Star.
London, England, 1825-07-21 00:00:00

'~

01- :77.

.7,14,••77,

,

_

.oe illegal, and en consent could tnake‘glent legal;
all t' e county brisk there cOold not snake them less
xe offence. They were unlawful assemblies, and
every one going to them was guilty of an offence.
The inconvenience in the country was not so great, bu'
nearer Lqidon Ilse quantity of crime these fights led to
was immense, and be did -hope they would be put a
stop to; his advice to the Magistrates and cenrables
was, in eases *heti they had information of a fight, to
weave rte combatants beforehand, to t..ke them to a
Magistrates, and compel them to enter into securities
to testis the peace till the next -Assiers or Sessions, and
il.tliey v:ould nnt en er into such security, to o mmit
them to prison. In this way the fights would be
stopeed, ft r if there were no cc mbatantsabere would be
ro fights. But in many cases Pear London, where ibis
I id not been done, the ratty went along the banks of
11 c Thames, and if the Magistrates prevented the fight
i:t one county, they crossed the river and got into
another, where, though some of the fights were pre-
vented, others on the con'rary were net.
The Jury found the prisoners Guilty, but they were mom.
led to mercy Icy bir. iliggsand Mr. Rogers; upon which Mr.
u,iice sitouou only sentenced them to be severally imprisoned
tlr a month, and to enter into their own recognizance, in ICU to
keep the peace for a year.
George irritate/4 alias Inteaterrp, alias Alvaro, was charged
with marrying Sarah Archer, his former wife, Ann Whiteeeztr,
bring still alive.—He pleaded Guilty.
This case concluded the Worcester Assize.
The Commission is to open at Stafford on Thursday afternoon.
SALISBURY, JULY 19.
LOVEDAY V. CANNING AND ANOTHlift.
• This was an action of trespass brought against the
defendants. who are Overseers of the parish of Osborne
St. George, in this city, for having in March last forci-
bly ejected the plaintiff from a house occupied by him
in that parish during the last four years. •
It was given-in. evidence for the plaintiff, that, in the
month of March last, the defendants broke into the
house occupied by the plaintiff, threw his firniture into
the street, and forcibly ejected himself and family. It
was however elicited, in the course .of cross-examino-
tion, that, although Loveday bad inhabited .'the house
in question four years, he had never paid'any rent.
Witnesses deposed that the house was not in a.situa:
tion to be rentable and scarcely tenantable, so. moth
was it out of repair. The windows were. all without
glais, and the plaintiff offered a shilling a week for the
house if they were glaxed. The house appeared to have
been a parish house, and after the, plaintiffs family were
ejected they occupied another house Olio belonging to
the parish. .
/Ur the detente it was stated that thaplaintiff was. a pauper. and
the parish Medi ejected hint lest be should establish a. claim to
the property of the house. • • • • •
Mr. Justice GAMED thought the parish officers had
exercised a sound discietion in compelling the plaintiff
to take up his residence in another house. They had
only done whit they were authorised to do, to event
the pauper horn claiming theimuse as his own.
Plaintiff's Counsel proposed tt- withdraw a juror, which was con.
seatcd to on !brother side. and.a juror was sccordiagly withdrawn.
James siiiite was indicted for stealing a sheep at Der-
wick St. John, in this county. the property of Mr. King.
It appeared in evidence. that on Sunday, the 10th July,
a sheep from the flock cf
.the prosecutor was found.
missing. A back was discovered near the-fold, which
led in the direction of the prisoner's door, in whose
house a quantity of the meat was found, and the skin
and other parts of the sheep in a well near the door,
which were all identified-at .the presecutor's.ooGstiffy.
nottai-eitoLtoo. • •
•William Bassage (brotightisy habeas corpus from the
Surrey county gaol) was indicted for feloniously steal-
ing, on the lath November last, a nag 'mare, the pro-
petty of Abraham Hawkins; in the parish of Berwick
St. Lronata, in this County—Not
Levi Burton and lidchcr. Dicks, were indicted for
having feloniously
,stolen a Mari, the property of Hum-
phry Gifford. at North Cadbury, in the county of So-
merset, on the Ist July, and a mare pony, the property
of James Parsons, at South Cadbury, Somerset.
The Jury found Burton Guilty, and Dicks Not Guilty. •
Judgmet:: of &ails-wit recorded against' Burton. He was in•
formed by the Learned Judge that though in alkprobability his life
would be spared, yet he would assuredly be sent out of the country.
Be:;:her Dicks was then put on hisarial, for stealing a
black mare pony, the property of Thomas Parsons. at
South Cadbury, Somerset, on the Ist of July. (This
becarile necessary; as the acquittal in the last case arose
from a Cause entioOs doubt, whether the two prisoners
errs actually Connected in-the ahstraction of each of the
anisnals,"Cre whether each was not a separate and dis-
tinct felon ~Conamitted only by the individual who was
in i oil e*siOri of the property ?). The evidence of the loss
of the pithy, Of its being seen in the possession of the
pi isooer, haling offered it for sale, and of his ap-
prehension, was precisely the same as that given in the
formats caw.
Tic Jury . tesursetreVerdict orrantity.-:-ludgment of Death was
recorded againvi the prismsei, to velum alto it was intimated that
be would be sent not of the country.
James Smith-and Robert .Jliries (brought up by
labcim corpus • finsn the Surrey county gaol) were in-
dicted for feloniously stealing, on the 7th November, a
brown gelding, the ;mopes ty of James Bosh( ry, at Salis-
bury ; and William liassage was indicted for feloniously
receiving the same, knots ing it to be stolen.—Guilty.
• • YORK. JULY 19,,
• •
At the opening of tbe Court this. morning, Mr. J.
Ws Lyistsle appeitted•lo 'shear cause why the High
Bailiff isf.the Seigneiy Holderness,• in this county.
should not be finedfor notasbeyi4 the precept of the
High Sheriff, requiring him to return a certain number
of Jitto's hem, the 'said Seignoiy. There were two'
principal gioyuds oti viAtcWahe refusal, of the High
Bailiff were to be justified: -The first was a grant made
lLy King Chaalei the Second, to Lord Viscounts Dunbar,
and hiss Wits, conferring supon them and him, in lined
succeision, the eicluinve priVillge of having the re-
turn and execotion of all -writs, processes, mandates,
oar-rants, and precepts, cf his •siid Majesty, his heirs,
and suCcelsors, within the '-said Wapentake of HoWer-
ness, unless upon default of the officals and bailiffs of
the said Vissount Dunbar, and with the special writ of
;•elll Othittiii. in that• Case first had and'lrovided. Now,
t • essi, t Thos; Constable-claimed to be the heir of tie
Visoufit 'Dants;iv, and therefore entitled to exemption.I
—The second ground on which he.contendedahat Sir
Thomis.Coristablie Abght Matt, be fined was, that' being •
a Roman Catholic, he Wed it incompatible withhis re.,
ligicui dittiepo take the-oithoecesiary to qualify bim
to undertake or diicharge• the 'clustiesscd ;the office of
High Baififraf•the Holdernest. r Fine; then
was the grant of exernpticor,•:orvtivilege granted shy-
King Charles; arid 'next aheie has Ithe.,factk 'that the
High Bailiff. being a Catholic, could not qualify so as
to enable him to fulfil the duties of that situation:—
tinder such circumstances, therefore, he submitted bat
no hat si.ould be inflicted on Sir Thomas Constable.