Star.
London, England, 1830-08-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NOTTINGHAM, Auo.2.
Up to the post hour nothing of any interest occurred. Mr. Jus-
tice lelasuLtu has been occupied since 9 o'clock hearing the case of
" Otundy v. Wildman," which is a feigned issue to tiy the ques-
tion whether or not Newstead is a viii or township, liable to main-
tain its own poor) It is likely to last to a late hour. The details
of the evidence are of too dry a nature to be of any interest to the
general reader. Mr. Denman, who conducts the defence, continued
in court until Mr. Bailey's resignation was announced, when he
withdrew for a short time to return thanks for his election. Mr.
WannixoTow and Mr. WILDMAN arc with him. Mr. serjeant
bou Limit); and Mr. Amos conduct the plaintiff's case. With it
will terminate these assizes.
MAIDSTONE, AUG. 3.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Egfore Lord TENTranEx.)
SALE V. WARD.
This was an action for illegal restraint. The plaintiff held a farm
at Sunbridge under the defendant, at the yearly rent of 2501; in
addition to this he had entered into securities for other MUM of
money borrowed by him of the defendant.
The transaction complained of was, that the defendant had dis.
trained upon the plaintiff's goods, not merely for the rent, but also
for the amount of the various loans, distraining altogether for
1,1001. when 2501. only was really due by which he had the powor
of issuing a distress ; this the defendant had done without acting
first upon the securities. The hardship attendant upon this illegal
affair was, that the plaintiff's effects being seized, he was rendered
unable to meet any claims made upon him, more especially as at
the time, he could perfectly well have discharged the real sum due,
the' 501. In this way be was ruined.
Mr. ,Guameu was proceeding in his speech for the plaintiff,
when he was interrupted by the defendant's counsel, and after
some conversation between them, it was arranged that a nominal
verdict of 40s. should be taken for the plaintiff, subject to a
reference.

NICKELS V. BOORMAN.
In this case an action was brought to recover a sum due upon a
covenant of apprenticeship, in which the son of the defendant was
bound to the plaintiff for seven years, the defendant binding himself
to the payment of a premium of 231. in instalments; some of
these instalments he had paid, but 121. now remained due, which
he refused to pay, denying the signature in the indenture to be
his. The subscribing witness, George Harris, proved the defendant's
signature; no defence was offered, and a verdict was returned for
121. accordingly.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron GARRow.)
John Clark was indicted for having stolen two geldings, the pro.
perty of Joseph Cogger, at Hawkhurst.
Mr. BODKIN conducted the prosecution, and called Joseph
Cogger, who deposed to the loss of the geldings ; one of them
hstime peculiarities. After being out for a number of days and
round the various fairs, he found one of the horses at Brentwood
fair, and knew it again immediately; the prisoner was with it,
but of him he knew nothing. The prisoner said it was for sale,
and offered it to prosecutor, of whose person he was ignorant, for
41. 108. saying it would go well in harness, and otherwise praising
it. Prosecutor said he would go to a public house to get a cart to
try the horse. This he did in order to draw the prisoner from the
fair, as he was afraid to give him into custody among the crowd of
horse dealers. A constable was forwarded to the public.house.—
Prisoner said at first that the horse belonged to his brother ; then he
changed his tale, and said he did not particularly belong to his
brother, but to a man who had a cart about two miles and a half
from the town. This story was found to be incorrect. Prisoner
was then taken to Hawkhurst, where he said he had not been for a
month. When they got near Marsham.gate, near Lord Petre's
Park, prisoner asked the constable to go Into the park for a certain
purpose. This was allowed, when the prisoner set off running, but
prosecutor overtook him, though it was not till after a severe
struggle, in which one of his eyes were severely injured, that he
secured him again. The constable certainly told the prisoner to
run if he could. When prosecutor asked him to explain what he
meant by so saying, he replied, that he did not mind giving prisoner
a chance ; but that he took good care they should nor succeed in
availing themselves of it. (Loud laughter.) When they reached
the Marshain pate, Mrs. F.tseU, who takes the toll of the gate, re-
cognized the prisoner as the man who rode through the gate, and
paid her two-pence on the morning witness had lost his horses.
Mary Etsell, the keeper of the bdarsham gate, corroborated the
last witness's testimony, as fir as ha recognidoo of the prisoner.
Another witness, Horace Twopenny, remembered seeing the pri.
toner in Hawkhunt within the time mentioned.
No defence was made, or any witness called, and a verdict of
Guilty was returned.
Joseph Surlees was indicted for a rape on the person of Sarah
Taylor, in the pariah of Strood.
The prosecutnx, a girl of rather prepossessing demeanour, gave
the details of the offence with much distinctness, which, with the
corroboration of other witnesses, left no doubt of the capital offence
having been committed.
A verdict of Guilty was returned, and sentence of death was im-
mediately passed upon him. The prisoner was removed from the
bar in a state of stupor.
YORK, MONDAY, Au.. 2.
The prisoner, whose trial for the murder of his child took place on
Saturday, was hanged this morning at the usual place of execution
within the Castle.
The proceedings in both Courts this day have been entirely
devoid of interest.
The verdict in the cause of " Stencil& v. Chorky " was in favour
of the plaintiff—Daarages, 1801.
STAFFORD, And. 2.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. ',Native nal.)
sTozze V. wILLIAms.

This wu an action to recover compensation in damages for an
injury done to the plaintiff's wife, through the misconduct of the
defendant.
The plaintiff was a labouring man, and the defendant a flamer.
The plaintiff's wife, on the 10th of December, 1827, was at the de.
fendam's premises, when the defendant set a ferocious dog at her,
and she was severely batten, and her clothes torn nearly off her
back. The poor woman had suffered greatly in her health, but
mote from the fright than the biting, and was at this time worse
Ithan ever.

The defendant did not deny that he had incited the dog to attack
her, but excused his conduct by stating, that he had mistaken her
fur another person, who he thought was taking sticks front his
hedges. The matter had been heard before a Magistrate; and the
defendant, in order to avert legal proceedings, agreed to pay 51. as a
compensation for the inlay done to the woman, and to pay also the
doctor's bill " until her recovery." The 51. had accordingly been
paid, together with the sum of 21. 19s. Gd for the surgeon's attend-
ance, up to the 16111 of January, 1828 ; and the only question now
was, whether the woman had recovered from the effects of the bit.
log at that time ? It appeared clearly front the evidence that she
had not, and two medical men who were examined to-day gave it
as their opinion that she never would entirely recover. The amount
of the surgeon's bill, beyond that of 21. 161. 6d. paid by the &feed.
an:, was W. Is. Gd. and the Jury found for that amount, with MI.
in addition to defray the extra costs, making altogether 181. Is. titl.
31r. CAMPBELL watt in Court to-day, for the first time during
these assizes, and was engaged for the plaintiff in the above cause,
the proceedings in which were enlivened by some jokes in allusion
to the late election at this place. The candidates, it will be recol-
lected, were Mr. Gisbome, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Hawkes. 31r.
Campbell, in calling forward, as a witness for the plaintiff, a mcdi.
cal man of the name of Hughes, introduced him as the son of a very
respectable man, the late mayor of Stafford, who, he raid, was a
gentleman of great respectability.
Ma. TAUNTON said archly, but with his usual gravity, " You
are a burgess of Stafford, Mr. Hughes, I take it for granted."
31r. Hughes.--1 am.
Mr. CAMPBELL.—Then allow me to ask you another question.
For whont did you vote at the late election ?
Mr. Hughes.—For Gisborne and Hawkes.
Mr. CAMPBELL.—Not for Campbell?
Mr. Hughes.—No. (Great laughter.)
Mr. Justice Parts: (to Mr. Campbell.)-1 wonder you should
have been so c, gee to Mr. liughts.
CROWN SIDE.

(Before Mr. Justice BOSANQCET.)
John Ifuorr, aged 21;, was capitally convicted of breaking into
the dwelling-house of Daniel Harrison, at Tamworth, on the night
of the 2d of July last, and stealing therein a sovereign, some silver
and copper coin, a cheese, and a quantity of bacon.
The main facts against the prisoner were proved by the evidence
of an accomplice named Joseph Beard.
There was another indictment against the prisoner for house-
breaking, and he was first tried upon that ; but the testimony of the
accomplice not being satisfactorily corroborated by other witnesses,
the Jury pronounced an acquittal.
The learned JunnE told the prisoner that he would be trans-
ported for life.