Star.
London, England, 1822-08-03 00:00:00

~;..

A

;.,,y
~

. • .7

14: • T.:*
*_f. • ,

,

•

•'i

77-711,;; "

•

. , _
allow an alteration to be tna;le in such a manner as' upon to establish lien legitimacy. A cogent and in
mit to throat the run of water wing some improve- resiatikle body of evidence was now offered, com.
merits that he had lately made. The soggestionsof the /sleety proving the legitimacy of Miss Fox..
prosecutor were consented to,endort April9th he sent Mr..Fierjeant noise, on the part of the defendant,
workmen on the road to make the alterations accord- expressed the conviction'of his client that
ing to the stipulations which had been entered into. there wits not trer:i.' tghtest doubt of the lessor of the
The men had no :miner began to breek up the path, Oxhide's title, and a verdict for the plaintiff was
titan the defendant hurried from his house, and In the vvrditigly recorded.
most intemperate manner began to abuse Mr. Roe, • TL AUER v. MEYMOTT, GEN,.
and denied ever having authoriced him to destroy This was an action of trespass for breaking Rade*.
the path ; and at the same time seized him by the tering.the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and seizing and
Collar, sg knuckled'shis face, and threw him with great carrying away goods and chattels, his property.
:violence into the road. The prosecutor would not The ease opened and proved on the part of the
desist from the work he had commenced, which so plaintiff was thist—The plaintiff was shopman in the.
ezasperated the defendant, that he repeated the as- set vice of Mr. Deboffre, of Ludgate-hill, and the de-
sault at three different timesi and ittlicted•consider-. fendant is a respectable Solicitor- For several yews
able punishment on Mr. Roe,behig a. powerful athle- the plaintiff had been weekly tenant of One of several
tic man, and a patron of, and practitioner in the pu- houses, the property of the defendant's father, it
gilistic art. An altercation took place between the King's-avert, Dover-street, at a weekly rent of sends
parties, in the course of which strong unpleasant lan- shillings. The defendant was one of the trustees
guage was used on both sides, but in the end Mr. under is father's will, and had given the plaintiff a
Roe was compelled to retire, and to forego making weekly notice to quit in the month of February 1.154
his projected alterations. Preparatory to quitting possession, a female, with
The LORD CHIEF JUsTICE interrupted the evidence whom the plaintiff lived, sought for astother dwelt:
by stating, that in his opinion both parties had acted ing. On the day when the trespass was allcged to
.wrong, and that the better course to adopt would be, have beet. committed, the tenancy had expired fior
to bind them over to keep the peace towards each about three days. Some of the plaintiff's goods re-
other in £lOO bonds. mained on the premises, such as a few articles of
This suggestion was at length adopted, but with crockery-ware, and a deal sideboard, all under tile
great reluctance on the part of Mr. Roe. value of £B. Whilst the plaintiff's housekeeper was
DUFF v. HALL. out its search of another domicile, the defendant cane
This.was an action brought by the plaintiff, a see- to the house, and finding it fastened up, and appa-
vant of Mr. Harrison, a Gentleman of large property, rently abandoned, proceeded to break open the door.
Jiving near Hull, against the defe .dant, to recover He first tried to kick it open, but the door not yield-
penalties undo' the Game Laws. _ ing,he obtained a crow-bar and a hatchet, and at last

ItraPpertied that the defendant was the son of a
Gentleman of good property, and a near neighbour
of Mr. Harrison, and that on the 11th of November
last he entertained several of his friends at his father's
house, when it was proposed either by Mr. Hall or
a Mr. Peacock, that they should go out coursing the
next day, and several Gentlemen present were in-
vited. li, however, occurred to Mr. Hall that he
was not qualified, and that he was surrounded by
some troublesome neighbours, and that therefore he
could not be the•leader of the day's amusement, al-
though he could command the use of his father's
dogs, and all other accommodations that might be
wanting; and in this dilemma it was proposed by
Mr. Peacock, who was a duly qualified Gentleman,
that the dogs should be lent to him, and then it was
presumed that the others could join him in the pur-
suit, without infringing the Game Laws. Accord-
ingly, the next morning, three or four Gentlemen
took the field, with five greyhounds, and in the
course of the day started three hares, but did not kill
any. It was distinctly. proved that the defendant was
seen-with the dogs, and was observed to call them
from a plantation, to which they were pursuing either
a rabbit or a hare, that was seeking a refuge from its
enemies. The action was brought to recover two pe-
nalties, the one for being abroad with the dogs for the
purpose of coursing, and the other for pursuing game.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed to the Jury,
that on one of the charges the defendant was entitled
to a verdict, because it had not been proved that he
had been pursuing game, there being some doubt
whether it was a rabbit or a bare that he was seen to
Call the dogs from. With respect to his being abroad
illegally with the dogs, for the purpose of hunting
game, that was question for the Jury to decide; it
was for them to say, whether he was the leader of
the sports, or whether the dogs had been, in their
opinion, lent to Mr. Peacock.
The Jury, after a very short consultation, returned
a verdict for the defendant.
DOE DEM. THOMAS AND WIFE D. ACKLAM.
This was a case of tedious pedigree, to prove that
an American lady, Mrs. Thomas, was heiress at law
to Miss Harrison, who died at Hull in the 'year 1818,
and left considerable property,without any. testamen-
tary disposition.
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK stated the case, which he
afterwards proved. Joseph Harrison had gone from
York to America, and been Cbmptroller of the Cus-
toms at Boston, in 1775. Peter Harrison, his youngest
brother, followed him to America, where he died,
leaving four children, who all died without issue, ex-
cept Elizabeth, who married Mr. James Ludlow, of
which marriage Mrs. Thomas was the only surviving
child. Miss Harrison, whose property was now in
question, had been the daughter of Joseph Harri-
son; and hone of the family or of their descendants
being now alive, but Mrs. Thomas, she was clearly
heiress at law.
Captain Acklam, Colonel Le Blanc, T.W.Ludlnw,
Counsellor at Law, of New Yell k, and Miss Brentham,
daughter of Admiral Brentbarn, were examined.
Mr. Serjeant HULLOCK then handed a miniature
picture of Mary Frances Ludlow (Mrs. Thomas) when
a child, which had been in the possession of Miss
Harrison, observing, " My Lord, I put in the lady
herself."--(The Barristers looked very -curiously at
this picture.)
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, " The Lady is
ried, Gentlemen !"

Mr. SCARLErT admitted that the only point on
which he could found an objection, was the lady's
being an alien..
The LORD CUM JUSTICE directed the Jury to
find a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion
of the Court as to the aliency. It. was surprising to
find a case so clearly made out at such a distance of
time and place.

GUILDFORD, JULY 31.
• DOE, DEM. FOX V. FOX.
This was an ejectment to recover the possession of
a freehold estate at Reigate, valued at 6001. per an-
num. The object of the action was to establish the
legitimacy of a young Lady, named Eleanor Douglas
Fox, grand-daughter of Mr. Fox, formerly a solicitor
of Parliament-street, Westminster, offspring of a clan-
destine marriage between Mr. Fox's eldest son and a
Miss Douglas, the daughter of a Mr. Douglas, for-
merly purser of the Royal George. The marriage in,
question was solemnized in 1795, and Miss Fox was
born in 1796. Upon the death of Mr. Fox, the grand-
father, who died intestate, leaving a large personal
property, estimated at 1000004 Miss Fox, the grand-
dAughter, was acknowledged as the heir at law of
Mr.',ltehn Fox, who died greatly embarrassed, and
was admitted td the possession of the estate in ques-.
tion ; but afterwards, in 'consequence of an anony-
mous letter, insinuating her illeitimacy, Mrs. Fox,
the widow and grand-mother; who had taken out ad-
niinistration, the lessor of the plaintiff WAS called

effected an entrance, and put another tenant into posL
session. The plaintiff's goods were never restored,
but it did not appear that they had ever been appro:
priated by the defendant.
Mr. MARRYATT contended, that in point of law
the defendant was justified in making a tOrcible entry
after the plaintiff's tenancy was expired. He was
prepared to spew that-the plaintiff had had legal no-
tice to quit, and that his tenancy had expired before
the alleged trespass. He cited 2 Tetm Reports, 431,
and 1 Price, SR, as authorities for his possessi,in.
Mr. Meymott, jun. son of the defendant, proved the
service upon the plaintiff of a weekly notice to quit
on the 26th of February list; but the plaintiff did
not quit. When the alleged trespass was commiaeil
the house was shut up, and appeared to be abandone.
Mr. GURNEY, in reply, contended, that there vas
no case which had ever yet decided that a landlord
might break open a house and obtain forcible pos-
session freely, because his tenant had held over a few
days after his tenancy had expired. Such a docti
would lead to the most dangerous consequences. It
would completely legalize a mode of ejectment, said
to be resorted to in another part of the island, wh.-:e
the roof of the house was sometimes take off to etlL:t
an ejection. Neither of the cases cited supported ii.e
proposition contended for on the part of the defendan::
and it would be a monstrous position to hold that
defendant's conduct was legal, merely because t! e
plaintiff had held over two or three days after Lis
tenancy had expired. Violence, bloodshed, and nag-
der might, in many cases, he the consequence, if a
landlord could exercise sad' a power.
The LORD CHIEF KAReN was clearly of ()onion,
that the.defenclant's conduct was unlawful, and could
not be justified under the general issue. The cases
cited did not appear applicable, and therefore he
would direct the Jury to tind their verdict tar the
plaintiff, with such damages as appeared to them to
be-just and reasonable, under all the circumstances.
The Jury immediately found their verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, 25/. costs, 40s.
CROWN SIDE.
Frantic Lundell was indicted for feloniously killing
and slaying Jahn Morris, on the 23d of May, in the
Parish oT Christchurch.
It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, who
is the • brother of a livery stable-keeper, had bor-
rowed a horse to :Ace a ride on the day in question.
As soon as he mounted the horse, which was young
and restive, not having been properly broken in,
it ran away with him down Blaoktriars-road. The
prisoner being unable to manage* him, •the horse ran
against the deceased, who was thrown down, and
in the fall ruptured one of. the large arteries near the
heart, and expired. It appeared that the prisoner,
fintlins.himself unable to controul the horse, called
out t:,people to keep clear; but the deceased not
being-quick enough, the accident happened. Ti:e
prisoner voluntarily surrendered himself, and ex-
pressed grain sorrow .for the misfortune.
Mradsvi„-liis—Counsel, called witnesses in his be-
half, 'who gave him an excellent character for hum.i-
nity;—Mr: Justice PARKE summed up the case ter
the Jury, and told them that if they believed that the
death of the deceased was occasioned merely by. ac-
cident, and not from any improper conduct of the
prisoner, they were bound to find him not guilty.—
fhe Jury immediately found the prisoner Not

The Farmers' Centenary contrasted ; illustrativc 3t
the causes of the present Agricultural Distress :
In 1722—The Man to the plough;
ybe Wife to the cow ;
The Giri ,o the sow ;
The boy to the snow;
And your Rend will be sowed I
In 1822—Best Alan, tallyho;
And Alin, piano;
The Wife, silk and satin;
The Boy, Greek and Latin •
.iad you'll ail he Catena !

I!