The Sun.
London, England, 1810-08-11 00:00:00

,EIERTFOI?D ASSIZES.

• - • • THURSDAY, AUG: g • . •
This morning Lord Ellenborough and. the. Lord
Chief Baron arrived in this,-town, for the purpose
of holding- the Assizes. They were,attended to
the TOwn Hall by the Corporation, with the esual
formalities; after Nyliich they went to the Church,
and. heard divine service; returning thence,, they
immediately proceeded to the business of the Coun-
ty. There was but very little business either Oh the
'Civil or Croi;vn sides. , :1:'

GREENAWAY V. MUNN.

The plaintiff in thts.caose was the proprietor of a
Watford 'coach, and, the defendant a tradesman of
that town. The ad ion was -for •slander, the decla-
ration imputing to the defendant, 'that he had said
of the plaintiti,thA " he had robbed him of a fish,
and a fifty pound note, which had been sent by his
coach to him in a basket; that he never got the
fish egain,,but that after souse days, though he did
not get
,the identical note again, yet be got 601— In
notes of ditferenrde.ci iptions."
r •

. To. prove, this, •three Avitnesses were called, who
in-substance stated, ildt a conversation. took place
at -public-house respeCting a new Rickmansworth
coach which was aboUt to be set up. Upon this
the defendant observed, that they, would now pro-
bably get their parcels safely delivered.. He then
went on to add, that abasket,had been sent to him
from town, containing a salmon and ,a 501. not,:,
which never arrived ; that4re was about to have .ar-
rested the man who had sent him the money, but on,
'inquiry, he found it had. been'sent by the plaintiff's
coach. He immediately applied to the plaintiff' re-,
spettingthefish and the note, who at first ,denied
that he had received any 'nen parcel, hut at last ad,
tinned there- was a fish which 'had been lying about
the coachLoffice, and which had either been thrown
on the dunghill, or eateu by the servants. At last,
however, he :went to,the bureau •in the room, and
took on a parcel of notes, which he threw at ihe de-
fendant, telling him there .was 601. aindhe,was lucdcy
in getting it.

Nona of the witnesses, however, proved his pre7-
cise words as laid in tht: declaration—the plaintiff
was therefore-non-suited:

FLOWER V.. CASS.

This },vas an anion for the.price of 16 quarters of
malt. The defendant. had purchased 270 quartets of
Malt of theplaim iff at Ware, and sent his barge to
fetch it ; .when the cargo was delivered at London
there were only 260 quarierss and the question was,
whether 270, or only 260, had been put on board at
Hertford?

A witness, of the name of Banard, who lived
with . the plaintiff, stated,. that he kept the, tally
of the malt as• it was put on board, and he was
quite pdsiti‘e•that 270 quarters were •shipped in the
barge..

On cross-examination, he said he himself kept the
account, and was never absent during the whole time
it was shipping. The shipper, , who was employed
by the defendant, counted it as it lay.un board, and
agreed it was all right. - ,
For the defendant, the persons on board the barge
were called, and. they provel that they delR-ercd' iii
.London all the malt they received at tlert:Urd, anti
none, they were sure, were stolen {tom- the 'vessel
on its passage. When they came to -London they'
had but 27(Yquarters in all, and they had ten qupr.
ters on board before they began to take in the Malt
from the plaintiff. - Banard, they said; was not. pre-
sent the whole -time it was loading. - A person ot•
the name of Jones was the man who stowed the
lading, and kept an account :for the defendant.
Jones was called, who said he kept the account,
and. had no doubt but he made the Mistake by taking
into the account the ten quarters which were pre-
liodsly on board the barge: As son as' they -ar-
rived in London., and the short quantity was. disco-
vered, he ditedtiy*satd-the mistake must have arisen
in that manner.

The Jury found a ver 161 for the defendant, stat-
ing that they were of opinion that the ten-quarters
"had never been delivered.

. CROWN SIDE.
BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF BARON:

. ,
There were only four felonies on the Crow") side.
Mark Smith and John Saunders were convicted
of a burglary, in breaking into the distillery of Soho
Evans,:and stealing two.-gallotmot gin; two 'casks,
and souse other articles. Smith was the servant of
the proecutOr, and had worked at the Still-house.
They both received sentence of Death.

..eituanciir.Yeaman was convicted of stealing se-.
veral pairs of shoes, and other articles, the,Property
of James Thompson. The prosecutor was a shod-
keeper•at Hertford, and the prisoner worked for him•
in his business as a shoetnakez ; but the prosecutor
having reasow, to su'spee his honesty, •caused his
lodging to be searched, where he, found the several
articles in question.' He was sentenced to 7 years
transportation.‘

The Assizes ended about five o'clock.

BUCKINGHAM ASSIZES.

The Assizes for BuCkinghamshire commenced on.
Monday last..
John Carey Cole was tried ou three several indic-
merits for an abominable crime. Tae pisoner" was
tid years old, and was an usher in academy, and
the vidirns of his brut.d paosion x%ere 'titer of the
boys of the school; who, awed by toe situation the
prisoner held there, could not resist him. On the
first indictment he was acquitted, in consequence
of the boy being too young. to understand the ne-
cessary questions put to him to substantiate the
crime; but on the two Cast- he was found guilty, re-
ceived sentence of death, and was left for'execu-
.
n •
on.
In the Nisi- Prins Court, an action was trie. 'ie-
tWeen a labouring man, plaintiff, and a baker,. for
-criminal-conversation With the plaintiff's wife. It
came out in evidence that the plaintiff Mart led his
wife, then with child by him, knowing of her hav7
;rig beenfrail with several persons; and that he still,
lived with his wife in the same state as before he

<- • of e't

•
catfle -to .tlie knowledge of the defendant''; intialscy
with her: It was therefore contended, that the ac-
tion, could not be maintained, the -form of which
was, " that the'Plaftitiff had lost the comfort,
society and assistance of his wife ;" but the Judge
over-ruled the objectico, recommending, however,
to the Jury to give small 'damages.—The gave the
plaintiff 51.