The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-02 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

HOME ClRCUlT—Guildford, Aug. 1.
The commission for the county of Surrey was opened
on Wednesday evening, and this morning, at eleven
o'clock, both Courts were opened for the dispatch of
business, Mr. Baron Parke presiding on the Civil side,
and Mr. Baron Gurney trying the prisoners.
The gaol calendar is light, there being only thirty-
six prisoners for trial, and a great number of these are
cases that have been transferred from the sessions to
the assizes. The cause list is very heavy, eighty-two
causes being set down for trial, of which ten are special
iury cases, which are likely to occupy a good deal
of time.
The business disposed of yesterday was of no public
interest

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafforel, July 31.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL).
At the sitting of the Court this morning, the case of the
Stourbridge Navigation Company against Firmstone, which
was appointed to be taken at nine o'clock, was called on, but
as only five special jurymen answered to their names, and as
a " tales" was objected to, the cause was made a remanet,
and the absent jurymen, with the exception •of those -who
were detained at home by illness, were fined 201. each.

DILTOIst V. LORD GEANvaLE.
For the plaintiff were Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., Mr. God-
son, Q.C., Mr. J. Smith, and Mr. Stammers ; for the de-
fendant, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr.
Whatelev, Q.C., Mr. Ellis (the Attorney-General for the
Duchy of Lancaster), and Mr. Somerset..
The declaration in this action was in "case," the action being
brought nominally to recover compensation for injuries sus-
tained by the plaintiff in consequence of the working of eel-•
taro mines, belonging to the Crown, of which the defendant
was lessee, but as he had admitted the injury complained of,
and also that he was the aggressor, the question really at
issue was, whether, in fact, there was any prescriptive right,
as claimed by Lord Granville, to work the mines in his oc-
cupation without liability to make compensation for damages
which might accrue to any buildings or lands during the pro-
gress of the excavations beneath the surface of the ground.
Mr. KELLY, in opening to the jury the plaintifi's case, said
that the subject Matter for their present consideration was
one which could scarcely be surpassed in importance by any
question which could arise, either between the Crown and a
subject, or between man and man; for although Lord Gran-
ville was the defendant here, the Crown, under whom his
Lordship held, was in fact the party to whom the plaintiff
was opposed, and, consequently, all that wealth, power,
talent, ingenuity, and industry could suggest would be
brought forward to prevent what he contended was the vin-
dication of his rights. The right claimed by the Crown
was one to work and excavate the whole of the land com-
prised in the manor, for the purpose of obtaining coals and
iron stone, without restriction, control, or qualification, as
close to the surface as might be considered advisable by the
lessees of the mine, whether the land above were arable, pas-
ture, or whether it were covered with houses, buildings, or
tenements of any description ; so that eventually all or any
of those buildings might, as in the present instance, be
brought to a state of utter demolition and ruin. This claim,
preposterous as it seemed, drew no distinction between old
and modern buildings, the dwellings of the poor or the more
magnificent residences of the wealthy. Mansions of all kinds,
hopitals, churches, were alike endangered, in whatever
portion of the populous manor they might be situated, and
yet, as it was alleged, no demand for compensation would
be attended to, no redress, no relief afforded, however great
the injury to property might prove. The point for the
consideration of the jury was simply whether a party-re-
presenting the Crown was justified in digging in the manner
described, without notice, request, or warning, and without
making compensation. The right was claimed, too, through..
out the whole manor, under the town of Newcastle-under-
Lyne, under a large tract of country, particularly under
Shelton and Hanley, consequently the devastation might, if
unchecked, extend to every building in those populous town-
ships, inhabited as they were by more than 20,000 inhabi-
tants, comprising two churches, nine or ten'chapels, a county
infirmary erected at an expense of 22,0001., various manufac-
tories, residences of considerable.value and beauty—altoge-
ther to the number of 4,000 houses.
On the conclusion of the Learned Counsel's speech, evi-
dence was adduced to prove the order of the Lord Chan-
cellor ; the conveyance of the property to the plaintiff's
father ; his own accupation since his father's demise ; and,
finally, the detriment to which that property had been sub-
jected by the defendants since the year 1834.
The plaintiff's case having thus terminated,
Sir T. WILDE made an application to the Court to have
the further hearing of the case postponed until to-morrow
morning, at nine o'clock. This request was acceded to by
the Learned Judge.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Sergeant ATCIIERLEY.)
Philip Davis, aged 23, a labouring man, was indicted upon
a charge of having attempted to extort money from James
Taylor, under a threat of accusing him of havingendeavoured
to commit an offence of a horrible description.
Mr. Owen conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Allen appeared
on behalf of the prisoner.
The Learned Counsel for the prisoner declined addressing
the jury on behalf of his client, who was convicted, and sen-
tenced to transportation for ten years.
Mr. Godson, Q.C., has been assisting the Learned Judge in
the trial of prisoners during the latter part of the day.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Derby, July 31.
MERCER if. WHALL.—(Special Jury.)
This was an action brought to recover damages under cir-
cumstances of rather a peculiar nature.
Mr. Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Humfrey were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C., Mr. Waddington, and Mr. Mellor,
for the defendant.

The plaintiff is a person between 40 and 50 years of age,
and has lived for a considerable number of years in Chester-
field, where he officiated as managing clerk to an attorney
of the name of Thomas, at whose death he passed into
the service of a Mr. Richard Gratton, and upon that
gentleman's death, the business being purchased by the
defendant, he was taken along with it, and the consi-
deration to be paid was his articles, and a salary of 604
per annum for the five years he would have to serve. This
arrangement was come to in the early part of the
year 1841. It appears that in the early part of 1842, the
defendant on his return from Lincoln, where he had been de-
tained for a fortnight or three weeks by ill health, thought
be had reason to complain of the conduct of his clerk, and
shortly after the plaintiff was dismissed from his employ, and
lost the other advantages guaranteed to him, and this dis-
missal was notified in a letter sent by the defendant's bro-
ther. The grounds of dismissal as set forth in the plea were,
that the plaintiff had been guilty of a breach of duty in hav-
ing combined with ome Joseph Gratton, attorney, living at
Chesterfield, to deprive the defendant of the benefit that
should result from his purchase of the business aforesaid ;
also to induce persons to employ the said Joseph Gratton in
preference to the defendant, and also that the plaintiff had
personated the defendant, &c.
The plaintiff called the Joseph Gratton alluded to in the
plea as a witness on his behalf; but on his cross-examination
it appeared that Gratton and Mercer had been too intimate,
considering the relative positions in which they stood to Mr.
Whall, the one being a rival attorney, and the other Mr.
Whall's articled clerk.

The Learned Judge summed up very carefully, and the
jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 300/.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Isaac Dakin, aged 22, was charged with ravishing Harriet
Hartshorne.

Mr. Wildman prosecuted, and Mr. Dennison conducted the
defence.

Verdict—Guilty. Sentence deferred.

ii$l.PE it 1 L PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 1.
RAILWAYS BILL.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the order for the
Committee on the Railways Bill, which had passed the
House of Commons, and was read a first and second
time in this House. The Noble Lord went at great
length into a review of the details of the Bill, and of the
discussions which had taken place in the House of Com-
mons. The principal objection which he had heard
against the Bill was, that it was novel and unjust to fix
a maximum of profits to any commercial undertaking.
But -there was nothing new in that enactment. In the
acts of incorporation of water companies and gas com-
panies a condition was introduced to limit the profit, by
which the public were protected against monopoly—the
public were in fact great gainers, and the speculators lost
nothing. With respect to the travelling of the poorer
classes, it was provided that, at least once in every day, and
at reasonable times, a train should start, for the convey-
ance of the poorer classes, at a rate of not more than one
penny a mile, with suitable seats, and adequate covering
and protection from the weather.—(Hear, hear.) The
Bill did not extend to existing railways, but it was pro-
vided that whenever the existing companies came before
,Parliament for an alteration of their Acts, this clause
should be inserted.—(Hear, hear.)
The • Bishop of LICHFIELD gave notice for the
Bishop of London, who was unavoidably absent, that the
Right Rev. Metropolitan would (on the third reading)
move an amendment to prevent the travelling by third
class carriages, on railroads, on Sundays, Good Friday,
and Christmas-day.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill,
the clauses of which were read seriatim.
The House resumed, the report was received, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS BILL.
The report of the Committee on the Metropolitan
Buildings Bill was received, after a short discussion, in
which the Duke of Buccleugh and Lord Cottenham'
took part. _

LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the 'order of the day for the third reading of
this Bill,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he still
held the objection which he had before avowed to
the transferring of the appointment of the officers
of the courts of common law, from the judges of the
courts to the Lord Lieutenant. The appointment of
these officers, prothonotaries, and registrars and clerks,
was in this country vested in the chief justices and
the barons of the courts, and he did not see why it
should not be so in Ireland. He did not know why Ire-
land should be put upon a different footing from Eng-
land.—(Very remarkable cheering.) " For my part,"
said the Noble and Learned Lord, " I cannot conceive
anything more unwise—anything more mischievous—
than a law which would place the people of Ireland in a
more disadvantageous position, as regards the adminis-
tration of the law, than the people of England.—(Hear,
hear.) I shall oppose this clause. I shall support the
amendment of my N( ble and Learned Friend that it be
omitted."— (Hear, hear.)
Lord CAMPBELL entirely concurred with the Lord
Chancellor, and was much gratified to hear his Noble
Friend (Earl Fortescue), who had been Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland, cheer that excellent speech.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Lord Campbell) would move, according to notice,
that the appointment should be in the Chief Justices of
the courts of law.

After a few words from Lord Wharncliffe (who ac-
ceded to the amendment), the Marquis of Normanb.y,
and Lord Cottenham,

The debate was adjourned till to-morrow, in order to
afford time for obtaining the consent of the Crown to the
surrender of patronage.
POOR-LAWS.

The Poor-law Amendment Act was read a second time
and ordered to be committed on Monday.
The Joint-stock Companies Regulation Bill was read
a second time.

Several Bills were advanced a stage, and the House
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 1.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose to move the order
of the day for going into Committee on the Chari-
table Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill, and said
that after having so fully opened this question
the other evening, he was very unwilling
to trespass on the attention of the House, and yet there
were two or three amendments which he was anxious to
explain to the House, as having been introduced into the
Bill by her Majesty's Government. In the first place, he
had to state that it was the intention of the Government
to insert words in the Bill by which more than one
secretrary could be appointed to the Board of Cha-
ritable Bequests Commission in Dublin. Considering
the vast amount of Roman Catholic charities which
would come under the consideration of that board,
it had been held to be expedient that more than
one secretary should be appointed. Another alteration
intended to be made was in the sixth clause. As that
clause at present stood it contained considerable
ambiguity, and it was proposed, therefore, to insert a
proviso to the effect that nothing therein
contained should be construed to limit the
jurisdiction of any court of law with reference to
these bequests. These alterations, however, were of
less importance than the alteration which he intended to I