The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-06 00:00:00

LENT ASSIZES.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—NORTHAMPTON, MARcH 4.
The Commission having been opened here on
Saturday, the business of the Assizes commenced
yesterday. The cause-list was extremely light, only
three causes having been entered for trial, of which,
the record was withdrawn in one, a verdict was
taken by consent in another, and the third, in which
Sir James Scarlett is specially retained, is axed for
Thursday. The calendar, however, is unusually
heavy. It contains the names of 55 prisoners for
trial, of whom a large number are charged with
sheep-stealing, and several with offences against the
game-laws.
John Spittle, Thomas Hativell, and Richard
Haynes, were indicted for stealing, on the 15th of
October last, at the parish of Brackley St. Peter, in
this county, from out of the mail-cart running from
Oxford to Northampton, certain bags of letters, the
property of his Majesty's Post-master GeneraL
Richard Haynes also stood indicted for feloniously
receiving certain promissory notes, bank notes, and
bills of exchange, which had been contained in such
letters, knowing them to have been stolen.
In consideration of Haynes pleading " Guilty" to
the minor offence, no evidence was offered against
him on the capital charge, of which he was there-
fore acquitted.

The .Jury acquitted Hatwell, and found Spittle

George Coleman, John Tarry, Leomi Howard,
and Charles King, were indicted for a burglary in
the house of the Misses Wakefields, respectable
ladies in the town. The Jury found them all guilty,
and sentence of death was recorded against them.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—WINCHESTER, Dla.a.ca 4.
This day the Judges attended divine service in the
Cathedral. Their Lordships arrived at the Castle
at one o'clock, when Mr. Justice GASELE took his
seat in the Crown Court, and proceeded to charge
the Grand Jury. His Lordship said, that he was
extremely concerned to see the state of the calendar
which lay before him. Not only was the number of
prisoners unusually great, but the proportion of per-
sons in custody for capital offences was much larger
than he had expected. The progressive increase of
crime was a subject of the deepest interest to society
in this country; and he hoped that the inquiry which
had been instituted by the House of Commons, and
which was at present going forward, might lead to
the discovery of the cause which produced such
lamentable effects. His Lordship then adverted to
the great number of persons committed for trial at
the Assizes, but only charged with the commission
of slight offences. He could not help observing, that
the offences with which some of these persons were
charged were of so slight a nature, that even
if established by the evidence, they would be
more than sufficiently punished by the im-
prisonment which the parties had suffered.—
After some other observations from his Lordship,
the Grand Jury retired, and in the course of the day
returned true bills against some persons for offences
not distinguished by any circumstances of peculiar
enormity.
The Grand Jury have found a true bill against
one of the women, charged with the murder of them
illegitimate, children, and ignored the bill against the
other. . .
The Court is proceeding with all due solemnity
to inquire into the guilt of a man who is charged
with having stolen a hand-dish, value 3d; This is
one of the cases which the Magistrates appear to
have considered as of too grave and important a
character to be decided by themselves at the Quarter
Sessions.—The prisoner was " Acquitted."
George Liming was indicted for having, in the'
parish of Crondall, fraudulently and feloniously. em-
bezzled the sum of 111. 155., the property of the
Rev. Launcelot Jefferson, which he (Liming) had
been employed, as the servant of Mr. Jefferson, to
collect and receive in his name and for his use.

The prisoner was found "Guilty," but recom-
mended by the reverend prosecutor to mercy.
The Court was engaged all. day with the case of
"Britten V. Weddell,' which was entirely uninte-
resting to any but those immediately concerned, the
question in issue being merely whether, under the
circumstances of the case, there existed a tenancy
between the parties.

BRITTEN V. WEDDELL.
This was an action of replevin against the defendant, for
improperly distraining the plaintiff's goods. It appeared
that the plaintiff was in possession of a house and land, to
which the defendant was agent for receiving the rents, and
there being half a year's rent due, he put in a distress for
the amount (650, which, en the part of the plaintiff, it
was contended, was not due ; nor was the plaintiff liable,
inasmuch as he had not taken the premises for a term cer-
tain, but had taken them on the mere understanding for a
lease, and thereby was not liable to a distress. Various letters
were put in to show the plaintiff's holding. The case ul-
timately went to the Jury on these two points—whethet
there was a letting at all ; and, if there was, they were to
find for the defendant. If, on the contrary, there was no
letting, but the plaintiff merely held under an agreement fur
a lease, the defendant's remedy in that case being by an ac-
tion for use and occupation, and not by distress, there then
being no demise, then the Jury were to find for the plain-
tiff.—Verdict for the defendant.