The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-12 00:00:00

COXWELL V. NULLS ♦ND OTHERS.

Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Skinner appeared for the
plaintiff in this case; and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., and Mr.
Gray for the defendants.

This case occupied some hours, but the point at issue
lay in a nutshell. It was.a question of manorial right—
whether the plaintiff, as lord of the manor if Stoke Or-
chard, had a right to the waste and conimotiab!e land
lying on the side of the road at Stoke Orchard green, in
the parish of Bishops Clime. The value of the land was
inconsiderable; it was the question of right which was in
dispute. The plaintiff, Mr. Roger Cox well, resides at
I)owdeswell, in this county, and was lord of the manor
of Stoke Orchard. The defendant, Mr. Hulls, is the
attorney of this city, and the other defendants are par-
ties who joined him in the act of trespass in respect of
which the action was brought. According to the plain-
tiff's case it appeared that at the first court leet held by
him as lord of the manor, on succeeding to the lordship
from his brother, a presentation was made that a com-
mon pound was required, and he accordingly provided
the timber for the purpose, and had the pound erected.
This was in 1844, and the pound so remained until April,
1849, when the wayward of the manor received a notice
from Mr. Hulls, calling upon him to remove the pound as
anuisance. No notice was taken of this requisition, and on
the 29th of May following the defendants pulled down
the pound, and placed the timber on the highway.. The
defendants claimed the land ,as being between their
freehold and the pathway, but the lord of the manor
claimed it as waste of the manor. It appeared from the
plans put in that there were several cottages and gar-
dens lying by the side of this slip of land, which divided
them from the road, and hence the owners of these cot-
tages and gardens, named Hatch and Hancock, claimed
the land in question as part of their freehold. It was
alleged by the plaintiff that in cases where inclosures had
been made from this waste by cottegars living on its mar-
gin they had paid an ackaowlettnent to the lord. The
case terminated in a verdict for the plaintiff, thus estab-
lishing the right of the lord of the manor to the land as
waste.

DOE DEM. BENNET V. HALE.

This case, it will be remembered, was tried at the last
spring assizes, when Mr. Newton took a brief from the
defendant himself without the intervention of an attor-
ney, and the Learned Judge (Patteson) before whom
the case was tried, refused to hear him for the defend-
ant. The verdict then being for the lessor of the plain-
tiff, Mr. Newton subsequently applied to the court above
for a new trial, on the 'ground that the court here was
bound to hear him, and the new trial was granted,
and now came on for htaring. The action was un-
defended, the defendant having, as we understood,
again eschewed the interference of an attorney, and of-
fered a brie f—;lrawn up by himself we presume—to Mr.
Skinner, who declined it. A verdict was accordingly
given a second time fur the lessor of the plaintiff.

LORD SEYMOUR V. MORRELL.

This was an. action brought by the Woods and Forests
Commissioners to recover 1,2391. Is. 9d., for dead rent,
alleged to be due in respect of curtain coalmines in Dean
Forest, awarded to defendant and his late brother by the
Commissioners, Messrs. Sopworth, Probyn, and Buddle.
The question of fact in dispute was, whether the sum of
61. had been paid as " dead rent" in respect of two of
the collieries. The main question to be tried substan-
tially was, whether in fact the Commissioners had not
exceeded their powers under the Act of Parliament in
fixing a " dead rent," and whether their powers were not
confined merely to the fixing of tonnage duties on the
coal actually raised, and could make any award with re-
terence to gale rent, independently of the working of
coal, and the tonnage payable on the coal so raised. It
appearing, in reply to observations by Lord Campbell,
that the case was one of considerable importance in the
Forest of Dean, and that it would continually go to a
superior court, it was arranged that the matter should
at once be referred to that court, as a special case. On
the question of fact, after hearing evidence, his Lord-
ship decided that there was evidence of the appropria-
tion of two-thirds to the " dead rent " of the two col-
lieries; and the jury, by direction, found for the plaintiff
with a special cue, subject to special verdict from the
court above.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr.
Gordon;counsel for the defendant, Mr. Alexander,
Q.C., and Mr. Phipson.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
The crown business is being rapidly disposed of, Lord
Campbell having tried several cases this evening after
finishing the cause list, and Mr. Greaves, Q.C., sitting
in a third court up stairs.
POST-OFFICE ROBBERY.— William White pleaded
guilty to the charge of stealing letters from the Stroud
post-office, and was sentenced to seven years' trans-
portation.
ROBBERY or I,7ool.—Cornelius Rierdon was charged
with stealing a 501. note and other property from Cap-
tain Shepton, R.N., at Tewesbury.
Captain Shepton left home on the 24th June for Glou-
cester, and bad in his pocket a pocket-book containing
notes and bills to the above amount. He lost his pocket-
book, and a 50/. rote was traced through Lloyd and
Co.'s bank in London to the possession of a man named
Pulham, who said he got it from Reirdon.
The jury, however, Acquitted the prisoner.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.— wells, Aug. 9.
AnsoN.— Itichard Cove, a man 50 years of age, who
pleaded guilty yesterday to a charge of arson, was called
up for judgment. His Lordship ordered him to be trans-
ported
for 10 years, and observed, in passing sentence,
that this was the second instance on this circuit in which
prisoners had confessed themselves guilty of the crime
of arson, and had stated that they had been led to its
commission in the hope of being transported. It was
not usual for the ju4ge to (mull ibe wishes of Et.