The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-27 00:00:00

BARRETT.

This case carne before their Lordships upon a writ of
error from the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirming
upon a writ of error there a judgment given in favour of
the defendant, in error, by the Court of Common Pleas
upon an action for money for the carriage of coal along
certain parts of the line of the railway from Stockton-
upon-Tees.
The arguments occupied their Lordships the whole
day, and the House postponed its judgment in conse-
quence of the absence of the Lord Chancellor, who, it
was understood, was obliged to attend a Cabinet Council.

SHERIFF'S COURT, GREENWICH.
Yesterday, Mr. Frances, the Under-sheriff for Kent, held
a Court at the Greyhound Tavern, Greenwich.
MARTIN V. BONE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a re-
spectable' tradesman in Gravesend, against the defendant,
who is a person of independent property, to recover damages
for defamation of character.
The damages were laid at 1,0001., and judgment had been
allowed to go by default.
Mr. Home, for the plaintiff, in a very forcible address to
the jury, stated the facts of the case, from which it appeared
that the defendant had accused the plaintiff of being in the
habit of committing the most foul and unnatural crimes.
After hearing the evidence, which is unfit for publication,
the address of the defendant's solicitor, and the summing up
of the Learned Under-Sheriff,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff —Damages 2001.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT, Kingston, March 26.
The Commission for the county of Surrey was opened
on Monday. There was no Winter Assize in this
county, and the criminal business is, therefore, rather
heavy ; there being forty prisoners for trial. On the
Civil Side, seventy causes are entered, five of which are
to be disposed of by special juries.
Both Courts were opened this morning for the dis-
patch of business. The Lord Chief Justice presiding on
the Civil Side, and Mr. Baron Alderson in the Crown
Court.

CROWN 'COURT.

The grand jury having been sworn,
Mr. Baron ALDERSON proceeded to address them.
and he observed that there were only one or two cases
on the calendar that would require any observations to
be made by the Court respecting them. The first he
would allude to was, a charge which they must all ap-
proach with the utmost anxiety, in which a
person was charged with murder, and it appeared
that the offence, whether amounting to murder
or not, arose out of a struggle with per-
sons employed for the preservation of game. He had
always felt it to be his duty in every case where persons
were accused of attacking or resisting gamekeepers, to
make a very broad line between resistance to lawful
authority and a mere act of poaching, and he should feel
that he had not done his duty if he did not draw a
great line between such cases, and that the blood of those
who fell in such conflicts would, to a great extent, be
upon. his head if he did not punish with the full severity
of the law persons who were clearly convicted of re-
sistance to lawful authority in Such cases. In the pre-
sent instance the question for the jury to consider was,
whether the deceased met his-death through the resistance
of the.Paity accused to the lawful authority which he
exercised, and no matter what might have been the
character of the struggle which took place, if the
jury. believed that the prisoner caused the death
in resisting the laWful acts of the game-
_keeper, • the offence would amount to murder.
If, however, it should appear that the deceased had ex-
ceeded his authority, or that he had used threats towards
the prisoner, which the law would not justify, in that
case the offence would not amount to murder. His
Lordship observed that it appeared by the depositions
that certain threats had been made use of, and he said
that it was not competent for persons, in the situation of
game-keepers, to make threats of violence, and to kill
persons .whom they.might Consider guilty of an offence ;
but if it should appear that these expressions were
merely wade Use of during the struggle, he was of opi-
nion that the • offence would still amount to murder.
His Lordship then said he regretted to see by the calen-
der that'a charge of a most disgusting character was at-
tributed•to certain • inmates of an establishment, where,
above atl OthUts, he'thought good order ought to be kept,
viz., a union workhouse ; but he felt compelled to say
that, in •the.present instance, it had been the scene of
the groSseSt. profligacy, Whether this arose from any
error in. the management of the establishment, of course
he was =able to say, but he could only express his re-
..