The Sun.
London, England, 1803-03-09 00:00:00

LUCAS .U. DEATott•

Mr. &dant SHEPHERD stated, that this tvas
an anion to recover penalties ; first, for shooting
without being qualified ; next; for shooting with-
out a licence; and lastly, for having exposed
pheasants to sale. The Jury, he observed, were
many of them men of landed property, and per.
haps some might be Lords of Manors; but all
the comforts and advantages they received from
their situation as landholders would be nothing, if
the manner; of the Defendant in this cause could ever
be tolerated. A Gentleman who had a character to
sustain in his neighbourhood, would conduit himself
with propriety in his sports, and must also pay the
duty, to qualify him to enjoy field sports ; but
the atty.,whtrtians residing near the skirts of Lan.
don, sported all round the home counties, as far as
a horse and buggy could carry them, without either
licence or qualification. The Defendant in the
present case was of that description. There
was a party of them of five or six four.legged dogs,
and four men, which came down to Lawrence
Aytess in this county, on the ad of Oaober last,
and went all round that part of the county killing
not only the cock pheasants, but the hens also,
which was most unsportsmanlike condiatt. The
Defendant on the record, Mr. Charles Deaton, was
one, his brother another, and a Mr. Tarlink, a
hay salesman, a third, with a fourtb, whose name
they had not yet learned. He thiPidd prop's the
fart by the ostler of the public-houke 'kheie they put
up, and when he had done that, he wlti entitled to the
verdict of Cher` fury. He had no doubt but his
Learned Brother (Beer) would make an.eloquent
speech on the other side, but he was sure he had no
legal answer to give to this charge.
He called a witness of the name of Sherrington•
to prove these facts, who stated that four persons
came down to his master's house, a public.house,
in Oaober last, and that they went out sport.
ing. They went into Mr. Gerrard's wood, and
they fired several timer.--He hunted their dogs.
—The Witness, however, could not state any
thing very particular. He could not tell who fired,
He could not tell how many birds they killed
they might kill some. He did not (cue: them, &c.
He did not know who they were, and all he knew
of them was, that they called one of them Charles
Bea ton.

R. Nash, a sawyer, stated, that he saw the last
Witness in company with four men, on the 2d of
Otlober last, hunting their dogs: he heard several
shots, but did not see any birds killed.
Mr. Serjeant BIST, for the defence, was proceed.
ing to comment on the insufficiency of the evidence,
as to identifying the person of the Defendant, and
observed, the Jury did not know who the Plaintiff
was, the Mr. Lucas, who appeared in Court as the
trorhein ami of the Game of lierttOrdshire ; when
he was interrupted by the Learned Judge, who said
he did not think the identity of the Defendant was
sufficiently proved.
The Plaintff was nonsuite&

HOLDIIELD, an :hi demise of PIARCEs V. CRUTCH.

FILLD.

Mr.iMARRYATT stated, that this was an ejea.
ment to try the tide to some lands in this county.
The fa 1s were shortly these : the father of Mr.
Richard Pearce, the lessor of the present Plaintiff,
was seized of the lands in question, and devised ;hens
to his son, Mr. Thomas Pearce, with remainder to
his other eon, Mr. Richard Pearce, in case Thomas
should die without lawful issue. On the death a
the testator, Thomas Pearce succeeded in conse..
9uence of his father's will ; but not liking his
father's further directions, he himself made a will,
devising the same lands in .another manner, and
to make all sure, suffered a recovery. In this he
committed a gross mistake, for supposing the will
was good, the recovery was a revocation of it. He
Wished much this case had been stated to them by
a Learned Member of the Profession, peculiarly
learned in the law of Recoveries ; for that Learned
Gentleman (he alluded to Mr. EMI lc had large
estate left him; and the Attorney who drew the
will, to make "assurance double sure," advised s
recovery to be suffered ; the consequence of which
was, that their Learned Friend lost his intended
bequest,
These fads being admitted on the other side, the
Plaintiff had a verdict, subjea to the decision of
another cause, on which the same point has been re..
served at Middlesex,