The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-16 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 14.
Arthur Key, 40, bricklayer, and John Harvey, 25,
shoemaker, were indicted for unlawfully and maliciously
wounding John Lunn, on the 10th February last, at the
parish of Armitage. There wera two other counts in the
indictment.

The case for the prosecu,ion was conducted by Mr.
Kettle and Mr. Hill ; Mr. Kenealy defended Key, and
Mr Mott,.ram the prisoner Harvey.
From the evidence of Lunn, it appeared that, in the
capacity of gamekeep. r to Josiah Spode, Esq,, he bad, on
the 10th February, given evidence, at Rugeley, against
two of the companions of the prisoners, and that on his
way home to Armitage, in the company of a man named
Conway, he was attacked by Harvey and another man
who has not been apprehended. He was knocked down
and kicked severely about the head, and it appeared from
the evidence of Mr. Monckton, surgeon, of Rugeley, that
two serious wounds had been inflicted upon his left
temple, eight or ten teeth had been much loosened, one
of the small bones near the left temple had been broken,
a superficial wound had been inflicted behind the left ear,
and at the right angle of his mouth his cheek had been
torn to the length of an inch. The case against Key
restdd solely upon the evidence of a convicted thief
named Cops, who stated that he saw Key kick Lunn
and Conway as they lay upon the ground, after the as-
sault by the other man.

Mr. Kenealy having addressed the jury on behalf of
his client, Mr. Motteram attempted to prove an alibi in
the case of Harvey ; after which his lordship summed
up, and the jury returned a verdict against Key of
Guilty of a common assault, and a verdict of Gulty
againet Harvey on the more serious charge.
His lordship, in passing sentence, remarked that he
should not say whether poaching was right or wrong,
but while the law stood as at present gamekeepers must
be protected in the discharge of their duty. No doubt
motives of revenge had prompted Harvey to the commis-
sion of a brutal and da3tardly assault, and the court
therefore sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment
with hard labour.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—AYLESBURY, March 14.
LOVETT V. LOVETT.—FOURTH DAY.
This ease was resumed this morning at nine o'clock,
when the continuation of the witnesses for the Rev. R.
Lovett, the defendant, was proceeded with.
Mr. Sergeant Byles on behalf of the plaintiff, Captain
Cosby Lovett, replied on the whole case, contending
that there had not been the slightest evidence adduced
to show that Miss Lovett, the testatrix, was labouring
under any species of delusion, or that she had been af-
flicted with any of those peculiarities which do some-
times afflict poor mortal brains.
Mr. Justice Erle, in summing up, said it did not ap•
pear to him that he need occupy a great length of time,
' as the evidence on which he had to comment lay in a
very short compass. The will might be impeached if
made under undue influence. The case for the defen-
dant was, that her mind had been impaired as far back
as 1852, and that she then came under the control of
Marianne Lovett, and expressed not her will, but the
will of Marianne. The ordinary course of inquiry had
altered i❑ this trial, which took place at the order of the
Vice-Chancellor; and here it was the plaintiff who af-
firmed that the testatrix was in a state of adequate
mental capacity when she made the will which be-
queathed him the property ; and it was the defendant
who deniel that allegation. It was necessary for the
jury to look at the evidence of Mr. Randal, Miss
Lovett's solicitor, and to ses whether he was a person
likely to deceive them as to the state of her mind ; and,
if they believed him, they must also believe that it was
his firm opinion that she was in such a state of mind
as to enable her to make freely and capably those
testamentary acts which were now disputed. Down to
1851 there was no dispute• about Miss Lovell's sanity.
It was after her illness that her sanity was questioned.
The change which occurred in transferring her bequest
from Robert Lovett was gradual in its course. The
first intimation was that she intended to leave her pro-
party to his children, instead of to him ; and afterwards
it appeared that she re-,olved to defer his interest until
after that of Cosby Lovett and his son. It seemed to him
impossible that she could be other than a free agent, unless
they disputed the testimony of Mr. Randall, and thought
was unjustly trying to serve the interest he represented.
Mr. Randall was a man who stood high in his profession,
and would not, his lordship thought, state anything which
he did not believe to have been true. It did appear to
him, also, that the men who attested the will were men
of good character and of high respectability. The banker's
evidence was very remarkable for its straightforwardness
as to her business transactions. The other witnesses were
persons of her own rank of life, who would know in a
moment if she was changed in her manner ; and all of
them stated that she was a perfectly free agent, and had
the entire possession of her mental faculties. None of the
evidence showed that there had been any detention, or
any force used in order to bring her to make the wills.
The particular point for the jury was, did Marianne
Lovett scheme to change the disposition of the lady's pro-
perty from Robert Lovett to Cosby Levett ? That lady
denied in the most solemn manner that she had ever, by
any act or in any manner, interfered to alter the inten-
tions of the testatrix. It was for the jury to say whether
the wills had been brought about by an artful scheme, or
whether they were the spontaneous result of the free will
and mind of the testatrix.
The jury consulted fur about a minute, and then re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff (in Capt. Lovett's favour)
on all three of the wills.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, MARCH 14.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
JACKSON V. JOHNSON.—SPECIAL JURY.
Mr. Atherton, Q.C., Mr. D. Seymour, and Mr. Kerr
were for the plaintiffs, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., Mr. Hill,
Q.C., and Mr. Shaw for the defendant.
The plaintiffs, the Messrs. Jackson, are corn millers
at Fleet Mills, six or seven miles froM Wakefield. They
have two places of business for the sale of flour by retail,
in Wrengate arid Westgate, in the town of Wakefield.
eThe defendant resides at Wakefield, and is the sanitary
inspector there. The action was brought to recover da-
mages from the defendant in respect of what was alleged
to be an inconsiderate wanton use or abuse of his official
authority. The complaint of the plaintiffs was, that in
Feb. of last year the defendant, without any application
to a magistrate, and without any summons to the plain-
tiffs, or affording them an opportunity to explain or set
right what might appear to him to be wrong, made a
summary seizure of flour, the property of the plaintiffs,
at each of their establishments in the town, on the ground
that it contained deleterious ingredients which rendered
it unfit for hutna-a food. Ou Feb. 25, 1856, the defendant
entered the plaintiffs' shop at Wrengate, and took pos-
session of certain samples of flour apparently for the pur-
pose of examination, but of that the plaintiffs did not
complain, their case being that the whole of their flour,
at each of their shops, was as pure as
.11 itir could be, un-
mixed with aey foreign or deleterious ingredient, rnd
therefore they had no objection to a fair investigation.
The fact of what they did complain was, that in the
course of the same day the defendant retuined to the
shop at Wrengate and took away all the flour he found
there. He also went to the shop in Westgate, and there,
without taking any samples for examination, acted in the
same way. On the following day the defendant again re-
moved all the flour he foana in the two shops, altogether
some 82 bags. After the seizure certain informations
were laid against the plaintiffs before the magistrates, the
charge against them being that of having had on their
premises flour that was unfit for sale. In support of the
charge some gentlemen, amateur chemists, were called,
and said the flour contained a very deleterious and im-
proper ingredient —sulphuricacid. The plaintiffs said the
apparent presence of sulphuric acid in the flour warat-
tributahl 3 to the kind of chemical teat which those wit-
nesses had used, not designedly, but probably in ignorance;
the deleterious mat er was brou;ht there by the very test
to which the flour was submitted. The plaintiffs, with the
cansent of the magistrates, availed themselves of the skill
and experience of Prof. Taylor, and a portion of the flour
having been submitted to him, he found that there was
nothing in it that was not proper. The result was that the
informations were dismissed ; but the plaintiffs, looking
at the summary and extraordinary character of the
seizure, and the injury that had been done to their repu-
tation, felt that that was not enough to set them right,
and accordingly gave the defendant notice of action.
Mr. Atherton admitted that the 26th section of the act
18 and 19 Victoria, c. 121, empowered an inspector of
nuisances to inspect and examine certain articles, includ•
ing corn, flour, and bread which is exposed for public
sale, and that "if the same be found to be unfit for
human food, it may be seized ;" but ho contended
that that section would not avail the defendant for the
purposes of a defence to this action, inasmuch as it im-
posed the condition•of examination, and an honest can-
clasion upon such examination that the article examined
is unfit for human food, before it can be properly seized,
and in this case there was no examination, either of the
82 bags or of the flour seized in Westgate ; besides
which, another mode of proceeding might have been
adopted by the defendant, which would have enabled the
plaintiffs to give an explanation, and thus the great
scandal that had occurred to them, and likewise the pre-
sent action, might have be m avoided.
Mr. Knowles submitted that there was no case to go to
the jury. The defendant, as the Sanitary Inspector of the
Local Board, was bound to act upon his own judgment,
the words of the statute being, that if the flour, &c.,
shall appear to him to be unfit for human food the same
may be seized. In this case the defendant acted bona
fide and to the best of his judgment, and he was, there-
fore, exempted by the act from personal liability.
Mr. Baron Martin asked Mr. Knowles whether he
considered that if the Board of Health were to appoint
a man utterly unfit to judge of the quality of flour, and
that if such a man went and examined a sack of fl cur, and
came to the conclusion it was bad, he might seize all the
flour in a shop and carry it away ?
Mr. Knowles argued that that would be so ; for it
would be monstrous for a public officer to be subjected
to heavy damages because he committed an error in
judgment.

Mr. Baron Martin said he believed the real meaning
of the Act of Parliament was, that nothing should be
touched that was not clearly bad. His lordship suggested
an arrangement, which was assented to. His lordship
said there was great difficulty in deciding upon the true
construction of the sections of the act which had been
referred to. He belieyed the defenchint intended to do