The Sun.
London, England, 1817-12-09 00:00:00

TI. 113 KING V. WEGENER.

This was an indictment for a libel on Mr. Chip-
pendge, the last defendant. The libel was in a
private letter sent to him by the defendant, with
a view, as the indictment alleged, to defame
hi►rt with the public. It appeared That the only
publication was by sending it to the prosecutor.
Mr. Justice:AßßOTT observed, tb,t sending the
libel only to, the man himself, codd.not defame

him with the public ;- and, by his direction, the
Jury found the defendant—Not Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 8.

THE COUNTESS OF BERKELEY V. MAGNALL.

This was an action brought by the Countess of
Berkeley against. the defendant for a trespass, its
breaking and entering her close at Cranford, in
Middlesex. The defendant pleaded the, •general
issue;, secondly, that._ the place in question was
part of his own freehold ; thirdly, that he had
o►►ly opened a private road leading from his house
to the village of Cranford, which the plaintiff had
blocked up. Another plea was, that he bad cut
down trees to remove obstructions to his right of
way.

Mr. Sergeant BEST, on opening the case, stated
that the defendant was an Attorney, who had
been led away by professional prejudice to oppose
the Noble Countess upon a point which his better
judgment:should have told him he could not gain.
Pe was desirous of obtaining a slip of ground
upon the waste of CranfordiManor, and .he might
have had all he wanted'if he had but complied
with the reasonable terms proposed by the Noble
Plaintiff. The' Countess of Berkeley was tenant
for life under the will of the late Lord Berkeley,
consequently she was under restriction as to the
conveyance and disposal of any part of the property
in dispute. The subject of this action formed a part
of the Manor of Cranford, in the county of Mid-
dlesex, which had long been the family residence
of the Berkeleys. It was not a large Manor, as
it might he purchased 'perhaps f0r,10,0001. There
is a small strip of land lying next the Bath Road,
near Cranford-house. The defendant had built
a house on a piece of land adjoining, and he claim-
ed :he slip of land on the plaintiff's. waste as part
of the freehold In his possesSion. If be was
right itt that claim, he would be entitled to a ver-
dict, hut Serjeant Best said, he should be able
to convince the Jury that' it• always had been
part of the waste of the. Manor of Cranford, in
which all Lady Berkeley's.tenants,vere interested.
he question would be whether the slip of land
was part of the'waste. The Countess of Berkeley
would prove that the cattle which fed vo the waste
of the parish of Cranford, had always fed on the
spot in question. This estate had long been the
seat of the Berkeleys. Whenever the. late Lard
Berkeley cut down timber in his park, the trees
were drawn, to the piece of waste claimed by the
defendant. There was -a tree standing on it of a
remarkable description. It was cut down by
Lord Berkeley, awl the lops and boughs given
to the poor ; but the defendant himself admitted
the land to be part of the manor by making,appli-
cation to Lady Berkeley to let hint have it. Ile
should prove the trespass by Mr. Magna!l himself
going. to cut down.. poplar trees, on pretence of
making a way into his garden. The trespass was
committed with violence. The assertion was, that
be was entitled to make clear an old road leading
to the village, but tile, tiees he cut down did not
stand in his way. It would appear that the spot
supposed to be a path had long. been a bog. Uri,
der all the circumstances the noble plaintiff would
be entitled to a verdict.

The Learned 'Judge declared his opinion was,
that the .defendant could not defend the trespas.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, One Shilling.