Star.
London, England, 1808-11-10 00:00:00

ust•nr.

Mr. SCARLET? moved for leave to compound cer.l
tam penal actions for usury, upon payment of 30001.
penalty to the Crown, and 30001. to the prosecutor.
Mr. R/CHARIDEOti consented for the Plaintiff. -
The Cot:nr seemed to think that the Crown was
sometimes seriously defrauded by motions of this
kind, and intimated an intention of adopting the rule
of the Court of Common Pleas, which requires an
affidavit of the service of motions of this kind on the
Solicitor to the Treasury.—Motion granted.

EARL V. HARDY.

Mr. Serjeant CoeKELL moved for a Rule to chew'
cause why there should not be a new trial. This was
a cause tried at the last Assizes for the County of
Cumberland, before Mr. Baron GRAHAM. The
plaintiff was the proprietor of a mill on the Cairn,
which mill he rented of Mr. Howard. The defen-
dant held certain meadow land above this mill, and
the action was brought to recover compensation for
an injury done to the working of the mill, in con-
sequence of a bay which the defendant had made to
detain the water of the stream (or the purpose of ir-
rigating his meadows, which detairad, in dry sea-
sons, no less than a third of the water of this stream,
until the land was saturated, and then it flowed as
usual ; but this, on many occasions, had greatly im•
peded the working of the plaintiff's mill. At the
time when the defendant was making this bay, he was
told it was likely to impede the mill, and if it did, he
must fill it up ; and when it was put in use it had
that effect, of which the defendant had notice, toge-
ther with a request to discontinue its use, which he I
disregarded, upon which this action was brought.-1
The Learned Judge thought the action of gather a 1
novel nature, and seemed to think that in the pro.
gressive improvement of agriculture, this mode of
fertilizing the soil by irrigation, ought to be impeded
as little as possible ; here the defiendant did not in-
tend to injure the plaintiff's mill. Now the Learn-
.ed Serjeant considered this in the light of a misdirec-
tion, for there was no sovelty in the principle of the
action, neither was the intention of the defendant any
thing to the purpose. Rule granted tp shew cause

HILL V. SUITII.

Mr. Serjeant WILLIAMS moved for a Rule to shew
cause why the verdict should not he set aside, and a
new trial had. It was tried at the last Assizes at
Worcester—the last cause there tried before Mr.
Justice LE BLANC. It was an actioa for taking the
plaintiff's corn. The defendant pleaded the general
issue, and four special pleas besides : Ist. That the
Corporation of Worcester (under whom the defen-
dant claimed a right to take this corn, by way of toll
for corn sold in the market) have► universally repair-
ed, at their own expence, the highways and pavement
of the Corn-market, and other streets in the city of
Worcester ; and, on that account, are entitled to take
toll for wheat 4, sold in the market by sample," and
afterwards brought into the city to be delivered to
the buyer. There were two issues to this egect.—
The others were immaterial, because they were ne-
gatived by the Jury. It appeared in evidence, that
until about forty years ago there was no such thing
as a sale of corn in this market by sample—that is,
a sale by bringing a Tittle bag and selling a bulk
which was not in the market, by the corn in that bag,
which is the universal notion of a sale by sample ;
_said thesefees *glib* that they wale entitled from