The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-31 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY DISCOVERY.

A cave, worthy to have been the retreat of
Gil Blas, has just been discovered on the Dale '
Park Estate, near Arundel, the seat of T. R.
Kemp, Esq. M.P. The entrance is by a trap-
door carefully concealed beneath a tree, and the
approach is so ingeniously contrived as almost to
defy detection. It was found accidentally by a
woodman about a fortnight ago, who observing
some dry furze, pulled it up, when it appeared
to have been merely placed upon the earth by
way of covering. This induced him to prose-
cute the search, and the existence of the cave
being then ascertained, information was sent to
the steward, who went over to Dale Park, and
on Monday last the cave was formally opened.
It is about six feet square, and six feet high, and
is fitted up with such extreme care and nicety,
as leaves no room for doubting that it has been
done by an experienced workman. There is in
one corner a grate formed of bars, with a chimney
of plaster, covered with boards, terminating at the
top of the cave, and stopped outside by a sort of
turf plug, from which circumstance it is supposed
it was not used during the day. There:are no tables
or chairs, and the floor consists of the chalky
soil. The cave presented evident appearances
of having been recently inhabited ; and there is
little doubt that it was the hiding-place of the
men by whom the robbery was committed last
winter at the seat of Mr. Huskisson, at Eart-
tham, a table cloth and cloak having been found
in the cave, which were identified by the servants.
Eartham is about three miles from the spot.
The two men by whom it is supposed the above
robbery was committed, were transported at the
last Lewes Assizes, for (we believe) another
offence ; and they are also thought to have been
connected with a gang, by which great depreda-
tions were committed some time back at Slin-
don. This suspicion is strengthened by the
fact of one of the gang having been a carpenter,
which would account for the ingenuity displayed
in the internal arrangements of the cave. Sinc©
Monday great numbers of persons from Bognor,
Worthing, 8:c. have visited the place. This is
not the only discovery of the kind which has
been made on the Dale Park estate, a cave of
nearly the same dimensions having been disco-
vered about a year ago ; the latter was in all pro-
bability a place of resort for smugglers, and no-
thing was found in it but a pair of leather gaiters.
Since the above discovery was made, it has
been recollected that one day when the hounds
were out last winter, several dogs stopped exactly
on this spot, and fought for some time. The
circumstance attracted little attention at the mo-
ment, but it is now supposed they were con-
tending for some bones which had been thrown
out by the inmates of the cave. Most of the
materials used in fitting it up have been iden-
tified ai stolen property. The roof is formed of
boards, covered with lead, the whole being again
oovered with earth ; and it is now found that
the lead, which was stolen in considerable quan-
tities from the piggeries at Dale Park during
the winter, was appropriated to this purpose.
There were also in the cave, when it was opened,
a number of carpenter's tools, as many as six-
teen, which have been identified.—Brighton
Paper.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

THE LOVAT PEERAGE.

Mr. ADAMS stated that he appeared for Mr. Thomas
Alexander Fraser, who had succeeded to the estates of Lord
Lovat, heir of Hugh, fifth Lord Lovat, who died in 1554,
and who has presented a petition to this House, praying
the House to declare that he was, as he claimed to be,
entitled to the title of Baron of Lovat. The Peerage of
Lovat was of very ancient date ; it was granted before
the introduction of letters patent into Scotland, and
that introduction took place in the reign of King James
the Sixth. Hugh, the fifth Lord Lovat, sat in the
Scotch Parliament, which gave an undoubted right to the
present claimant to the Barony, provided he proved his
descent as heir of the body of that Lord. The fifth Lord
bad a son, who was the sixth Lord, and the petitioner
had descended from the second son of Alexander, the sixth
Lord Lovat. The Learned Counsel felt himself able to
shew that the sixth Lord was the heir of the fifth, and that
all the children of the eldest son of the sixthlad died without
issue. After having shown that, and that there was no
person to enter into competition with the claimant, he had no
doubt the House would consider that the prayer of the
claimant ought to be granted.
Mr. John Anderson called :—I have searched the pro-
per office, but found no patent. Mr. Robertson is the
Registrar. lam a writer to the signet. I have searched
on other occasions for patents, and this was the office
in which I have always searched. I understand that
there is no other office. I have here an extract from
the Scotch Parliament, dated the 14th March 1504, in
which the name of Lovat appears as one of the Peers. I
have also an office copy of a charter of King James the
Sixth, to Hugh Lord Fraser, Baron of Lovat, in which all
the lands of Lovat were united, and ordered to be called
the Barony of Lovat, for ever after.
Mr. Warmesly—l have here,' from the Parliament
Office, a copy of the return of the Scottish Parliament,
with respect to the Scotch Peerage to the House of Lords,
dated on the 12th January, 1739, in which Lord Lovat's
name appears.
Wm. Witham—l produce an office copy of the roll or
list of the Peers of Scotland, in which, amongst others,
the name of Lord Fraser of Lovat appears.
Mr. Anderson—l have here the finding of a Jury that
Hugh Lord Fraser of Lovat died in July, 1544. I have
next an extract from the Books of the Great Seal, dated in
1554, chewing that Alexander Lord Fraser was the heir of
Hugh Lord Fraser, his father. The witness next
produced office copies of services of Alexander Lord
Fraser of Lovat, as heir of the deceased Hugh Lord
Fraser of Lovat, his father ; also documents proving
that Lord Lovat had two eons, that the present claimant
was the descendant and heir to the second son, and that
there was no heir living to the first son.
Evidence was next produced, to show that there were in
existence no descendants of Simon, Hugh, Alexander, or
Thomas, sons of the ninth Lord Lovat.
The Loan CHAWCELLOIL observed, that from the
pedigree given in, it appeared thatthere were also two other
sons, James and William.
Mr. ADAMS said, that the names of the two latter, oc-
curred in a manuscript history of the family, and that this
was the only reason for introducing them into the pedigree.
This manuscript history brought them into life, and also
recorded their deaths. If it were potent to give them life,
the Learned Gentleman submitted that it was equally
panswer to questions from the toitl
coht3a lire
et. tol Anderson,
rkll
M.
satid
that, in searching through all the papers
of the family he had not seen the names of these, - his
(tams, in any leghl*totuitent. '
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Then it must be considered
that there is no legal evidence of its existence. ti
Mr. Anderson, in reply to other questions, said that
there was no register of births in either of the parishes in
which the Frasers formerly resided.
Lord ROSLYN—it; there a register'of deaths ?
Mr. Anderson—My Lord, there 1s -a strong objection
in Scotland of having deaths recorded.-;--(A laugh.)

After some further evidence was gone into,
Mr. ADA3IS said that he had exhausted his stock of
ammunition—he had in fact travelled through the evidence
much faster than was expected by those who had instructed
him.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the standing order
of the House had been suspended, with the view of ena-
bling them to go on whilst they had materials. His Lord-
ship subsequently refused to suspend the proceedings
for a quarter of an hour, to give the solicitor an opportu-
nity of sending for further documents; and it was finally
arranged that the case should come on after the Roscom-
mon Peerage, on Thursday next.

COURT OF ZING'S BENCH.
THE KING V. BELL AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment prefejEcd agajtist foii'pirsons
named Bell, Jenkins, Norris, and Rice,
bers of the Bakers' Company, for an assault on Thomas
Jacks, also a member of the said Company.
Mr. PLATT conducted the prosecution.
It appeared from the evidence of the witnesses for the
prosecution that the Company had a dinner at their hall
on the 27th of November last, at which all the
above persons were present. After dinner, a :member
named Dickson, who sat beside Jacks, made a speech,
which the generality of the company did not relish,
in consequence of which some clamour was excited. Jacks
appeared to be very unpopular among his brethren in con-
sequence of selling his bread cheaper than they did theirs,
anti Bell and Jenkins, who, with the rest, had a grudge
against him, took advantage of the confusion created by
Dickson, to turn the attention of the company to Jacks.—
Bell, addressing him, said, " What a pretty scamp
you are—you are a disgrace to the trade ;" and
Jenkins said " that no honest man should sit near
him." By these words and similar language they succeeded
in raising a cry of " turn him out, we will have no six-
penny-halfpenny man here," alluding to loaves which he
then sold at that price. Upon which Rice pushed him
out of the room, and shoved him down stairs, at the bot-
tom of which, the other defendant, Norris, got hold of him
and forced him out at the door.
MI. BLACKBURN for the defendants, called several wit-
nesses, but none of them contradicted the main facts as
above stated.
Lord TENTERDEN in summing up, told the Jury, that
though Bell and Jenkins had not actually participated in
the assault ; yet, because they instigated the two others to
the commission of it, they ought to be found guilty.
The Jury found all the defendants Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
BERM' V. PEACOCK.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the case.—The plaintiff
lived in the neighbourhood of Walworth. Mr. Peacock
applied some time since to the Magistrates to license a pub-
lic-house, and Mr. Berry and other inhabitants represented
to the Magistrates that it was unnecessary to license the
house and might be injurious to the neighbourhood, because
it was supposed 64 Mr. Peacock did not intend to keep
the house in his own possession. Air. Berry's conduct on
this occasion appears to have excited the dislike of Mr. Pea-
cock, and a method was taken to insult his feelings, and
bring on him the ridicule of a whole neighbourhood. A figure
was formed with a plaster of Paris face, dressed like Mr.
Berry, and hung outside the house, for which the license
was applied. The defendant's sons stood in the street
attracting the notice of the crowd, and pointing to the ef-
figy, and to the plaintiff's house. Upon the figure was
written in large letters—" Jerry Elderberry, Paul Pry,
Carter-street." The effigy was left hanging in this situa-
tion for several hours, and the consequence was, that Mr.
Berry became an object of contempt and ridicule. He was
known throughout the neighbourhood as Paul Pry, and
would probably retain the name for the rest of hie life, un-
less the Jury in their judicial character, showed their dis-
approbation of the insult which had been offered to him.
Mary JameL: sworn—Was a servant in Mr. Berry's fa-
mily in March last. Mr. Berry lives in Carter-street,
Walworth. Air. Peacock is a timber-merchant. figure
was placed opposite Mr. Berry's house on the 6th March
last. Witness saw it at as early an hour as six in the
morning. It was hanging between the first and second
floor, and was so like Mr. Berry that witness nearly fainted
when she saw it.—(A laugh.)—There were crowds of
persons around looking at the effigy. Under it was writ-
ten, " Elderberry, Paul Pry, Carter-street." The figure
continued in the same position for about two hours. The
young Peacocks were looking at the effigy as if they knew
nothing about it.
Cross-examined—The house where the effigy hung, was
untenanted, but it was let to Mr. Powel. Witness heard
from the plaintiff that it was Mr. Peacock's carter that
took down the effigy.
J. W. Berry stated, that he is the son of the plaintiff.
He remembered seeing his father's effigy hanging outside a
house in Carter-street. The resemblance of dress and figure
was so exact, as to strike every one. There was a great
mob looking at it, amongst others witness saw the defend-
ant's sons. He proceeded to defendant's house, and asked to
see him. The defendant's son said his father was not at
home. Witness said lie came to give Mr. Peacock notice
that he bad hung up an effigy of his (witness's) father, and
he now came to give Mr. Peacock notice, that he might
not plead ignorance. The effigy was not taken down for
two hours after this ; and, before it had been taken down,.

witness saw Mr. Peacock in the street, looking st the

effigy, and smiling.
Miss Harriet Berry deposed that she saw the defendant's
son, the preceding evening, in the room outside of which
the effigy was hung, and he appeared to be measuring the
space between the windows.
J. Powel was called to prove that be had taken the
house outside which the effigy hung, from Mr. Peacock.—
Witness did not take possession of the house until the 25th
March, but for some months before, whilst the house was
being repaired, he was in the habit of going to the house,
and always got the key from the landlord, Mr. Peacock.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDY then addressed the Jury for the
defence. He said his client knew nothing at all of the
effigy which had been put up. He admitted that if Mr.
Peacock was base enough to ridicule his neighbour
by means of an effigy, the imputation and the ridi-
cule would fall, not on the plaintiff, but on Mr. Pea-
cock himself. Some petitions were produced from the
Magistrate's Office, to which the plaintiff's name was
attached ; but was not this a most weak and infirm attempt
to support the tharge against Mr. Peacock ? The evi-
dence of the plaintiff's son was, that half an hour after the
defendant saw the figure it was taken down. Did this ap-
pear as if Mr. Peacock sanctioned the proceeding ? The
fact was, he disclaimed having any knowledge of the
transaction. It might have been one of his sons—it might
have been any one else; but Mr. Peacock himself knew
nothing about it : the moment he saw it he ordered it to be
taken down. He offered on the spot one guinea
as a reward for any information as to the person who
hung it up. He declared himself quite incapable of
sanctioning such a proceeding, and ashamed that such a
charge should be made against him. As to the plaintiff
himself, he had done more to propagate and perpetuate the
ridicule, than even the defendant bad.
John Garratt proved, that he saw Mr. Peacock the
morning the effigy was hung up, he appeared very much
distressed, and said he would give any one a guinea to tell
him who had fixed the effigy. He then went home, and in
witness's presence ordered his servant to go and take down
the figure immediately.
William Pr, ittler, the carter of Mr. Peacock,
took down the effigy by order of his master.—
The defendant offered witness a guinea reward if
he could find out who it was set up the effigy,
and desired him to take it down immediately. It ap-
peared that some one had entered the house by a back-
window, during the night. When the witness was taking
down the figure, Mr. Berry saw him, and said, " it is too
late now for Mr. Peacock, the mischief is done."

Mr. Sergeant Wanx having replied,
The CHIEF Jusrica summed up, and left it to the Jury
to say, whether the effigy wa:► put up by the knowledge of
the defendant, and if so exhibited, whether it was meant
to represent the plaintiff. If the Jury believed it was
meant to represent the plaintiff, it should not be considered
a good-humoured joke, but as an act of deliberate malice.
If the plaintiff had done an injury to the defendant by peti-
tioning against his house being licensed, it was Rot fair, or
manly, or like an Englishman, to show his resentment by a
dark and secret attempt to hurt the feelings of the plaintiff.
Let the Jury place themselves in Mr. Berry's situation, and
that would be their best guide in apportioning the damages,
for though the transaction was calculated to excite laughter,
that was the very thing which the plaintiff had to com-
plain of.
Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 1201.