The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-03 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

OXFORD CIRCUIT.7---llEaupouu, Auo:2.
Mr. Justice Byles and Mr. Justice Hill arrived in this
city from Shrewsbury on Saturday, and opened the com-
mission tn. the city and county of Hereford.
Their lordships yesterday attended divine service in the
cathedral, and this day took their seats in court at 10
o'clock, Mr. Justice Byles presiding in the Civil Court, and
Mr. Justice Hill in the Criminal Com t.
The cause-list contains an entry of three causes, one of
which is marked for a special jury.
The calendar contains a list of 17 prisoners, charged with
ordinary eirence4

CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Bytes and a Common Jury.)
COLLINS V. LEWIS.
Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Cleave appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. fluddleston, Q.C., and Mr. NV. H. James
for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Samuel Collins, was the occu-
pier of a farm at Black Bush, in the parish of Abbeydore;
and he sued the defendant, Henry Lewi-i, the occupier of
an adjoining farm, to recover damages for slander, imputing
to the plaintiff that he was a thief, and had stolen some
sheep and corn. It appea-ed that last August the plaintiff
was churchwarden of the parish, and between him and the
defendant there had been for some time a bad state of feel-
ing. The defendant complained of being overrated, and
appealed to the Petty Sessions, but the magistrates decided
against his appeal. After the business was over the plaintiff
went to the Red Lion Inn, where the defendant followed
him, and began to abuse him, by calling him by several op-
probrious epithets. The plaintiff took no notice of him and
went away, but the defendant followed him to the work-
house, a distance of 600 yards, and called him a thief and
a --;rogue, and explained what he meant, by saying that
be had stolen two bushels of wheat from him. He also
called the plaintiff a sheepstealer, and said he had robbed
Morgan of some sheep. It appeared the parties had recently
all but come to an arrangement under which the defendant
was to sign a written apology for uttering the slander,
"under great excitement," but, being required to pay the
costs which had been incurred by the bringing of the action,
he broke off the negotiation, and in consequence the jury
were now called upon to settle the question between the
parties. The ev:dence showed that the plaintiff and defen-
dant had been for some time at loggerheads. They had im-
pounded one another's sheep, and assaulted one another,
and the plaintiff had sued the defendant in the County
Court and got damages; but not being able to reduce the
deiendant into a peaceable and quiet neighbour, the plaintiff
brought the present action to recover damages for the
slander.
Mr. Hun DLESTON having addresFed the jury in mitiga-
tion of damages,
Mr. Justice Bytes summed up the evidence, and left it to
the jury to say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to
; recover, which, his lordship thought, ought to be more than
nominal.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £5.
ELSWORTH Y AND OTHERS (ASSIGNEES OF SMITH) V.

YATES.
Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Gray, appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sctjeaut Pigott ad Mr. Phipson for the
defendant.
When this case was called on,
Mr. Whateley said it had been arranged that a vercPct
should be taken for the plaintiffs for g2,:300. The action
bad been settled upon terms.
Verdict accordingly.
CRIMINAL COURT,

(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
William Hill, 44, labourer, was charged with setting fire
to gorse, the property of Airs. Marriott, the lady of the
manor of Goodrich, on the 30th of March, 1858.
Mr. H. Matthews appeared fir the prosecution • Mr.
Powell defended the prisoner, A" 7.:ti tl
A policeman proved that while on duty he saw a fire on
the common at Goodrich, and went to it, and there found
the prisoner, and saw him set fire to the gorse in several
places with a stick, to which was appended some rag or
sponge which bad been dipped in spirits, and thereupon
took him into custody. Other witnesses deposed that they
were employed by the lady of the manor to watch the gorse
and to prevent its being burnt. Onlcross-examination the
policeman said he was a mile off when he first saw the fire,
and that the prisoner had not the stick in bis hand when he
apprehended him, nor could he find it afterwards. Other
witnesses, on cross-examination, admitted that the cottagers
on the common claimed the right to cut gorse,and that they
were also accustomed to burn it when the growth inter-
fered with the pasturage of their sheep.
Mr. Powell, for the prisoner, suggested that he had not
set fire to the gorse, but bad only gone to the place, when
he saw the fire, as the policeman had done, and being there
was apprehended.
Mr. Justice Hill said there could he no more right by
custom to burn gorse than to rob on Gad's-hill, and left it
to the jury to say whether or not the prisoner set fire to the
gorse.
The jury found the prisoner net guilty.
John Rowlands, 60, shoemaker, was charged with
bigamy, in marrying Elizabeth Ford, at Whitborne, on the
2.5 th of March, 1856, his former wife being still alive.
Mr. Cleave appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner had married his first wife at
Old Radnor Church, in March, 1824. This was proved by
her sister, an elderly widow, who had acted as bridesmaid.
The second marriage was proved by the Rev. Mr. Briscoe, a
magistrate, and the rector of Whitborne, in whose service
the second wife had lived as ceok. The prisoner was de-
scribed as a bachelor in the marriage register; but his son
was called to prove that he bad seen him and his wife
together within seven years at Pembridge, in this county,
where she resided, and also at Kington, where they were
before the magistrates on a charge of assault. This was in
1851 or 1853, the witness could not tell which. On a recent
occasion, when he saw his father and reproved him for mar-
rying again, he said the law could do him no harm.
Mr. Powell having addressed the jury, they found the
primmer guilty, and
Mr. Justice Hill, remarking that the second wife was 43
years of age, and was not the complainant, sentenced him
to two months' imprisonment, without hard labour.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.--WARWICK, AUG. 2.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
Christopher Martin was charged with forging and utter
ing a promissory note for ,E5O.
Mr. Spooner and Mr. Field appeared for the (prosecutor.
It appeared that the prisoner had been engaged in busi-
ness transactions with the prosecutor, James Cook, for some
years ; that in 1856 he applied to Cook to join him in a note
fir £5O to a club held at a public-house in Birmingham,
kept by a man named Clements (the prisoner's brother-in-
law), which, however, Cook refused to do. Nevertheless,
in December, 1856, be received a notificationfromthesecre-
tary of the club that the instalment by which the note
was made payable had fallen into arrear; to which he made
no reply, as he had in the meantime seen the prisoner,
who assured him that it was a mistake, and requested
him to say nothing about it, as it might injure his credit.
Cook denied that he either signed the note himself, or gave
any one authority to sign for him. In cross-exami-
nation heladmitted that he had requetsed the prisoner to
meet part of a bill for 731., but gave as a reason that he
owed him above 2001. He denied that he had ever said to
a man named Griffiths that he would ruin the prisoner and
send him to a workhouse; he also denied that he had ever
admitted that he was a party to the note.
James Clements, in whose house the club was held,
proved that the prisoner presented the note a few days after
date to the club, which advanced £5O upon it, but in cross-
examination admitted that about that time he heard Cook
say that he had signed the note ; that the prisoner, so soon
as he heard of the allegation of forgery, went to the club and
urged the secretary to sue upon it, and moreover himself
took it for that purpose to Messrs. Harrison and Wood,
attorneys, in Birmingham, and that it was not until he had
done this that the prosecutor, Cook preferred the present
charge.
Several witnesses were called to prove that the note was
not, in their opinion, in Cook's handwriting.
Mr. Macaulay having addressed the jury for the prisoner
witnesses were called en his behalf to show,—first, that
Cook had on several occasions himself stated that he was a
party to a bond note, and reproached the prisoner for the
loss he had sustained from his not paying it in full ; secondly
that it was, in fact, in Cook's handwriting. Griffiiths also
was called to prove that Cook bad said he would ruin the
prisoner and send him to a workhouse. Some gentlemen
from Birmingham gave the prisoner a good character.
His Lordship having carefully summed up the case, the
jury found the prisoner not guilty.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Lord Chief-Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
DAVIS V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.
Sergeant Hayes and Mr. Brewer appeared for the plain-
tiff; and Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Field for the de-
fendants.
This was an action for damages arising out of an unlaw-
ful detainer of the plaintiff's goods, on which £l5 had been
paid into court by the defendants.
The plaintiff in this ease is a person who, in the begin-
ning of the year, was travelling in the north of Eng-
land with a Diorama of the sepoy rebellion, in about 50
views, which be had exhibited with considerable success in
different large towns. He was intending to exhibit his
diorama in the midland districts, together with an exhi-
bition of anatomical figures, which he had lately bought
for that purpose in London and Sheffield. On the 25th
of February last the plaintiff, being at Liverpool, took
seven large packages, comprising his pictures, some of the
figures, and his apparatus, to the booking-office of the Lon-
don and North-Western Railway, addressed to Mrs. Peacock,
Sheffield. He paid £1 4s. Bd. for the carriage of the goods,
and took a receipt note for them. The plaintiff afterwards
went to different towns to find space for his exhibition, but
not finding it he went to Birmingham, where he paid £7 for
printing handbills and engravings in anticipation of his ex-
hibition. It appeared that the plaintiff's goods arrived at
Sheffield on Feb. 27, but in consequence of certain disputes
between the railway companies, a porter of the Midland
Railway Company, who took them to Mrs. Peacock, said
that he had orders not to deliver them unless £l3s. 6d. were
paid. This was refused, and the goods were taken back to
the company's warehouses. Early in April a clerk of the
Midland Company called to say that the goods would now
be delivered without the payment. When this message
was delivered the plaintiff's wife was staying at Mrs. -Pea-
cock's, and she was told of it, but whether the plaintiff was
informed of it did not appear. The goods were never
brought, and the plaintff did not get possession of them
until the 21st of July. The plaintiff's profits had been on
an average about £7 a week clear while his diorama was
open, and he expected a profit upon his anatomical exhi-
bition. During the detention of his goods three exhibitions
of anatomical figures had taken place in Birmingham all of
which answered very well. As far as the plaintiffitnew,
there had never been any exhibition of the kind before
plaintiff went to Birmingham. This evidencp, as well as the
dtbeetadi
ni oerda,magible. The slides of
evidence of
wofithparovfiietw, woafsaaoshejseacintgedthteo,dabmutagheisifLtobredsahnipperaido-r
court should think the evidence admis_
thede appta
naerra
lie s t vhearde
notigradnj been
earn anything.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case,
andanddu during s the
Mr. Mellor submitted that the plaintiff could only recover
clerkfor the o
fd
tell
ea 1
railwayne r u pt
company,
the date oa fn
dthe h
athat
w messagebat ttahkee np
plaintiff
i ntthi
ffe
ought to have done was to have paid the extra charge and
then claimed to recover it from the company.
b e Ted,stheeo luerasren e d
would Judge itnot erp
enterosa vaenrdd
esaid htehethdoeufegnhdtatnhte,
giving the plaintiff leave to mcve to enter a verdict for him
for such damages as the Court should think fit, and he left
it to the jury to say what was the weekly profit of the
plaintiff.
-The jury found it to he £4.
MYERS V. BAKER.
This was an action for penalties under the sth and 6th
William IV., cap. 83, for imitating the plaintiff's marks
upon his patented steel pens and holders. The case had not
concluded when our parcel left.

NORFOLK CIRCITIT.—Irswrc Er, AUG. 2.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams and a Special Jury.)
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY V. DORLING.
Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Keane were counsel for the plain-