The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-04 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—NORIVJCH, .Aucusr 2

Robert Gymer was indicted for perjury, in having
fal,ely accused one John Bales with setting tire to a
stack of wheat.

It appeared, that on the 2d of November, a fire
happened at the parish of Witchingham, which com-
menced at the wheat-stack of a Mr. Bayley there,
and for which the defendant (Gymer) was, two
days afterwards, apprehended and committed to
Norwich gaol. On the day after his committal, he
sent for the gaoler, and requested that a magistrate
might at tend him, as he had an important communi-
cation to make. Mr. Verney accordingly went to
the prison, and the prisoner stated, that he went
into afield after assisting at the fire, and there ob-
served two men talking together. One of them
was Bales, called Little Botty Bales, and he said to
the other man, that he had set the stack on fire, and
it was a d—d pity he had not set fire to all the
stacks in the stack-yard of old Bayley. The pri-
soner was then sworn to the truth of this statement.
Upon this, Bales was taken into custody, a meet-
ing was appointed for going into the case, and the
prisoner then re-swore his former deposition, and
re-stated the conversation he had heard. To show
that this statement was false, Bales eras himself to-
day examined, and from his evidence it appeared,
that he had set out at four o'clock in the m ,ruing
of the day of the fire, for Norwich, where he took a
load of corn for his master, and that he did not re-
turn home till after the fire was observed. This ev:-
deuce was confirmed by two young women, to whom
he had given a " cast" (a ride) on his way home.
It was thus shown that he could not have been the
incendiary, and to show that he could not have
spoken the words imputed to him, Bales and his
wife, and a person who was in the house at the
time, proved, that after he came home on the night
of the fire, lie went immediately to bed, and that he
did not leave his house again until six o'clock on
the following morning, and that, consequently, he
could not have been in the field where the prisoner
swore he heard him admit his having been the au-
thor of the fire.

Mr. Justice GASELEE having summed up,
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The Learned Judge said, the offence was a most
heinous one, and he should consider the case before
he passed any sentence.

HOME CIRCUIT-MAIDSTONE, AUGUS r 3

James Richardson, aged 27, labourer, was in-
dicted for a capital offence on Sarah Elizabeth
Lucas, a child under ten years of age.
After a very long and patient investigation, the
Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Thomas Williams, a seaman, aged 35, was in-
dicted for stealing from the person of Joseph God-
frey, upon the King's highway, a sovereign and 30s.
in silver, his property, on the 4th day of Feb. 1831.
The prisoner is an athletic negro ; the prosecu-
tor is a little old man, who is in the habit of selling
goods at fairs and other public resorts. On the
prisoner were found all sorts of dice, " list garters,"
&c., used in gambling; and it also appeared that be
had been once before convicted of felony, and was
an attendant at races, fights, &c. He made a long
and ingenious defence to the Jury, and argued with
the Judge with great pertinacity on a point of
but was ultimately convicted, and sentenced to trans-
portation for life.

On the Nisi Prius side little of public interest
has arisen; the following case excited some local
interest.

MORRELL V. WINCHESTER.

The plaintiff holds the tithes of the parish of
Hawkhurst, under the Dean and Chapter of Ox-
ford. In 1818, in order to avoid disputes and liti-
gation, an agreement was made between the lessee
and many of the tithe contributors, by which U. an
acre for wheat, and 2/. an acre for hops, and an in-
demnification for rates, &c., was to be paid in lieu of
tithe. The defendant is an Alderman of London,
and consequently a well-known man ; he has also
represented Maidstone in Parliament, and from his
marriage connections is a holder of considerable pro-
perty at Hawkhurst, liable to tithe. The composition
for the tithe due for this property was 361. 12s. 6d.,
which had been regularly paid for some time, but had
for some time also remained unpaid, and the action
brought by the plaintiff was to recover the arrears
due for seven years, ending Lady-day, 1830, amount-
ing to between 200/. and 300/. To support his
claim evidence was produced to prove the agree-
ment for the composition, and the payment of it
under the agreement.
For the defence it was insisted, that, under the
oth of George IV., the plaintiff could not recover;
that the evidence did not prove a continuing agree-
ment; that the original instrument had been altered,
and that it amounted to nothing more than to pay
a reasonable composition for the current year; that
notice had been given that the agreement would not
be considered as a continuing contract, and that it
was the duty of the plaintiff to have given the de-
fendant notice "to set out" his tithes. This had
not been done, for if it had, and a refusal had en-
sued, an action would have laid for such refusal
but such action must have been brought within six
years; that period had elapsed, and the present
action on the agreement had been resorted to, in
consequence of the plaintiff having neglected to avail
himself of his proper remedy.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, gave
it as his opinion that the act above referred to was
not applicable to the present case.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1311.

WESTERN CIRCUIT—ExErEn, AUGUST 2.

John Harris was indicted for breaking and enter-
ing a dwelling-house on the 21st June, 1829, and
stealing therefrom five watches, and ether articles,
the property of John Bradford. The house of the
prosecutor at East Anstead was proved to have been
broken open, and that five watches were stolen.
The prisoner was apprehended near Bristol, when
he said his name was Thomas Knott. The pri-
soner and his brother were seen at Wheatley on the
22d of June. They had a cheese with them, and
told him they had come from Exeter.
The Jury acquitted the prisoner.

John Bennett was indicted for breaking into and
entering the dwelling-house of William Hawkins,
and stealing therein a watch and other articles, his
property.
Ann Hawkins, prosecutor's wife, fastened the
windows and door of the house when she went to
the field after her husband. On her return, she
found the staple of the door had been forced out,
and saw a mark of a man's naked foot in the house.
Three boxes which were up stairs had been broken
open, and a suit of clothes, two handkerchiefs, and
a watch, had been taken away. The prisoner was
traced to the house of John Clark, in Honiton.
Isaac Lee saw the prisoner come out of the pro-
secutor's house about two o'clock on the day in
question; he had a bundle tied up in a striped hand-
kerchief; he went in the direction of Honiton ; he
had no shoes or stockings on.
Cross-examined by the prisoner—What book did
you take an oath on ? Witness—A prayer-book.
book Prisoner—There, 0
nm
was
a s a Lord,p a
ybeer
.bsoaoyks
Testament. atihidatnotthae
By the JUDGE—Knows the difference between a
Prayer-book and a -Testament. Says his prayers
and goes to church.
Prisoner—You say I had no shirt on ?—Yes.
What distance were you from me ?—Ter, yards.
Were they land yards or tailor's yards ?—Land
yards.
How many feet are there in a land yard ?-16.
Oh, there, my Lord, he says there are 16 feet,
when there happens to be 161. How could he tell
I had no shirt on at a distance of 165 feet.
Prisoner protested his innocence, and said he had
been in the service of Lord Egcemont.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty,
Judgment of death recorded. The Learned
JUDGE told him he would be transported for life.
The prisoner—Thank you, my Lord, you have
done me a kindness this time, for I never wish to
come back to this country again.