The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-25 00:00:00

HOLBEN V. LILLEY.

• Mr. Power, Q.C., and Mr. Henry Mills were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and
Mr. Couch for the defendant.

The declaration was for a trespass on the plain-
tiff's land, to which the defendant pleaded three
pleas, setting up a right of way. The plaintiff and
defendant were tenants of the Mercers' Company
and King's College respectively, the latter being the
substantial parties to the cause. The question was
whether the occupier of a farm at Grantehester had
a right of way for horses and carriages over a cer-
tain field which was in the possession of the plain-
tiff as tenant to the provost and fellows of King's
College. This field had been open land until the
year 1839, when it was enclosed under the powers
of a private Act of Parliament. The enclosure
award which was put in by the plaintiff set out a
bridle and footpath only, but it was contended on
the part of the defendant that he was not thereby
precluded from proving the enjoyment of the larger
right. It was admitted that the 11th section of the
Commons Enclosure Act, the 41st of George 111.,
which was incorporated with the private Act, ope-
rated to extinguish all private roads which were
not set out in the award, but the two following
points were taken for the purpose of destroying the
effect of the award :-1. that long-continued uses of
the larger right, being inconsistent with the award,
rebutted the legal presumption that all the neces-
sary preliminaries to the due making of the award
had been fulfilled, and threw upon the other side
the burden of proving that fact ; 2, that the actual
user of the right for forty years, which it was al-
leged had, in fact, existed, rendered the right inde-
feasible under Lord Tenterden's Act, notwithstand-
ing the award.
The Lord Chief Baron overruled both these ob-
jections ; he must take the award as proved, and,
that being so, both parties were bound by it, and
everything outside of it which existed previously to
it could not be appealed to by either of them; con-
sequently, as 19 years only had elapsed since the
making of the award, there was no case for the
jury.
Leave was then reserved for the defendant to go
to the Court above upon this ruling, and by the
consent of the plaintiff the judge agreed that if the
defendant should be dissatisfied with the decision
of the Court he would sign a bill of exceptions.
DAY V. ,DAY.

Mr. Power, Q.C., and Mr. W. Cooper were coun-
sel for the plaintiff; Mr. Keane and Mr. Couch for
the defendant.

--
This was an action for breaking and entering the
plaintiff's land, and depasturing the same. The
plaintiff and defendant were no relations. The de-
fendant had been in possession of the land in ques-
tion as the guardian of a lunatic, and gave up pos-
session to the co I mittees of the lunatic appointed
by the Lunacy Commissioners, who let the farm
to the plaintiff. A valuation of the stock end crops
upon the farm, as between outgoing and incoming
tenants, to the amount of £BO, not having been pa d
to the defendant, he. under an impreSsion that he
was justified in so doing, turned his cattle on to
the farm, which was the trespass complained of.
The damages claimed by the plaintiff amounted to
£lO. Witness's were called forthe defendant with
the view of showing that the damages claimed were
excessive.

The jury, however, gave a verdict for £lO, the
whole amount claimed.
MARSH V. AYRES.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. W. Cooper appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Power, Q.C., and Mr. Crouch
for the defendant.

The declaration was for an assault. The pleas
were "Not guilty," and "Sun assault demesne." The

damages were laid at £5OO. The facts of the case
appear from the evidence as given by the plaintiff
in his examination in chief and on his cross exami-
nation.

Mr. John Marsh—l am the plaintiff. lam a far-
mer at Stuntney, near Ely. The defendant lets out
thrashing machines. I remember the defendant and
his brother-in-law coming over my land. I saw the
defendant after that. Some words passed between
us. I went to Ely on the 3d of June. I met the de-
fendant on the road. He had a stick. I spoke first.
I said, " You're a nice sort of fellow to persuade
Wilson to let my horses go astray." Defendant
said, " You go to Ely and pay your debts ; you
havn't got a farthing." I said, "I have as such
money as you have, you midwifely humbug." (Tl.
witness explained the allusion.) He said, " You
scoundrel, you haven't got a farthing." I said, " I
have as much as you." He then struck my mare. I
said, " Don't strike her ; strike me." He then struck
me on the head with his stick. He struck me a
second time and knocked me into a ditch on the
other side of the road. When I recovered I found
myself in the ditch. Defendant came towards me.
I said, " For God's sake, don't kill me." He said,
" You —, I'll murder you." He struck me again,
and I remember nothing else. I was carried home.
A medical man saw me next morning. I was very
bad. I can't see plain now. Mr. Muriel attends
mq now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Power—This was at six
o'clock in the evening. I might have had two pints
of beer that afternoon. Sometimes I have more, some-
times less. I am not regular. My nearest way honk
was by Quayning Drove ; if I had gone home that
way I should not have met defendant. I have land
there. I will swear I did not go that way to meet
the defendant. He• was walking quietly along the
footway when I stopped my horse. I did not put my
horse across the footway. I did not see my horse's
head knock of defendant's hat. I never rode over
anybody in my life. I know Reeve of Ely. lam
not aware that I ever tried to ride over him. James
Mason says I tried to ride over him, but I believe
I did not. I never attempted to ride over anybody
else as I know of. I have been summoned for
beating a woman, but she beat me first. She did
not fall down. I paid her 4s. or ss. to settle. I
have been assaulted and have assaulted people my-
self several times. lam satisfied I never knocked
down a woman in the club room at Ely. If I did,
I've forgot it. I have been tipsy in my time. I
was struck as I was getting off the horse. I never
squared up to him. I hadn't the chance.
Mr. Brodrick, the manager of the gas works at
Ely, heard the defendant say, " Marsh came up to
the road and met me—be rode round me two or
three times, and I hit his horse on the head. He
said, 'lf you mean that, hit me.' As he was get-
ting off his horse I hit him on the head and he
reeled into the ditch. He said, I'll make you pay
for this.' After that I hit him sharper than ever."
He (defendant) said, "If I had had a pitchfork I
should have driven it into him."
Cross-examined—There were two other persons
at the bar of the Angel when this conversation
occurred. He said Marsh rode round him two or
three times and then he hit the horse.
Thomas Cross spoke to another conversation with
the defendant, in which defendant stated that he
paid the plaintiff about over the head, legs, eyew,
and everywhere, and that when he (plaintiff) fell
in the ditch his head came up like a float.
Another witness saw the assault from a distance.

Saw plaintiff and defendant meet, and then part.
Afterwards plaintiff rode after defendant, and plain-
tiff got off his horse. This witness then described
the beating, and said that the plaintiff was nearly
dead when nulled out of the ditch.
Several other witnesses were called, who spoke to

statements made by the defendant, giving substan-
tially the same account of the transaction—namely,
that the plaintiff role round the defendant two or
three times, and that the plaintiff's horse knocked off
the defendant's hat. The beating was admitted by
the defendant, as stated by the plaintiff.
Mr. Muriel, of Ely, surgeon, saw the plaintiff on
the morning of the 4th. He had a cut over his eye ;
bruises on his head and body. He appeared to have
been very much punished indeed. He complained of
partial loss of sight, w hich might have resulted from
these blows.

Mr. O'Malley summed up the plaintiff's evidence.
Mr. Power addressed the jury for the defendant,
and admitted that he could not justify the assault
as described by the plaintiff, but urged that the
plaintiff was the first aggressor and had greatly ir-
ritated the defendant by the insinuatidns he made,
and that it was a case for moderate damages.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, said that
he could understand occasions on which assaults
as violent or more so than the one concerning
which they had now to inquire might be, if not
justified, at all events in some degree excused. But
was this such a case ? The defendant had not come
into the box to deny the imputation made on him
by the plaintiff. If that imputation had any foun-
dation, though it mignt be very unpleasant for the
defendant to be reminded of it, still he could not
justify resenting it as he did. No doubt the plain-
tiff to some extent brought it on himself, but was
not the assault unmanly and excessive ? The ques-
tion of the amount of damages was for them.
The jury gave £3O damages.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
Geo. Hunt and Charles Rampling were indicted
for feloniously setting fire to a stack of barley, the
property of Mr. Kent, of Ditton, near Cambridge.
Mr. Naylor prosecuted; the prisoners were not
defended by counsel.
On the afternoon of the 28th April the prisoners
were seen to go to windward of a stack of barley in
a field by the side of the road from Cambridge t
Newmarket. They were observed to leave it, and a
few minutes afterwards some labourers observed
that the stack was on fire ; they therefore went
after the prisoners and took them into custody.
When charged with the offence they excused them-
selves by saying that one of them had lighted his
pipe, and was handing the lucifer to MA mate, when
it fell, and must have set the stack on fire. The
stack, which was worth £l5O, was entirely de-
stroyed.
The jury, not believing this statement, found the
prisoners guilty, and they were each sentenced to
10 years' penal servitude.
Jas. Handley and Elizabeth Connolly were in-
dicted for taking out of the possession, and against
the will of Thomas Mott, her father, one Eliza
Mott, she then and there being an unmarried girl
under the age of 16 years.
Mr. Orridge prosecuted ; Mr. Naylor defended
both the prisoners.
The girl's father was a respectable farmer at
Wisbeach, in the Isle of Ely, and the prisoner
Handley was a labourer lodging at the house of the
prisoner Connolly. About three weeks before the
commission of the alleged offence the girl became
acquainted with the female prisoner, and at
her house met the prisoner Handley. Meetings
took place between the girl and the prisoners, and
yielding to their persuasions, on Sunday, May 22,
she left her father's house, went the same night
to Peterborough, and the following day to North-
ampton, where she was found in a low lodging with
the male prisoner. The friends of the girl had been
in pursuit until the discovery at Northamptton.
Mr. Naylor addressed the jury for the prisoners,
urging that the evidence showed that the girl went
with the prisoners of her own free will, and for the
purpose of getting married to Handley.
The learned Judge, referring to the statute, 9th
George IV., cap. 31, under which the prisoners
were indicted, told the jury that the offence would
be complete quite independent of the object for
which the girl was taken. They must be satisfied
that the girl was under 16 years of age, and that
the father was unwilling that she should go with
the prisoner, and it would be against his will if,
had be known she was going, he would have re-
fused his consent. Moral force on the part of the
prisoners, inducing her to go, would constitute a
sufficient taking, if by such moral force a willing-
ness on her part to go was produced. If, however,
it was entirely voluntary on her part, the prisoners
would not be guilty of an offence against the act.
The jury acquitted both the prisoners.
This case concluded the criminal business for
the county of Cambridge.

VACANCIES, APPOINTMENTS, AND PROMOTIONS
IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.—Foreign Department.—The office
of First Paid Attache at Paris has become vacant by the
promotion of Mr. Fletcher C. C. Norton to be Secretary to
the Legation at Athens. 'Law Department.—The Judge-
ship of County Courts, No. 4 district—Blackburn, Burnley,
Lancaster, Preston, &c.—h %Ft become vacant by the death of
Mr. John Addison. War Office.—The following gentlemen
have received certificates of qualification from the Civil
Service Commissioners :—Mr. G. A. Huxford, as purveyor's
clerk; Mr. James Nelson Marsden, as temporary out-
station clerk; Mr. G. W. Browne, temporary clerk, Lon-
don ; Mr. T. M. Porter, temporary clerk, London.; Mr. C.
H. M. Stopford has passed his examination as temporary
clerk in the Quartermaster-General's Office. General Post
Office.—The postmastership of Ipswich has become vacant
by the death of Mr. William S. Fitch—ffdary £250 ; there
are vacancies for junior clerks; Mr. William Duck has
passed his examination as provincial clerk at Bath ; Mr.
John Brier has passed his examination as provincial clerk
at Huddersfield. British Museum—There is a vacancy
for an assistant librarian—commencing salary £l5O per
annum. Greenwich Hospital.—There is a vacancy for a
third class clerk in the Civil Department of Greenwich
Hospital, consequent upon the retirement of Mr. James F.
Wright—it is in the patronage of the Lords of the Admi-
ralty. General Register Office.—Mr. George 'Wood has
passed his examination as sorter in the General Register
Office. Customs.—Mr. Henry Anderson has been ap -
pointed landing-waiter at'Glasgow ; Mr. G. A. Adams has
been appointed landing-waiter and tide-surveyor at Ram-
sey, Isle of Man. The following gentlemen have passed
their examinations and received certificates from the Civil
Service Commissioners :—Mr. John Reeves, as clerk, at
Arbroath ; Mr. W. E. Wheeler, as extra clerk,' at Southamp-
ton ; Mr. Bernard Timothy M‘Garry, as tide-waiter, at
Liverpool.—Civil Service Gazette.

THE LONDON AND NORTH- WESTERN
_RAILWAY.

The exigencies of the vastly-increasing railway
traffic to and from the north will not, improbably,
in the course of time, convert the larger " refresh-
ment rooms" on the railways into central hotels for
the better accommodation of passengers. Already
the directors have found it necessary to add to this
iepartment of the Stafford station a new dining
hall of large proportions, where the passengers h?:
the Scotch trains, known as " the Scotch Express,"
leaving Glasgow at 9.45 a.m., and Edinburgh at
10, will find ready for them, on arriving at 5.57, a
hot dinner, after the fashion of the old coaching
inns, c msisting of soups, fish, joints, pastry, con-
fectionary, and fruit, at the fixed price of half a-
crown. This dining hall is of magnificent dimen-
sions, and is handsomely decorated, and furnished
with all appliances. The special dinner, for which
a clear quarter of an hour is allowed, is under the
direction of Mr. Wm. Frazer, the master of the re-
freshment room, and favourably known to all tra-
vellers on the line for 17 years past. The econonli
at the refreshment rooms at the Stafford station
—now one of the most frequented in England, for
not less than 40 passenger trains stop and take IV,
up passengers there daily—is not unworthy el
remark. The visitors to the refreshment an
dining rooms average from 500 to 800 daily, whose
wants are administered to by 20 young females as
waitresses, two cooks, and two' bakers. These
young persons all live on the premises, one 110°1
them going on duty at six a.m., remaining until
nine in the evening, while the others commence at-
tendance at half-past ten a.m., and remain on dal
until the departure of the last up mail train at half-
past two a.m. The new building, which is on the
up-side, by no means interferes with the ordinal
first and second-class refreshment rooms, but is 911
additional accommodation provided especially fl3l.
the northern passengers by the liberality of tl,lB
directors. A gas kitchen, by Kimbersley, of Bl,_r:
mingham, has been erected in conjunction with to':
new dining-hall, by means of which a dinner for,
persons can be made ready at an hour's notice.