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

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-YORK, JULY 22.
_ _

(Before Mr. Baron Watson and a Special Jury.)
LORD FOLEY AND OTHERS V. SINGLETON AND

ANOTHER.
This was an action by the plaintiff; as executors
of the late Duke of Norfolk, to recover compensa-
tion for the use and occupation of a piece of land at
Sh; ffield. The defendants denied their liability.
Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Quain appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Bliss, Q.C., Mr. Manisty,
Q.C.,and Mr. Blackburne for one of the defendants
and r. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Cleaseby for the
other.

It appeared that in the year 1853 the defendants,
who were timber merchants, applied to the agents
of the late Duke of Norfolk to lease the piece of
land in question, and accordingly, as alleged on the
part of the plaintiffs, it was agreed to grant the
plaintiffs a lease for 99 years at the rent of Is. a
yard.
No formal agreement was made, and the lease
was never granted. But it was alleged that the
defendants entered on the land and exercised over
it various acts of ownership during several years,
down to the death of the late duke in 1856, anci,
from these acts, coupled with the agreement for a
lease, it was now contended that the defendants
were liable for the rent, in the same way as if the

lease had been granted. A great deal of evidence
was given on both sides, and there was much con-
flict between the witnesses. For the plaintiffs evi-
dence was given of frequent demands of the rent,
and that such demands were not ix et by any denial
of liability. Tne defendants, on the other hand,
swore that they always repudiated the claim when-
ever it was made upon them.

The learned Judge told the jury that in order to
find for the plaintiffs they must be of opinion that
there was an agreement to pay a rent for the land,
notwithstanding that no formal lease was drawn
up, and until the lease was granted.
The jury, after a short consultation, found a ver-
dict for the defendants.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr, Justice Hill.)
SATURDAY, July 23.
James Umpleby, aged 57, Thomas Naylor, aged
46, and Moses Butler, were charged with stealing
a quantity of wool and " nippings," and two wool
sheets, the property of Mr. Richard Ripley, at
Leeds, on the 13th of April last.
Mr. Middleton and Mr. West prosecuted ; Mr.
Bliss, Q.C., and Mr. Blanshard appeared for the
prisoner Butler, Mr. Campbell Foster for Naylor,
and Mr. Seymour for Umpleby.
It appeared that the prosecutor, Mr. Ripley, is a
woollen manufacturer and yarn spinner, having two
mills, one in Lace-lane, Leeds, and the other at
Holbeck, near Leeds. The prisoner Umpleby was
his carter, and had filled that situation for many
years. The prisoner Naylor also had been 20 y ears
in his service, and lived in a cottage in the mill-
yard at Holbeck. The prisoner Butler is a dealer
in woollen waste at Wortley, near Leeds. It was
the duty of Umpleby to carry goods out to oustomers
of Mr. Ripley, on his " wherry," and it appeared
that Umpleby, when he called at the mill of the
prosecutor in Holbeck, used generally to go there
with his wherry between 12 and 1 o'clock, when
the workpeople we:e at dinner. Fifty workpeople
were employed at this mill in'scouring wool and
spinning it into yarn. The wool was weighed out
in large quantities and given to Naylor for the pur-
pose of being scoured. He was the head scourer,
and placed the wool, in a building called the dry-
house, and he weighed it out there in small quan-
tities of 41b. each, which he gave out to be scoured.
It then passed through various hands until it came
back as spun yarn. In March last 122 stone 91b.
of Saxony wool, worth about 2s. 10d. per lb., were
weighed out and given to Naylor, and of that quan-
tity so given out it was alleged the produce in yarn
was 901 b. short of .what it ought to have been. On
the 13th of April, suspicions having arisen that wool
was missing, the manager communicated with the
police, and on that day Umpleby was observed to
drive into the mill-yard with his wherry and re-
ceive various packages of goods to deliver ; but
upon his wherry two packages of wool, fastened up
in sheets, were observed to be covered over. No

one was seen to place them on the wherry. When
Umpleby drove off he was followed and watched.
He drove to the prisoner Butler's house at Wort-
ley, and, without saying anything, Butler came out
of his house and took one of the sheets of wool,
weighing about 301 b., in his arms from the wherry,
and was carrying it into his house when the police-
man pounced upon him. On searching lis house a
machine, called a " Willey," was found in a room
upstairs ; and, on the part of the prosecution, it was
suggested that the object of having this machine
there was to mix and tear up the wool taken there
with woollen waste, nippings, and other woollen
refuse, so as to destroy the identity of all of them.
On being taken into custody Umpleby begged-fez
mercy, and said .that Naylor gave him the wool
from the clryhouse. Naylor was not, however, pre-
sent. Afterwards Naylor was taken into custody,
and a conversation between him and Umpleby was
given in evidence tending to show that Umpleby's
statement, that he had received the wool from him,
was correct. Naylor's house was searched, and in
a large box was found a quantity of woollen sheet-
ings mado up into bags, the sheeting being such as
Mr. Ripley's wool was packed in, and in another
box £l6 odd in money. Witnesses were called, who
gave Butler an excellent character, and who proved
that the willcy found in his house would only
knock the dust out of waste and wool put through
it, and would not alter the identity of the article.
The learned counsel for the prisoners having ad-
dressed the jury,
His lordship directed the jury that as against
Naylor there was not legal evidence on which it
would be safe to convict, and summed up the evi-
dence against the other prisoners.
The jury retired, and after an absence of half an
hour, acquitted all the prisoners.
This case was commenced yesterday, and was
adjourned by his lordship at seven o'clock last
night, and occupied the Court until two o'clock to-
day, and concluded the business of these assizes.
In the Civil Court to-day Mr. Baron Watson
tried the last cause. Their lordships then departed
for Durham.

OXFORD .CIRCUIT.--STAFFoRD, July 22.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes and a Common Jury.)

THOMPSON AND OTHERS V. THOMAS.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Scotland ap-
peared for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Kettle for the
defendant. _

This was an action of trover, brought to recover
the value of an iron boat. The plaintiffs carried
on business as :the Crook Hay Iron Company, and
Woodhall and Sniith, iron boatbuilders,af,Dudley,
in September, .1857; purchased a boat of Messrs.
and had it marked, and used it for some
time. The defendant was a creditor of Messrs.
Woodhall and Smith for the sum of £l7O, and ob-
tained their authority to take a boat of theirs for
£7O in part payment of the debt. The defendant
accordingly took possession of a boat, and the only
question was, whether the boat in question was one
belongina to Messrs. Woodhall and Smith, which
the defendant had a right to take, or whether he
had not by mistake taken pssession of the plain-
tiffs' boat.

The jury were locked up for several hours, and
eventually found their verdict for the defendant.

THOMAS V. BOOTH.

. .
Mr. Eierf.),:ean't Thomas and Mr. Holroyd appeared
for the_ plaintiff, and Mr. P. M'Mahon for the de-
fendant.

This was an action for ejectment, brought by the
plaintiff as assignee of a mortgage against the de-
fendant, to recover possession of a shop and pre-
mises adjoining the Red Cow, in Stafford. It ap-
peared that on the 24th March, 1838, Jas. Allcock
mortgaged the premises in question to John Talbot
for a sum of £5OO. Talbot died in 1848, and his
heir-at-law assio•ned the mortgage to the plaintiff
In 1852. The cikeudant was the daughter of the
mortgagor, James Allcock, and claimed to be a
tenant, and entitled to notice to quit before giving up
possession. It appeared, how ever, that the only wit-
ness called by the defendant—viz., the plaintiff, that
the defendant had denied that she was a tenant
to the plaintiff, and that the latter had failed to
prove any tenancy in an action brought by. him in
the County Court to recover rent.
Mr. Justico Willes, under these circumstances,
directed the jury to find their verdict for the plain-
tiff, which they did accordingly.

WORRALL V. MOUGIIAM.
This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, a
boat-builder near Wolverhampton, to recover the
value of a boat, alleged to have been built by him
for the defendant, and called the Mayflower.
The defence was that the plaintiff had built the
boat for Messrs. Riley, extensive ironmasters near
Wolverhampton, who had since the building of the
boat become bankrupt. The defendant, his brother,
and Riley were called, and swore that the plaintiff
built the boat for Riley; that Riley supplied tim-
ber and money during the building, and that just
before the launch he (Riley) had sold the boat to
the defendant._ _

The jury. however, believed the plaintiff's evi•
dence, and found their verdict for the plaintiff for
the value of the boat.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Thonas Rollason, 50, commission agent, was
charged with feloniously forging and uttering the
acceptance of a bill of exchange on Dec. 9, 1858, at
Walsall, with intent to defraud John Stanley.

, -
Mr. A. S. Hill appeared for the prosecution; Mr.
Scotland and Mr. R. Sawyer defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner, who carried on the