The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ARCHES' COURT; Aug 5.
THE OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY BARNES V. SHORE.
Sir H. JENNIE. Fun delivered his sentence in this case,
which was a proceeding against the Rev. James Shore, as a
minister of the Church of England, for performing Divine
, ifertoce in an unconsecrated chapel at Berry Pomeroy, Devon,
without license from his diocesan, the Bishop of Exeter. The
present question was, as to the admission of a defensive allega-
tion on the part of Mr. Shore, pleading that he had seceded
from the Chumh of England, having taken the oaths as a Pro-
testant Dissenting minister,_ and that he was now a minister in
hely orders oc'a Protestant Dissenting congregation assembling
in the said =chapel. The Learned Judge held that this allega-
tion was n'st admissible as a defence to the articles which had
been adm.stted. It appeared that Mr. Shore had been regularly
ordained,, was a priest in holy orders of the Church of England,
and w as licensed to preach in this chapel by his diocesan, the
Bish,,,p ef Exeter, and that license remained in force till the 7th
of '.slarch, 1844 ; that on the 13th of March, 1844, notice was
B',irved upon him of the revocation of his license; that he then,
'as he alleged, from conscientious motives, seceded from
the Church of England ; that is., he ceased to conform to the
Church of Enelend, and that he was at the time the citation
issued, and is now, a Protestant assenting mini:ter in holy
orders, and a preacher and teacher of a congregation of Pro-
testant Dissenters; that on the 16th of Match, 1844, he took
the oaths as a trotestant Dissenting minister, and from that
time has never officiated as a minister of the Church of Eng-
land, but as a Dissenting minister only. Now he (the Learned
Jude) thought it absurd to suppose that it was tenderness of
conscience that induced this gentleman to take the oaths
directed by the* Toleration Act three days only after his
license had been revoked. The Toleration Act were passed
to relieve persons of scrupulous consciences, not to exempt
clergymen of the Church of England fro' responsibility, if
they had in any way misconducted themselves; they were not
intended to apply to such cases. Surely it never could be
contended that a person could throw off his obligations aii a
minister of the Church of England, by merely qualifying him-
self as a Protestant Dissenting teacher. He (the Learned
Judge) was yet to learn that any person could so throw off tke
cha. acter of a clergyman after he had taken holy orders. He
apprehended that if such a person miscondOcted himself, he
would still be liable to proceedings under tie Church Discipline
and be amenable to ecclesiastical punishment. Was it to
be contended that, if a minister of !ee Church of England was
guilty of 'armor/14y, he could escape all punishment except
any that he might be liable to by the common law. by merely
taking the oaths under the Toleration Act, and calling himself
a Dissenter? Unf,ler these circumstances it was useless to ad-
mit the allegathea, which he therefore rejected.
FRANKFORT V. FRANKFORT.
This was. a question whether Lord Frankfurt was entitled to
deduct from his payments of permanent alimony, which the
.otirt had allnt'ed to Laity Frankfort, the property-tax.
The COURT intimated that it had been its intention that the
=alimony should be paid clear the tax ; but as the question
depended upon the construction of the Property-tax Act, he
should take time to consider it.
STONE V. STONE.
Sir H. JENNER FUST gave sentence in this case, which was
an appeal from the Consistory Court of London, in a suit
originally brought by Mrs. Harriet Stone against Mr. George
Stone, her husband, for a divorce, on the ground of cruelty and
adultery, which was met by Mr. Stone by a charge of adultery
4geinst Mrs. Stone, who replied to this charge by alleging con-
..staivance on his part. The Learned Judge in the Court below
'held that Mrs. Stone's adultery was proved ; that Mrs. Stone
had failed in her proof of her charges; both of adultery and
connivance, and pronounced for a divorce at the prayer of the
husband. From this sentence Mrs. Stone appealed, so far ps
relatesi to the alleged adultery and connivance of Mr. Stone.
As tile cae was very fulls entered itito in our report of the
judgment in the Court below, it will be sufficient to say that
it's Learned Judge of this Court affirmed that judgment on all
'points, being of opinion that there was not a shadow of proof in
• evidence upon which the Court could place any reliance, either
of the husband's adultery, or of his connivance at any adulte,
r, rous intercourse with Mr. Thomas Knox Helmer., and coma-
: Vance at the adultery with Lord Sussex Lennox was not even
"alleged. He pronounced against the appeal, and remitted the
'ca use.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Aug 6.
The jury assembled as usual, when they were informed that
there was no business. Frequent complaints have been made,
and the jury strongly expressed their discontent. As the time
.of trade amen in the City is of course valuable, some step ought
to be adopted to prevent the inconvenience. There can be no
blame to the officers of the court, who are themselves in need-
less attendance ; and the only apparent means of saving trouble
is by compiling the plaintiffs' solicitor to pay the court fees on
fixing the day for trial. The summoning officer would then
be paid for his trouble of summoning the jury; and the jury
would get the legal recompense should the case not be tried :
no hardship would fall on the plaintiffs, they being the parties
putting the law in motion, and could recover it back if right.
An action appears to have lately become a mere plaything—the
pre-payment of the fees would prevent the jury being unneces-
sarily called upon.

• ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—Croydon, August 6.
The criminal business was concluded on Tuesday
morning, and since that time both Courts have been
engaged in disposing of common jury causes, all of which
have been of the most uninteresting degcription. In
cozsequence of the pressure of the business, and tut
I,ngth of time that many of the causes have occupied, it
is arranged that no special jury cause will be taken be-
fore Friday.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT Leirestcr, Aug. 4.
The civil business having concluded on Saturday night, this
morning both the judges proceeded with the trial of prisoners.
(Bet..re Nit.. Justice Ma out.)
William Newton was indicted for having, on the 16th of
June last, cut and wounded John Newton, with intent to do
him some grievously bodily harm.
The prosecutor ( who is a retail brewer at Heather, in this
county) and
.the prisoner are brothers,' and, as will be seen
by the following short statement of facts, the younger branches
of the family do not appear to live together in the most perfect
harmony On the 3el of last June,*the prisoner, another
brother, named Henry Newton, and a man named Ewings,
were playing at bowls at the house kept by the prosecutor. In
the course of the afternoon the prisoner and Ewings tossed for
half-a-crown and the money was won by the latter. It would
appear that the prisoner, on coming into the house, complained
that the money had not been won fairly, and several times
threatened to knock Ewings's head off. At last Ewings rose
from his seat, and the prisoner immediately knocked him down,
and when on the floor beat and kicked him severely. The
prosecutor, seeing the situation in which Ewings was
placed, said '• he would not stand by and see a man
killed in his ravn house," and proceeded to render him
assistance. For this purpose he attempted to :drag the
prisoner away, when his brother Henry knocked him (the pro-
secutor) down, and when on the ground both of his brothers
kicked him violently. Ewings next attempted to assist the
prosecutor, who managed to get up and lean against a table,
his bro her Henry. however, still holding him tightly by his
neckerchief. While in this position, the prisoner, who had left
the room for a moment, returned, and holding a knife over the
shoulder of Henry, and declaring "he would let out his pud-
dings," struck the prosecutor with it on the shoulder. The
table then gave way, and all three brothers fell on the Ikon
The prosecutor. whom Henry still held tightly by the threat,
when in that position, cried out, " Henry, leave loose of me,
Bill's sticking. me." To this Henry replied with an oath,
" Let him stick thee; I a ish he'd kill thee." . When the
prisoner and Henry got up, the prosecutor laid hold of the
piker, with t'aa "view of protecting himself, but his assailants
left the housa,and ha was unable to pursue them for any dis-
tance. Ott his retern he complained of being very faint, and
in about half an hour went to bed. He found that he 'was
stabbed en the arm, and a'so in the right loin. A surgeon was
called 'in. and the prosecutor was confined to his room for several
days. These were the main facts of the case, as proved by the
prosecutor, an I corroborated by the evidence of his wife.
The jury found the prisaner guilty of the common assault,
and the Learned Judge sentenced him to six months' imprison-
ment and hard labour.
John Johnson, Vapid Kirby, James Green, James Brix-
tow, Henry Bristow, and Julie Liston. were charged with
u .la s fully and maliciously wounding Joseph Wardle, with in-
tent to prevent the lawful apprehension and detainer of the
said James Bristow, and with intent to do him some grievous
bodily harm.
Mr. Macauley conducted the prosecutitin ; Mr. Flood de-
fended Bristow, Green, and Illston ; and Mr. Wing Johnson
and Kirby.
On the night of Sunday, the Bth of June, it was alleged
that the prisanvra were conducting themselves in a very disor-
derly manner in the publie highway at Great Wigaton. Kirby
wa% bard to say " come on," as if inviting one of his compa-
nions to fight, whilst Seines Bristow, who was very drunk, used
the most indecent and offensive expressions. Such was the
conducf of the prisoners, that witnesses deposed it would not
have been safe or proper for any peaceable or decent person to
pass along.the road in which the prisoners were. Wardle, the
constable, after requesting them to go along without disturb-
Inc the public peace, determined upon taking James Bristow
into custody for being drunk and disorderly, whereupon he was
moat violently assaulted by the whole party. He was dreadfully
beaten about the head, and ultimately laid prostrate upon the
grtm.d by a blow upon the forehead from a stone.
Witnesses were called who, clearly identified all the pri-
!toners as active participators in the affray ; and it appeared
trim, the evidence of the surgeon, that for some days after the
assault wire committed the prosecutor's life, owing to concus-
pion of the brkin, was in imminent danger The prisoners
Gre.m, the two Bristowa; and Ilision, substquently.decamped,
bu' in the course of tile last month. they were apprehended at
Hawick, in Scotland, where they were at work u stockingers
under assumed names.

Mr. Flood and Mr. Wing having addressed the jury on be-
hag of their respective clients,

• •
The prisoners were found Guilty, and sentenced to four
months' imprisonment each, with hard labour.
John Musks ( who surrendered upon bail) was indicted for
felornou,ly woun,ling Elizabeth Griffin, with intent to do her
some bodily harm.
Mr. Wing prosecuted, and Mr. Macaulay defended the pri-
SOKIrr. .

This case, which was of a most distressing nature, was to
have been tried at the last assizes, but owing to the illness
nt the prosecutrix it was postponed until the present. The
prisoner and prosecutrix were fellow• servants in the family
of Dlr. Astell, at Newton Linford, and up to the time of the
assault complained of they had lived upon the best terms, and
both bcie an excellent character. It appears that shortly
before the day in question the prisoner had represented to
the prosecutrix and her mistress that there were certain ob-
structinns placed in the road close to the house ; but which,
upon examination, proved not to be the case. In a day or
two after the prosecutrix told a younger male servant em-
ployed in the family to fetch her some coals, and, not bring-
ing them when required, he alleged that he had been detained
by the prisoner. The prosecutrix accordingly when she
next saw the prisoner charged him with preventing the boy
executing- her directions. He replied, " She was a liar,"
to which the prosecutrix rej fined to the effect, " No, I never
said what you did about the road." The prosecutrix was
at this time in a stooping position, when the prisoner, irri-
tated by her observation, kicked 'her violently on the back
rit her person, and she fell forwards. The prose.
entrix imruedoitely exelaim,d that she was much injured,
and blo d fl wed mist copiously even through the chair on
which she was placed The injuries to her person were of the
Trost ssrious description. She was removed to the County
Hospital, of which she had been an inmate for 25 weeks; and
to-day, in Court, she exhibited in her appearance strong evi-
dence of a long and painful illness.

Mr. AI AcA ut.A Y, in addre..s to the jury, expressed, on the
pst nt the privotter, his gr, at regret for t ‘4,-tice he had corn-
witted, and the sufferiiil.e ha'd en,,iled upon the prosecutrix.
He acted under a momentary impulse of anger, but he had not
the slightest intention to inftet the injury which was unfortu-
nately the remit of his violence.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Mr. Justice Atunn, in passing sentence upon the prisoner,
said he wes wtili-g to believe the prisoner did hot intend to in-
jure the profecutrix to the extent he had done; but still no
et-cumstancea cou;d justify a man in striking, much less in
hi •king, a woman. He sentenced him to six months' irnpri-
nameut and bard labour.

(Before the CHIEF BARON.)
Thomas Oldershaw, was indicted for burglariously break-
ing and entering into the dwelling-house of Alexander Ster-
ivg, on the night of the 4th of June last, at Castle Donning-