The Sun.
London, England, 1826-03-30 00:00:00

WAKEFIELD SORE

Sir Edward Dodsworth Bart., Godfrey Wentworth, Esq.,
Sir William Pilkington, Bart., and Jac Luis Fernandez,
plaintiffs, v. Ingham, defendant.
Second issue against George Haigh, Pavid Luilly, Joseph
Rhodes, and henry Lund, defendants.
For the plaintiffs, Messrs. Scarlett, Maude, Tindal, and
Maywood; for the defendants, .Messrs Iltottgliam, Parke,
Hibbert, and Alexander.
This, trial,has occupied the Court two entire days, without the
defendants calling any witnesses; and it ii considered a question
of great local importance to this, county, although to the public
at large of no general interest.
It was an action upon assigned issue, directed out of the
Duchy Court of Lancaster, to try whetter the plaintiffs had or
had not, by virtue of the privileges antexed to certain ancient
mills in their possession, an exclusive
nglit to have ground at
their mills all corn that should he used ;whin the township of
• NV, kefield, and the question to try was, vhether corn might be
legally ground within the township of Wakefield, at any other
mill than at the Old Soke mill. The.phintiffs, it seems, de-
rive their title from the Saville family, to whom the Crown had
granted those tyke mills in the reign of James I. which grant
was confirmed by Olivet Cromwell. 'The Crown in those an-
cient times had considerable estates in the neighbourhood of
Wakefield, and when it granted those sills to the Saville fa-
mily, it icranted all the priVileges enipyti4 by lake mills. These
were originally granted for the reciprocal advantage of the Lord
ot'the Manor and of his tenants; the Lord being litiOnd to keep
tho mills in repair, for the benefit of the tenants 1, and the te-
nants to grind their corn exclusively at the mills, 'when they
were in condition to grind it. The gesieral known privileges
of ancient mills were sonfirined to those mills, by two solemn
decisions of the Duchy Court of Lancaster, before OW this
question has been several times agitated. The last of these
decrees was in 1761, when. other mills were erected within the
township of Wakefield. The first pie:e of documentary evi-
dence (of which there Was a vast deal) was the Chartery.

James to certain trustees, on behalf of Sir George Serene. The
second, a writ of the Duchy of liancaiter, in the year 1610, to
do suit and service to the ancient SQke Mills. After which, the
Decree of, 1761 was rend, ordaining, that no inhabitant of
Wakefield should spend, sell, or utter, in Thar dieelling-hoUses
any grain not ground at the ancient Sake Mills.
After a great number of Witnesses had .been examined,
r. IittoUGHA3I rose to reply, and, in a speech whit+ lasted
upwards of two hours, said, he should call no witnesses, but re-
minded tkem, that already hundred pounds had been ex-
retitled in a tavern bill on one side only of the question, and
God only knew where the expences would end. As regarded
King James, he thought, the least said of" him the best, Mr.
Brougham contended that nothing short of proof absolute
should satisfy them that those mills had been erected for the
purpose ofgrinding corn, to he consumed only within the Town.
sthip-of*Waltetield, and not fur the purpose of its being sent to
places out of the manor.
His linnnslin, said, that the main question for the consi-
derationofthe Jury was, whether all the inhabitants were bound
to do snit at the one set of mills or the other, and after ex-
pounditag the law at great length, left it to the Jury to say
what they believed to be the ancient custom, and to warn a
verdict accordingly.
The .Jury, at Rix o'clock, retired to consider their. realist ;
and, at half-past ten o'clock, when the mail left for London,
they had not returned.
ron TITE CITY.
Before the Hon. Mr. Baron t.r.ncic, the Loan MAYOR,

and a Bench of magistrates.
Michael Bell, a young man of extremely gentlemanly
leportment, Was put to the bar, charged on the Coroner's In•
pest with manslaughter. The following i. a brief ()aline or
be ease t

The prisoner and the deceased it appeared were acquainted
with each other. On a particular evening, the prisoner and the
deceased, (with snme other persons in company' woe passing
up one of the streets of York, when the deceased italloed out to
the prisoner " You black -, where are you going ?" which,
offending the prisoner, it quarrel ensued, and the prisoner (who
had a stick in his "hand) struck the deceased on the head, and
inflicted a wound, of which wound he died sometime afterwards.
The prisoner at, first absconded, but delivered himself up soon
after to justice, and was this day put moon his trial. The
highest character for humanity vat given Mm. tlis Lordship
sentenced him to 14 days' imprisonment.

EDINBURGH.

COURT OF JUSTICIARY, MAncil 22.

, APPLAT. CASE—TRIAL nit JURY.
Sli ARP againd DurrICAN, Proeurator.Fiseul of Perthshire.
The decision In this ease deserves to be noticed, as it goes
to protect and extend the constitutional privilege of trial by

jury.
The suspender, Graee Sharp of Al'Hwan, wife of Alexander
11P Ewan, carter in Perth, was, on the 424.1 February last, con-
vened before the Sheriff-substitute of Perthshire, upon a crirni.
nal libel at the instance of the Procurator, fiscal of that county,
charging her with having stolen from the person of William
Whyte, flesher in Kinross, a red leather pneket.hnok, contain.
ing Bank-notes to the amount of 141. 7s. The libel concluded,
that site " ought and should be punished by fine, imprison.
ment, and banishment from the county, or all or any of the said
punishments." The suspender pleaded Not Guilty tO the
charge; and several witneoses were examined for the prosecutor;
after which the sheriff pronounced judgment. finding the libel
proven, and adjudging the suspender to be impriooned within
the Tolbooth of Pettit for the space of Nix months and there•
after to be banished from the county of Perth for de.
Of this sentence the sitspentier complained to the Court of
Justiciary, by Bill of Suspension and Liberation, upon several
rounds; but she insisted particularly, that the case ofiiitt to
have been tried by a ury ; and founded, in support fifth's plea
on various elms, particularly that of Michael 1114Millarx0.14th
December 1818. The ('hurt upon
Febraary upon advising the bill. and hear.
log counsel for the parties (27
111260 t.Ordain them
to give in minutes of debate upon the subject matter of' the
said bill, with a view to the case being thereafter deter.
mined by a full Bench." The case again came before
the Court today; when the Judges present (Lordo Jll/1.
lice-Clerk, Ciillies, Pitmilly, and Alackenzie) unanh»ous deli-
vered an opinion, that the charge in the libel before the She.
fier
riff wax of that nature that ought to have been tried by a Jury,
The following interlocutor was thereupon pronounced Tii,
Lords, in respect of the nature or the crime charged againet the
complainer, find that the Sheriff ought to hate proceeded in the
and grant
trial of this case with the assistance of a Jury : Therefore,
war-
sus.
pentl the sentence complained of tin'plie
rant for setting the complainer et liberty,"
44.10

It appearS that the poor rates in the counts of
Suffolk, for the lust ten years, have fcee,.ded
the previous ten years five hundred per cent.;
and the county rates for the like period have in.
creased upwards of eight hundred per rent.