The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-28 00:00:00

lord. The Learned Counsel remarked that the law gave
to landlords very great privileges, and it was most im-
portant that these privileges should not, as in this in-
stance, be strained too far. Yet here the defendant had
taken the opportunity of distraining for rent, on the 4th
of.) anuary last, in the absence of the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT called the plaintiff's wife's sister, and other
witnesses, from whose evidence it appeared, that on the
day in question the defendant came to the cottage, took
an inventory of the goods, and, although it was a wet,
snowy day, turned the woman and her two children out
of doors. A distraint was made upon the goods, and a
quantity of tools belonging to the plaintiff were also
taken away.
Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant, suggested that the
remark about the privileges of landlords was only
meant to influence the minds of the jury. The defen-
dant, he said, was justified in distraining for the rent
due to him, and with respect to turning the plaintiff's
wife out oidoors, she had stated to a witness that she
intended to give up possession the next morning after
breakfast. The Learned Counsel called witnesses in
support of his statement, but did not prove that any rent
was due on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. I'LATT, in reply, contended that no answer had
been given to the case. All the goods of these poor
people had been seized, and the defendant had even
made a merit of allowing the poor woman to take her
clothes. The Learned Counsel, after again adverting
to the inclemency of the season when the plaintiff's wife
and her young children were turned out of doors, re-
marked also upon the fact that the distress had been
put in at the time when the plaintiff was absent; and not
only had he been expelled from his home, but his in-
dustry had been paralysed, in consequence of his tools
having been taken from him. Thus he was ruined, and
was compelled to sue in forma pauperis. In this coun-
try, happily, however, a poor man could recover damages
for any injustice practised towards him, even by the
highest dignitary in the land.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up the case, said there
was no doubt the house had been entered and the plain-
tiff's family turned out of doors. This might have been
justified if rent had been due, but he did not find any
evidence that such was the case.

Mr. THESIGER said the plaintiff in his declaration
charged that he was a tenant of the defendant. -
Lord DENMAN said they could not assume that rent
was due because there was a possession. As to the al-
leged leave and license to enter the premises, tae wife
had no right to give .appossession without her hushand's
authority. There,was no justification for the trespass.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 151.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT—Leicester, March 25.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
Joseph Lakin, aged 16, was indicted for having maliciously
and feloniously, on the 21st of February last, at Sheepshead,
in this county, set fire to a stack of wheat straw, the pro-
perty of John Harriman.
It appeared that a very few minutes before the stack was,
by several persons, seen to be in a blaze, three witnesses saw
a boy whom they believed to be the prisoner go to the gate
of the stable-yard, and open it and walk through, and then
proceed in a cautious and fearful manner to open an inch or
so at a time the door which led immediately to where the
stack was, and go through. They presently saw the blaze
above all the houses, and hastened to the spot, and saw the
same boy running away. The defence was, that the prisoner
had never been in the yard at all, and the only question was,
whether or not the witnesses might be mistaken in the iden-
tity. None of them spoke with any very great degree of
positiveness or certainty, though they appeared to be them-
selves convinced.
The jury gave the prisoner the benefit of the doubt to which
he had referred, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
His LORDSHIP then-told him that he had had a very nar-
row escape. He would not allow the belief that he was
guilty, when the jury had said that he was not, but they had
taken a very merciful view of the evidence, and he advised
the prisoner to be very careful for the future not to be again
placed in such imminent danger. Had the jury found a dif-
ferent verdict, which he thought the evidence would well
have justified them in doing, he should have felt it his duty
to have transported him for very many years. -
(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY.)
William Beckworth, aged 28. and Reuben Waldrom, aged 20,
were charged with being out on the 29th of February, ibout
the hour of eleven at night, entering with divers persons un-
known into a close in the occupation of Benjamin Hill, to
take game.
Richard May, a gamekeeper to Mr. Flood, of Bardon-
park, proved he was on duty on the morning of the Ist of
March. Observed some men go by his house late at night
and, suspecting they were poachers, he got up, calling other
men to his ass.. stance. Got into a field, called the Town-
close, when they saw six men, who appeared to be about to
set nets. As he advanced, the poachers began to throw stones..
The prisoner Beckworth:threw one that hit the prosecutor on
the breast. He had a stick also, with which he struck May
a fearful blow on the head. Another witness identified Wal-
drom as being one of the party who assisted in beating the
prosecutor. Beckworth was taken on the spot. Waldrom
escaped, but was afterwards taken. A previous summary
conviction by the magistrates was proved against Beekworth,
will was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment and hard
labour, and Waldrom was sentenced to twelve month's im-
prisonment and hard labour.
Thomas Kirby, aged 35 ; Thomas Roclevdl, aged 23 ; Joseph
Rodwell, aged 22 ; and John Porter, aged 33, were charged
with having, on the 25th of November last, assaulted John
Laxton and James Farley, with intent to do them grievous
bodily harm.
Mr. Macaulay prosecuted, and Mr. White defended.
Laxton, one of the watchers on Mr. Hartolfe's estate, at
Burton Lazors, proved being out with Jomes Farley on the
morning in question, between six and seven. They saw five
men and two dogs, one being a very light one, and what
they call a snap dog. One of the men had a bag on his
shoulder, which Laxton touched, thinking it coutained game
or nets. An assault was immediately commenced upon him,
and he was beaten about the head until he became insen-
sible, and was smothered with blood from the head to the
feet. Two of the prisoners were positively sworn to as
being of the party of five on the morning in question. The
other two men were seen, in company with Kirby and one
of the Rodwells, coming in a direction from the spot in
question.
Mr. WarrE admitted their identity, but contended the as-
sault would not have taken place had not Laxton, in the first
instance, touched the bag on Kirby's shoulders.
They were found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months'
mprisonment each, and hard labour.

IRISH ASSIZES.
TIPPERARY (NORTH).--Nenagh, March 22. '
WILFUL MURDER.—Jeremiah Leary and John Cooke, two
very young men,were indicted for the wilful murder oiJohn
Nowlan, on the 9th 'of June last, by a person named Mi-
chael Moylan giving the fatal blow, and that the prisoners
were aiding.
Mr. BIREWSTBIt, Q.C., stated the ease—The unfortunate
deceased was the servant of a Mr. Burrower, a salesmaster in
Dublin, who was in the habit of sending up stock from a
farm he had in the country. Nowlan had been in his em-
ployment for more than twenty years ; to him was entrusted
the duty of coming to Dublin with stock, and it was his habit
to arrive in town on Thursday, returning home again on
Friday. In June last the deceased went up to Dublin with a
number of sheep, and it would appear that on Friday, the
9th of June, he was on his return from Dublin. When he
arrived at Roscrea, about six in the evening, he went ante the
house of a woman named Jenkins, to procure some refresh-
ment. After some delay he left her place, and eventually took
his departure from Roscrea, on his way to Dunkerrin. On
his way he was seen on the road by a witness who would be
produced; and about the same time, or shortly before, a man
named John Ford, who had been dressing a lime- kiln, saw
a person lying inside a ditch very near the place where the
murder was subsequently committed. There were on the
left-hand side of the road, proceeding from Roscrea to Dun-
kerrin, two stiles leading up to a townland called Rathna-
vogue, an old one and a new one ; and on the evening of the
murder a girl called Bridget Maher, who had been in Roscrea,
left it about eight in the evening, going towards Dunkerrin.
She had to pass the two stiles which led to Rathnavogue,
and as she came up she saw two men inside one of the stiles.
It would also appear that a female named Jane Hodgens met
one of the prisoners (Cooke) coming from Dunkerrin towards
the place a short time before the commission of the deed ; and
much about the same period a woman, named Mary Claven,
passing in an opposite direction from Dunkerrin towards
Roscrea, saw the same party who had been seen by Jane
Hodgens ; as, she came along before him to the stile, the new
one, she was passed by John Cooke, and he had then a cap
on his head, and trailed a white stick on the ground. When
this woman arrived at the stile, she observed two men standing
inside of it, as-if on the watch for some person, and one of
them was John Cooke. After she had passed the stile, Mary
Claven met Michael Moylan, the person tried at the last
assizes. She was well acquainted with him at the time.
It would further appear that, upon the evening of the day in
question, a man named Thomas Cahill, who had
been for upwards of a year before residing in Rath-
navogue with his mother-in-law, left that place with
his wife, intending to take up his residence at Roscrea with
his father, and while he sent off his furniture on an ass and
cart, driven by his brothers, he and his wife proceeded a little
after eight o'clock in the evening across the fields by the
path which led to the stiles, close to which the deceased was
murdered. They had reached within about five perches of
the new stile, and it was then nearly as light as day, when
they heard a sound like the rapping of the stones along the
road, a little towards their right, in the direction of Roscrea.
Cahill ran up to the stile, in consequence of the noise, and
looking down into the road he saw three men at the distance
of five perches% standing over another, who had been brought
to the ground. On looking towards them, they had their at-
tention attracted to Cahill, and they then ran away. Two
of those men he had known before, and he would positively
prove their being Moylan (who was tried at the last assizes),
and the prisoner Leary, but as to the third he could not
swear positively, he being stooping over the body.
Several witnesses were examined for the prosecution,
whose testimony directly implicated the prisoner Cooke ; the
only material evidence against the other prisoner was that of
the witness named Cahill.
Judge BALL charged the jury in an able and very feeling
address.
The jury, having been locked up for some time, came out,
and the foreman intimated that one gentleman wished to ask
Cahill's wife a question.
Mr. Hassard objected, in a case of so much importance, to
giving any consent to have a witness recalled, and
Judge BALL intimated that, the gentlemen must come to a
conclusion on the case as it was then before them.
At the adjournment. of the Court, the jury, not having
agreed, were locked up.
At ten o'clock at night the jury again came out, and the
foreman said there was not tle least hope of their coming to
an agreement if they remained' in for a month.
Judge BALL---It is not in my power to discharge you.
Foreman—l am sure your Lordship would not wish us to
be coerced into finding a verdict.
Judge BALL—I do not wish any such thing, but the law
coerces me.

Foreman—At previous assizes I have known the judges
to discharge a jury after they had been locked up for a night.
Judge BALL—WeII, gentlemen, I am now obliged to tell
you what I was not anxious to mention sooner, that just
before the circuit the Judges met, and came to the determi-
nation that whatever the practice may have been in parti-
cular instances hitherto, they were not warranted in dis-
charging a jury, merely because that, after being in for a
considerable time, they were not then enabled to agree.
Upon looking. more accurately into the law, they have come
to the determination that it was not within the power of the
Judges, merely because for a considerable time there is no
apparent prospect of a jury agreeing, that they may be dis-
charged. That decision having been come to, and acting
upon the rule so laid down, it is not within the compass of
my power to transgress the law. lam sorry to subject you
to any inconvenience, but I am bound to administer the law
under the solemn sanction of an oath.
Mr. Young, one of the jurors, stated that he was very ill
during the day, and further confinement would be dangerous.
Judge BALL—That is quite a different matter, and I shall
send in a medical gentleman to examine you.