on his part, but that the damage arose from the
perils of the sea, and in the result the pre-ant defeLda
ants failed to establish their claim. The plaintiff then brought
this action to recover damages for the malicious arrest and
for the balance due fur freight; but as the defendants had
paid the amount due for freight into court, the only question
now was, whether or not the defendants had arrested the
plaintiff without reasonable cause and maliciously. This
depended very much on the same facts as were in issue at
the firet trial, and as they were gone into at great length the
trial occupied the court nearly the whole of yesterday and
this day. A great many witnesses were examined on both
sides, and the defendant, in order to show that he bare acted
bondfide, gave evidence that he had consulted Mr. Hughes,
the barrister of the South Wales Circuit, as to whether the
plaintiff should be arrested; but when that gentleman was
examined, it appeared that he had given his opinion on a
statement of facts which showed that there was clear negli-
gence on the part of the master (the plaintiff), and had al-
vised that the facts should be carefully looked into before
any arrest was made.
Mr. Mid/Heston and Mr. Sergeant Pigott having twice
addressed the jury,
•
Mr. Justice 13yles summed up the evidence at great
length, and finally directed the jury, in substince, that if
they believed the damage was done to the cargo by the
negligence of ihe captain or owners, and CLOt by the perils
of the sea, or had the appearance of being so caused, and the
plaintiff was either going ab:oad, or the defendants had been
informs d or believed that he was about to do so, there would
be reasonable and probable cause for arresting the plaintiff,
and they ought to find a verdict for the defendants. But if
they believed that the facts necessary to constitute reason-
able and probable cause did not exist, and the defendants
did not Le'ieve that they existed, lint were actuated by some
malicious or indirect motive, suet, as the desire of personal
gain, in causing the plaintiff to be arrested, they ought to
find for the plaintiff, with substantial damages.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and on
their return into court found for the plaintiff—Damages,
£l5O.

CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
Mr. Justice Hill bas been engaged all day in the trial of
cases the particulars of which are unfit for publict,tion.