The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-03 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

Ann Wilson, aged 24, was indicted for stealing a watch and
a sum of money to the amount of 305., the property of William
Cluff, from his person.
The prosecutor stated that at about half-past twelve in the
morning of the Ist February, he was accosted on
London-bridge by the prisoner who importuned him
for something to drink. Witness, who acknowledged that he
was in liquor at the time, but not drunk, replied that he had
no money about him. The prisoner then put her hand into
his waistcoat-pocket, and felt some silver there. She imme-
diately took him by the arm and led him into Leadenhall
Market, where witness soon found that both his watch
and money were gone. He then accused the pri-
soner of robbing him ; and, in the meantime, a strange
man came up and said he knew the young woman well, and
that she was incapa: le of robbing any one. A policeman came
and took the woman into custody, but the man had previously
absconded. Witness further stated that a ribbon round
his neck, attached to his watch, had been cut ;
and a penknife was found in the hand of the prisoner,
when she had been arrested by the policeman. She had also
a sum of money amounting to that lost by the prosecutor. The
watch, however, had not been found; and witness supposed it
hAd been taken away by the man who had come up to the par-
ties during their altercation.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and she was then sen-
tenced to four months' imprisonment, with hard labour.

. SPRING ASSIZES.
• OXFORD CIRCUIT.—Oxford, Feb. 28.
Mr. Justice Cresswell presided in the Civil Court, and Mr.
Justice Patteson in the Crown Court. The criminal business
at these Assizes was extremely light, the calendar containing
only fifty.eight prisoners, none of whom are charged with
offences of a serious character. On the civil side fifteen
causes are set down for trial, three of which will, in all proba-
bility, occupy some considerable time.

BAKER V. LECH3.2KRE.

Mr. Alexander and M, Valentine Lee appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Cripps, for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff in this case was rector of Upper Heyford, in
this county, the defendant being a Magistrate of the county,
residing-within two miles of the plaintiff, at Steeple Acton,
which is divided from Upper Heyford by the river Cheswcll
and the Oxford Canal. About twenty years since the plaintiff
(the Rev. W. Innes Baker) was .*presented to the rectory of
Upper Heyford by the Warden and Fellows of New College,
and the manor thereunto annexed of course passed with the
rectory. • For some cause, which did not transpire, the de-
, -fendant became afterwards possessed of the same manor, of
which the plaintiff had been deprived, and a considerable de-
gree.ofjealousy had in consequence arisen between the parties.
It appeared from the evidence adduced, that on the 11th
of October, last year, the plaintiff, accompanied by his two sons,
and a man named Jervis, went out to shoot over a piece of
rough groued called Heyford Leys. The defendant, who
-claimed the sole right of shooting over this piece of ground
came up to the plaintiff, and after first inquiring his name and
address, desired him to leave the land. This Mr. Baker declined
to do, whereupon Mr. Lechmere expressed his determination to
keep company with him all day and to pursue him whither-
soever
he went; The plaintiff, notwithstanding, continued in
the pursuit of game, and his dogs having put up a rabbit, the
defendant performed what is termed in sporting phraseology the
feat of" wiping his eye," whi,l consisted in firing across the
plaintiff's face. This unpleasant operation had not, however, the
effect of diminishing the plaint ff 's ardour, for he continued
beating for game till his dog pointed at a bush : instantly
the rival sportsmen rushed to the spot, the defendant suc-
ceeding in reaching the goal first, assumed a commanding
position, and placed his right foot with energy on the bush
immediately brfore the astonished pointer's nose ; the plaintiff,
accompanying his gesture with a push, stamped heavily upon
the defendant's foot ; a remonstrance, followed by a scuffle,
ensued, the particulars of which it is needless to recapitulate.
Suffice it to observe, that a blow which Mr. Baker received
from the defendant's gun, formed the ground of the ',resent
proceedings.
Some discrepancy appeared upon the statements of the dif-
ferent witnesses, as to the origin of the dispute, and as to which
party commenced the contest. The Jury, however, after a short
deliberation, determined in favour of the plaintiff, giving him a
verdict with 401. damages.