The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, Aug. 13.
(Before Mr. .Secondary JAMEV.)
FRENCH V. FULLER.

The plaintiff in this action is a country dealer, re3iding at
Galley wood Common, Essex, and the defendant is a farmer at
Tillingham, near Maldon, in'the same county. The demand
was for 31. 103., the balance of a bargain on the sale of a horse.
Mr. Crouch appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Chadwick Jones for the defendant.

On the part of the plaintiff it was deposed that in August
last defendant asked plaintiff if he had a horse to sell, and after
a good deal of haggling, it was agreed that defendant should
have a grey horse on payment of 21. 10s. down, another 21. 10s.
when plaintiff came round his next journey, and 10s. more if
the horse worked well through the seed time.
In cross-examination it was elicited that the plaintiff tra-
velled in a van, in which he lived, the horses were tossed off
at night, and got into any fields where the gates were open.
—(Laughter.) They got into defendant's fields the night be-
fore the sale, and defendant took some goods for it. Could
not say whether the horse was of age or not.—(Laughter.)
Another witness deposed to a subsequent conversation,
wherein the defendant distinctly promised to pay 31. more on
plaintiff's next journey.
A third witness proved that the horse worked for eight or
nine weeks, and ploughed an acre a day. After seed-time the
horse was starved to death from neglect.
Sergeant Joses addressed the jury, and said that in all cases
where a horse was concerned, there was a great deal of contra-
dictory evidence. He, however, hoped to convince the jury
that there was no absolute bargain, but that it was to depend
on whether the horse turned out well.

Witnesses were then called, who swore that the 2/. 10s.
was to be returned, and the horse given back not ap-
proved of, but that plaintiff refused to take it back. They swore
that the horse was not worth 55., that it had no strength, even
to eat, that it was twenty years of age, that it had no teeth,lhat
it could not draw the plough, but that it required three others
to drag it along. Its weakness was declared to have been so
much that it could not stand up even to be killed.
Mr. CROucti, in reply, contended the horse had worked well
for nearly nine months, and was thot left to die from sheer
neglect.
The SECONDARY said the value of the horse was not the
point; the first question was, whether there had been a con-
ditional bargain, next, whether, if so, the defendant was not
bound to have returned the horse at an early opportunity, it he
disapproved of it. They had heard something about a tres-
pass by the horse, but that did not bear upon the question.
Mr. PAYNE ( the Coroner), who held Sergeant Jones's
brief, submitted that the notice as to the hone was sufficient.

The SECONDARY said the proper course would, on the horse
being rejected, to have given notice that he would be held
liable for the keep.
Verdict for plaintiff, damages 2/. 10s.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT, Croydon, August 13.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL and a Special Jury.)

LORD GRANTLEY V. EAGER.

This was an action brought by theßi-WITon. Fletcher
Lord Grantley, against William Eager, a farmer and
propriet.A. of land, at Bromley-, of which district his
Lordship is lord of the manor, for trespass.
Mr. Sergeant Channel! and Mr. Peacock were for the
plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bovill were for
the defendant.

This case commenced on Tuesday, and stood adjourned
at the rising of the Court on that day, and was resumed
this morning. The action was brought in the form of
a trespass, but the real question in dispute was, whether
the title to a stock cf waste land adjoining the high road
between Guildford and Horsham, and fronting a farm
in the possession of the defendant, lay in the latter or
►n the 19rd of the manor. The case was of a very unin-
teresting description, the evidence adduced referring
principally to acts of ownership by the different parties.
The CHIEF .JUSTICE having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.

THE DUKE OF PALMELLA V. THE SOUTH-WESTERN
RAILWAY C')MPANY.

This was an action Or:light by the plaintiff. the Per-
tugue..e Minister, against th,,, ahoy,. Company as common
carriers, for negligence in having lost a box of plate
entrusted to their care in the above capacity.
Mr. Sergeant Channel!, Mr. Sergeant Shoe, and Mr.
Baddeley were for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Morita;.:ll
Chambers with Mr. Peacock appeared ter the de,enclact.
From the evidence adduced, it appeared that in .St.p-
tember, 1844, the Duchess of Palmella, came to this
country from Lisbon by a vessel called the Montrose,
and she disembarked at Southampton with her lugange,
among which Was the box in question, which contained
plate of the value of between 5001. and 600/. The bag-
gage was taken to a temporary building near the South-
ampton 'Dot ks, and eventually it was placed under the
charge of the Railway. Company, but the box and its
contents never came to hand. These facts were ad.
milted, but the Company pleaded that, under a recent
statute, notice ought to have been given to them of the
valuable nature of the contents of the box and that an
additional charge ought to • have been paid upon it on
that account, and that as this was not done they were
not liable.

The jury eventually returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff, subject to the opinion of the Court above, regarding
the points of law that were reserved.

NORTHFRN ClRCUlT.—Laiwaster, Aug. 11.
The asAzes for the northern division of the county com-
menced here this day. Mr. Justice Cresswell sat on the civil,
and Mr. Baron Rolfe on the criminal side. There are only
five cases in the calendar. One prisoner stands charged with
rape, and one with shooting at the Rev. Mr. Moore, at Preston,
on the 2d of this month. On the civil side sixteen cases are
entered for trial.

(Before Mr. Baron Rol.? E. )
The Court was engaged a great part of the day with the
trial of a case of rape, which terminated in the acqui, tal of the
prisoner.
Richard Bennett was indicted for having at Preston
charged a loaded pistol at the Rev. Richard Moore, with in-
tent to murder him.

Mr. Hulton conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner was
defended by Mr. Brandt.
It appeared from the statement of the Rev. Mr. Moore,
that he is the clergyman of Lund, and a magistrate for the
county. Has been in the commission for many years. Lund
is about two miles from Kirkham, where the prisoner resides,
and about seven miles from Preston. The prisoner is a shoe-
maker, and about two years ago was before the prosecutor on a
charge which was di=missed. On the 2d of the present month,
the prosecutor was passing along Fishergate, in Preston, on
his way to the Town-hall, when he heard the discharge of a
pl.tol or a gun close to him, and was instantly enveloped in
smoke. Imm, dioely after some hird substance struck him on
the breast. He looked round and saw the prisoner four or fire
yards off. He was endeavouring to get away, but staggered as
if in great alarm. The prosecutor seized him, and a man came
up at the moment and assisted in securing him. Witness said,
" He has struck me," and the man replied, " He has shot at
yon," and produced a pistol he had picked up. The prisoner
slid nothing.
John Harrison, the person who had picked up the pistol,
stated that he was close to Mr. Moore's right hand when the
pistol was fired. The prisoner pulled the pistol out of his
pocket with his rightlhand, and fired it straight at Mr. Moore.
He then flung the pistol at Mr. Moor.!, and it struck him on the
breast.

On cross-examination, the witness said that he was an old
soldier, and that he thought had the pistol been properly loaded
it must of necessity have hit Mr. Moore.
Adam Capstick, who was also close to Mr. Moore when the
shot was fired, said he thought he heard someting whiz pat his
head.

Wm. Kirby also deposed to the het of the prisoner firing
the pistol.
Robert Williams, a policeman, produced the pistol. lt was
a common screw-barrel pocket pistol. Witneas had searcliM
for traces of a ball, but could find none, There was, however,
a low thatched building on the other side of the street a litle
further down, in which it might have lodged.
On his examination before the magistrate the prisoner said,
"He has accu'ed me of a crime of which lam not guilty. I
want to make it known."

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. BRANDT addressed the jury for the defence, contending
that there was no evidence that the pistol was loaded with any-
thing calculated to do grievous bodily harm, but, on the con-
trary, even in the case fur the prosecution, the testimony went
to show that it could not have been so. Had the party had
any serious intent to injure Mr. Moore—had the pistol con-
tained a ball or any destructive material, the contents must in-
evitably have passed into the body of the prosecutor. He ap-
prehended there could be no question in the case, except as
respected the common assault, of which, should the evidence
establish it, the prisoner might be found guilty on this indict-
ment. Even as to that he (Mr. Brandt) had a case to set up,
which he did with reluctance, but which he thought it his duty
to lay before them. The evidence would show that the pri-
soner was a person of a very peculiar temperament, liable to fits
of despondency and absence of mind, in which he wandetod
about in a state of apparent vacancy. He had written also a
great number of letters to his attorney, bearing every mark of
a disordered mind, and was, it would be proved beyond all
doubt, frequently in a state in which he was not accountable for
his actions, and which gave great alarm to his relatives and
friends.

Mr. Thomas Shaw, a surgeon at Kirkham, said he had
known the prisoner seven or eight years. He was a person of
very reserved manners, and frequently would net enter into
conversation wi h any one. He seemed in a state of vacancy,
and in the opinion of the witness wa, not at such times in his
right mind. In the June of last year he was quite insane.
Witness attended him about a week. He could not Bleep.
Witness saw him a day or two before this occurrence, and he
then seemed not in his right mind.
Andrew Lewis and Peter Barnett gave similar testimony.
Mr. Robert Ascroft, an attorney at Preston, said that about
two years ago he received three anonymous letters from the
prisoner. They were destroyed. The contents of the first
were—
.' Sir,—l am going to put a ball through my thick head for
a foolish thing I once did. I wish to know if you leave any
commands for the shades below."
About six weeks after witness received another, which con-
tained simply—
" Who steals my purse steals trash."
" SHAKESPEARE."
The third was received some time after, and was as follows
" If you had a friend in whom you placed confidence, and
who eirtier deceived you or betrayed you, what would you do
with him ?"

Several other let'ers, of a similar nature, received lately, were
produced and read.
This was the case for the defence.
Hip LORDSHIP summed up, and

....
The jury. after a few minutes' deliberation, returned their
verdict, acquitting the prisoner absolutely of the felony, and
acquitting him of the minor offence of assault on the ground of
insanity.
His Lc:muslin., after examining the Acts as to persons ac.
quitted on the ground of insanity, said he had some doubt
whether they, or either of them, applied to a ea4e like the
present, where the prisoner was indicted for the felony, and
acquitted of the minor charge only on the ground of insanity.
He should, however, d;rect the prisoner to be kept in custody
till her Majesty's pleasure should be known, and the question
as to the construction of the Acts might be considered else-
where.

On the civil side nothing of public interest occurred.

IRtsit liiil oil this subjoet has pass-
ingi through Parliament—by it the regulation iif Iri,h fisher es
is transferred from the Board of Works to the Commi.sioners
of Fisheries and an additional Commissioner is appointed for
Ireland. The Commissioners shall have power to remove.
illegal weirs nets, subj.-et to an appeal to the judge of
Parties erecting or using weirs decided to be illegal,
are subjected to a penalty of 20/. for each day sueh illegal weir
is left standing. Malicious injury to legal fishing weirs is to
be provided for by presentment at assizes. The size of the
meshes or tuts is to be reduced from 2i inches square, or 6A
square inches, to 14 inches square, or 3 1-16 square inches,
thus making them less than half their present size. The Com-
missioners are to have power to make further alterations in the
site of meshes or nets in certain localities.