The Sun.
London, England, 1819-07-31 00:00:00

TOWN HALL.

DIEGRACEPUL CAse.—A most disgraceful case
occupied the attention of the Alderman yesterday.
It was a charge of assault, made by Mrs. Cannon,
the keeper of a notorious house in St. George's.
fields; against Jemima NVeMon, in unfortnnate
gill. Complainant occupied several houses in or
about Dover-street. St. George's-fields, which she
converted into receptacles for abandoned girls,
whom she charges at the rate of thirty shillings a
week, allowing them a small room each, and com-
pelling them to, find themselves in food and every
thing else. She purchases a quantity of cheap
gin, and binds them down to expend a co rain
sum daily for this pernicious article : and
when visitors come, they are charged half-a-
crown fur liquor which costs the landlady
threepence halfpenny They are compelled to
pay their enormous rent at the expiration of each
week, and if they should fail, they are imme-
diately driven out ! Two of the girls, whom she
brought to prove the charge of assault, confessed
that none bad been committed, but that it was a
pretext of Airs. Cannon's to get rid of the pri-
soner, who had rendered herself rather obnoxious
to her interests, and that they were to swear to
what -Mrs.Cannon said, so much did they stand in
fear of her authority. The Worthy Alderman
felt disgusted at such depravity, and wondered
how a human being, capable of such infamy, could
expect redress_ if realty injured. They who were
hourly acting in contravention of the law were
but ill entitled to its protection i and with regard
to the case before him, he thought it should have
..been revelsed.----Complaint .dismissed.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE:

HOME CIRCUIT.—CHELmsroItn, JULY 29.
SMITH V. ILSEE.

This was an action of trespass against the de-
fendant, for pulling'down a shed belonging to the
plaintiff, situate-in Epping. •
It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, from
being an humble journeyman carpenter, had, by
his industry and good conduct, become a master
carpenter in a small way. lie had obtained per-
mission from the Lord of the Manor to erect a
shed and sink a saw-pit on part of the waste of
Hainan!' Forest, of about ten or eleven rods in
length, in consideration of his surrendering to the
Lord a small piece of land in his. possession. The
defendant, who is a man of considerable fortune
and substance in the same neighbourhood, being
dissatisfied with this supposed encroachment upon
the waste, in the year 1316 he attempted to re-
move the pinintiff's shed ; but then failing in his
purpose, he renewed Isis proceedings in the year
1817, and with the assistance of a horse and cart,
ai'led by other persons who complained of the
alleged encroachment, he milled down the piles
which supported the shed, which was itself demo-
lished in .the end.—Fir this injury the present
ac ion was brought.

The Jury foun.rl for the plaintiff—Damages 1501

SAME V. SAME.

This was an action by the same plaintiff against
the same defendant, for assaulting and falsely-im-
prisoning him for the space of three hours, on a
malicious and unfounded charge of felony.
It appeared, that pending the last mentioned
action, which was a remanent from the 1
Assizes, some of the fences and gates of Hainanlt
Forest being nut of repair, the plaintiff was em-
ployed by the Deputy Steward of the Forest 'to do
the necessary repairs, and for this purpose he was
authorised to cut down some timber io the forest,
Which he did accordingly in the month of October
last, in the most public manner, drawing the
timber to his premises, for the purpose of -pre-
paring it for the object in question. The defend-
ant, not knowing the authority which the plain-
tiff bad received, discovered the timber on the
premises of the latter, and, supposing it was
stolen, went before,a Magistrate,' named Layton,
and laid an information against the plaintiff for
felony, and under the defendant's representation
of the case the MagistrAte was induced to issue
his warrant for the apprehension of the plaintiff.
The defendant directed the officer, who was en-
trusted with the execution of the warrant, not to
apprehend him until six o'clock on the following
morning, when he himself could be present to see
the plaintiff taken into custody. The plaintiff,
under these circumstances, was apprehended in
the morning, about six o'clock, the defendant
being present, and taken before the Magistrate,
who, bearing the plaintiff's statement of his case,
dismissed the complaint, as being perfectly ground-
less. The defendant insisted that the Magistrate
should detain the plaintiff in custody until the case
was represented to the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests ; but the Magistrate rejected the ap-
plication. Under these circumstances the present
action was brought.
IVitnesses were called to show that the de-
fendant bad reasonable and probable cause for the
.act complained of. It appeared, however, that
almost all the witnesses were friends of the de-
fendant, and hail assisted-him in pulling down the
plaintiff's shed, which constituted the subject of
the last action.

Mr. GURNEY replied on behalf of the plaintiff
with his usual, ability.
The Jnry;bafter hearing a very eloquent charge
from the Learned Judge, found a verdict fur the
plaintiff.—Damages, 5001.
There was nu case worthy of notice in the
Crown Court to-day, the business of which finish-
ed this evening.