The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-24 00:00:00

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—HEREFORD, Aua. 22.

Thomas Jo;zes and Samuel Higgins were indicted,
charged' with having feloniously stolen and taken
away, on the night of the 9th of April last, one
Niether sheep, the property of John Bannister.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN having summed up, the Jury
found the prisoners " Guilty. . .
The Learned judge then addresscd•the prisoners,
and Said, that the crime of which they had beeil found
guilty had proceeded to such an extent, that no
farmer's property was safe, and he did not know, on
consideration, whether he should not be under the
necessity of allowing the law to take its course. He
had -great difficulty in prevailing on himself, but
their lives would probably be spared : but they'must
expect to leave the country for life.—Sentence of
death was then recorded.
The wife of one of the prisoners, who had been
watching the trial with the most intense anxiety,
and had evinced great intelligence in calling the
witnesses to character, on hearing the last sentence
of the law mentioned, changed colour, and clenched
her hands together, seemingly to implore mercy, but
uttered not a word; and, when she heard that her
husband must leave the country for life, she dropped
from her seat in a swoon. It was not till the Learn-
ed. Judge had called out to the bystanders to assist
her, that the stupid fellows by whom she was sur-
rounded thought of carrying her out of Court. •

HOLDER V. COATES.

Mr. WHITCOMBE opened the pleadings, and
stated that this was an action brought by the plain-
tiff, who is lessee of a part of the Scatterbrain
estate, to recover from the defendant a compensa-
tion in damages for felling an oak tree, 132 years of
age; the main question in the cause being, whether
the tap-root of the tree grew out of a bank belong-
ing to the plaintiff, or out of the land of the de-
fendant.

Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL, for the plaintiff, stated
that this action was not brought to recover the value
of the tree in question, so much as to decide the
boundaries of the respective estates. r The plaintiff
was the tenant of a gentleman of property, who be-
came possessed of the Scatterbrain estate on his
marriage. The defendant was an attorney of re-
spectability, residing at Leominster, in this county,
and the lands of both parties adjoined each other.—
The tree in question grew out of a bank which was
part of the property,demised to the plaintiff, and it
would be clearly established that the main root of
that tree was in that property. The Learned Coun-
sel understood that the defendant, who was a lawyer,
had no less than 3R witnesses, but he was utterly
ignorant what defence it was intended to set up;
but no doubt it would be a very ingenious one, as
Mr. Coates was a very ingenious man.
Several witnesses were then called on the part of

the plaintiff to prove that the tree in question grew 1
out of a hedge-row, which was on the top of a hank
forming the boundary line between the lands of the
plaintiff and defendant.
On cross-examination, however, it appeared that
the tap-root of thee went perpendicularly down
into the soil and freehold of the defendant. It also
appeared, that when an oak grew naturally from an
acorn it always had a main tap-root; but when it
grew from a transplanted seedling, the root forked
out into what are termed spur-roots, and some of
the spur-roots of the tree in question had been cut
off between the trunk and bank, which was the
boundary.
Six of the Jury had had a view, but they wished
the defendant's case to proceed.

Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, considered this
perfectly a scatter-brain action, but was glad the
Jury wished him to go on, as he was confident, that
when they had heard the evidence on both sides,
the present question would be for ever set at rest.
There could be no doubt that the oak, the subject
of the present action had never been planted, but,
had grown from accident, some acorn having been
dropped there, possibly from the beak of a bird ; and
the Jury, who had seen the remaining root, must
have observed that the tap-root was in the soil of
the defendant. In fact, 'it was so far distant from
the bank, that the defendant had for years ploughed
his land within the line of this tree to the foot of the
bank—had planted potatoes there, and reaped them ;
and he had also planted a row of young trees closer
to the bank than the old oak in dispute, over which
he had exercised acts of ownership by lopping side
branches' long before the real plaintiff's marriage
brought him to the Scatterbrain estate.
The Learned Counsel then called a host of wit-
nesses, who proved numerous acts of ownership on
,the part of the defendant, and corroborated the prin-
cipal part of his opening statement.
After a tedious trial, which occupied the greater
part of the day, the Jury found a verdict for the de-
fendant.
The trial of the prisoners, it is expected, will
conclude to-day.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-BRIDGEWATER, Aug. '22.

PAYNE V. POLLARD.—DEFAMATION.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, in stating this case to the
jury, said that the plaintiff was a brewer, and tke
defendant a wine and spirit merchant. They had
formerly been intimate associates, but had since se-
parated in consequence of some unpleasant differ-
ences. After these list occurred, the defendant
thought proper to defame the plaintiff's character by
the severest calumnies, which in some degree re-
ceived currency from the known intimacy that had
previously subsiSted between them. Such was the
effect of defendant's imputations, that the plaintiff's
partner had dissolved his connexion with him, by
which he had sustained a deep injury. At length
he appealed to a jury of his country for the redress
to which,
h under suck circumstances, they should
The Jury, after a snort consultation, found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff--Damages, 1001.
in entitled.