The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-31 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-OXFORD, JULY 27.
WHITE V. WHITE.

This was an action by an old farmer, upwards of
80 years of age, living at Beddington, in this county,
against his own brother, 76 years of age, residing at
Tuncot, to recoier the value of 40 sheep and three
calves, alleged to have been sold 23 years ago.
The Jury found for the defendant.
DoE, ON THE DEMISE OF ROBERTS AND OTHERS V. WHI-

TAKER.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the
lessors of the plaintiffs against the defendant, to re-
cover possession of a, mansion and three acres of
land, being part of an estate called the Bampton
Deanery in this county ; and the principal question
was, whether the locus in quo was part of an estate
called the Hanks' estate, which had been in posses-
sion of that family so far back as the reign of
Charles I.

The only incident worthy of observation is the
course of the trial was the manner in which the de-
fendant,'Mr. Whitaker, got into possession of the
property in question. The mansion, with the sur-
rounding estate, of which the three acres was only
part, was recently in the possession of Mr. Whi-
taker, who was heir at law by a former mar-
riage. The land being copyhold, Mr. Whitaker,
previous to his death, surrendered to the Lord,
and .a fresh grant was made to certain trustees
far his wife. After the death of Mr. Whitaker;
Mrs. Whitaker resided in the mansion for a short

time, and then went away, leaving a man named
Williams in possession for her. The defendant
called a few days afterwards, in company with another
gentleman, saying he wished to show his friend one
of the rooms. Williams, suspecting something, said
he would go up stairs with them, which he accord-
ingly did. After a short time Mr. Whitaker went
out of the house by himself, leaving his friend within.
Williams's suspicions still continued, and Mr. Whita-
ker's friend having gone into the garden for a few
seconds, Williams immediately locked and barred
all the doors. - The gentleman earnestly begged to
be re-admitted, but Williams obstinately refused, and
went down into the kitchen, thinking'all was safe,
but shortly after heard footsteps and some one
whistling up stairs. He proceeded to ascertain who
it was, when he found that Mr. Whitaker's friend
had entered by the drawing-room window.—
Williams asked him what business he had there,
and how he had got in, ordering him to quit
the premises immediately. The friend 411eged
he would not do this, as Williams had locked the
door, and wished him to open it, Mr. Whitaker
having by this time returned. Earnest solicitations
were made for Williams to open the door; and,
after much discussion, to the no small surprise of
Williams, Mr. Whitaker's friend produced the key,
unlocked the door, and let in Mr. Whitaker. Some
furniture was afterwards brought, and from that time
to the present, Mr. Whitaker had continued in pos-
session. He claimed as the rightful heir-at-law of
his father, the late Mr. Whitaker, alleging that the
mansion-house and three acres of land in question
were not part and parcel of the ancient estate called
Hanks estate.

The Jury found for the plaintiff, subject to the
opinion of the Court above on these points.
Thomas Birch was indicted; charged with having
on the night of the 4th January last, broken and
entered the house of. William Pegg, of Islip, and
stolen therefrom a quantity of shop goods; and
Mary Smith was 'indicted for having received the
same, knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. CROSS conducted the case on the part of the
prosecutor, and, in detailing the evidence, observed
that as the principal evidence against the prisoners
would be elicited from an accomplice, unless the
Jury were satisfied that his 'testimony was sufficient-
ly corroborated by other circumstances, they must
acquit the prisoners.
The prosecutor identified the different articles as
his property, lost on the night of the robbery.
The prisoners, in their defence, said they could
prove the property to be theirs, if they were in
London. •

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having summed up, the
Jury found the prisoner Birch guilty of the burglary,
and Smith guilty of receiving the goods, blowing
them to have been stolen.'

Both Courts sat from half-past eight in the morn-
ing till half-past ten at night.

SATURDAY, JULY 28.

This morning, at half-past eight o'clock, Thomas
Birch and Mary Smith, convicted last night, the one
of stealing and the other of receiving certain goods
stolen from the house of Wm. Pegg, at Islip, were
put to the bar to receive sentence.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, after commenting on
the enormity of their offence, ordered that sentence
of death should be recorded against Birch, and sen-
tenced Mary Smith to be transported for 14 years.
THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF OXFORD V. FERRIDAY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs to re-
cover from the defendant nominal damages for evad-,
ing the rights of the citizens of this city, bytrading,
within the limits, contrary to the various charters
from the reign of Henry 1., which limitedthe right
of trading to free citizens, the widowS 44itizens,
and; by a custom 'since obtained, to person] matri-
culated by the University.
. The charters and prescriptive custom were proved,
creating Oxford a city, as far back as the reign of
Henri 1., and the usage above stated.
The defendant, who is an extensive manufacturer
of china and dell, in Staffordshire, had come to this