Star.
London, England, 1830-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LEICESTER, AUG. 9.
( Before Mr. Justice Gaseke and a Special Jury.)
LANODOW V. LORD HUNTINOTOVER. '

This was an action for a malicious prosecution and libel.
Messrs. DERMAM, BALOUY, and CLINTON, appeared for the
alaintiff ; and Messrs. CLARKE and HUMFRET, for the defendant.
It may he recollected that at the last Spring Assizes for this
:amity an jndictment was tried, on the prosecution of Lord Hun-
,ingtower, against the defendant, one of the pupils of the Rev. Mr.
Primmer, for an alleged participation in a riot which took place at
Buckminster, in the month of April of last year. The plaintiff,
aho was defendant upon that occasion, called several respectable
witnesses to prove that he had not been amongst the rioters, and also
Aave evidence of conduct on the part of Lord Huntingtower, which
went to show that the prosecution had been instituted by him with
view to compel Mr. Trimmer to forego the whole or some of the
damages, 2,0001. which he had recovered in an action against his
lordship for a series of nuisancea. The counsel fur the prosecution,
before the case was concluded, admitted that there were sufficient
grounds to warrant an acquittal, and a verdict of " Not Guilty"
was accordingly returned by the jury.
The present action was now brought by Mr. Langdon, suing by
his next friend (himself being only 17 years of age) to recover deal
mages against Lord Huntingtower fur having maliciously, and
without probable cause, instituted that prosecution ; and also for
the publication of certain libels, published in the Stamford and
Lincoln newspapers in the shape of advertisements, which stated
that the plaintiff had been one of the most active in the riot in
question, leading on the mob to demolish the homes and endanger
:he lives of the Irish labourers at Buckminster, for which a bill
of indictment had been found against him by the Leicester
grand jury. Owing, however, to a technical defect in the pleadings,
the counts for libel were abandoned, and the trial was confined to
the malicious prosecution. The facts of the case were substantially
the same as those proved on the last trial, except that the situation
of the parties was now reversed, the then prosecutor being the pre-
sent defendant, and the defendant on that occasion being now plain.
tiff: It will be recollected that, in April, 1829, an attack was made
*won the houses of certain Irish labourers, living at Buckminster,
and that some of them were pulled down by the mob. Several of the
rioters were indicted at the ensuing Midsummer sessions, and the in-
,!ietments tried at the Michaelmas sessions following, when they
were convicted, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.
—No complaint, however, was then made against the plaintiff
as having been in any manner concerned in the riot : but in
the mean time the action brought by Mr. Trimmer against the de.
femlunt having been tried, and his lordship having obtained a rule
7,;5l for a new trial, in the Court of Exchequer, he sent a clergy.
man to Mr. Trimmer's solicitor, to intimate his intention of prose-
cuting Mr. Langdon for having been concerned in the riot, which
he said he had plenty of witnesses to prove, unless some arrange-
ment of their disputes should be effected, proposing at the same
time, if the damages were abandoned, to give Mr. Trimmer ano-
tner living in exchange for that of Buckminster. Mr. Trimmer's
solicitor, however, declined to receive any proposition until the
damages were paid. The ncgociation having failed, Lord Hunting-
tower proceeded with ►he prosecution, and although a number of
Irish labourers swore positively that they had seen Dlr. Lang-
don actively employed in exciting the riotors to acts of violence, and
heard him denounce destruction to the Irish, the result was, never:
theless, what we have above stated. The evidence offered to-day,
on the part of the plaintiff, was nearly the same as that then adduced
in support of the defence ; whilst on behalf of his lordship an ad.
tlitional number of witnesses (all Irish but one) were called, who
Mated in the most positive manner that they saw Mr. Langdon en-
gaged in the riot. They were mostly all, however, persons in the
employment of his lordship, and in some instances those who
Lad not been examined on the last occasion failed to give very
satisfactory reasons why no complaint had been made before
the magistrates against Mrs Langdon, when the informations
were sworn against the other persons, who had afterwards been con-
victed of the riot. Under these circumstances it was contended, on
the put of the plaintiff, that the prosecution had evidently been
concocted without any probable cause, for the malicious purpose of
intimidating Mr. Trimmer into an abandonment of his damages;
whilst for the defendant it was insisted, without denying the malice,
that there was abundant evidence to prove that the plaintiff' had
taken part in the riot ; or, at all events, to warrant them in believing
tint he had, and in therefore instituting the prosecution.
After an eloquent speech from Mr. DENMAN,
The learned JUDGE summed up the evidence very minutely, and
The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 1,0001.

LEWES, Auo. 10.
(Before Lord TEXTEADEN.)
John Charles Humphries was indicted for breaking into the
house of James Marsh, at Hastings, on the 20th March last, and
stealing a gold watch and other articles.
Mr. Marsh deposed to being disturbed on the night in question,
and that on awaking he found the light out, which he usually burnt
in his room. He immediately got out of bed, and groping about,
came in contact with a person in a stooping posture. A struggle
ensued, in which, however, the prosecutor was at last successful in
pining a secure hold of the person, who upon this offered to give him-
self up. Mr. Marsh then went out by the door, fastening the intruder in.
He procured the assistance of a man named Freeman, and both
came up stairs again, and secured the prisoner. They then took
hint into the kitchen below, and placed him for a while on a chair.
On his rising, the articles mentioned in the indictment were found
on the chair. The witness swore positively there was nothing on it
before. The proper steps were subsequently taken, and the prisoner
was committed for trial. Freeman corroborated this testimony,
swearing also there was nothing on the chair when the prisoner was
seated on it.
The prisoner, on being called on for his defence, gave in a long
written address, in which he stilted, that he was occasionally subject
to violent paroxysms of insanity, during the continuance of which
he was utterly ignorant of what he was doing. How he found his
way into the prosecutor's he did not know, but could account for it
only in this way. On the night mentioned he met in Hastings a
person named Jackson. with whom some years since he had a quar-
rel. On this meeting a reconcilement took place, and in conse-
quence of the brandy which they drank, an attack of his unfortunate
malady came on him, and he became quite unconscious of what
was going forward. He then supposed that he was inveigled
into the transaction by Jackson, as a piece of revenge, and left to
extricate himself as he might. Me stated further that he had been
engaged for a considerable time as a writer to the press, and had been
an editor of various periodicals, amongst others of the Literary
Chronicle, and that he was not a likely person to be guilty of so
disgraceful an offence.
Evidence was offered in support of the prisoner's statement.
The Governor of the Gaol added, that he had experienced a very
violent attack of brain fever while in prison, and that for four days
be was completely insensible. •
The jury considered for some time, and then returned a verdict of
Guilty.
The prisoner is a respectable-looking young man ; he bears the
appearance of being liable to the attacks mentioned in his address.
Robert Fulmer and James Raker pleaded guilty to the charge
of obstructing the officers of the customs in the execution of their
duty, by assisting to land goods liable to duty.
Sentence of death was recorded.

SHREWSBURY, MONDAY, Au G. 9.
There is very little business here. Of 13 causes which were en-
wed for trial at nisi prises, the majority were disposed of to-day. They
were all unimportant. The calendar contains the names of 37 pri.
swum, but there are only 24 cases for trial, the principal of which is
a charge against a young woman of having administered poison to
o persons of the names of Sarah Smith and James Thomas, with
went to murder them.

tlr. Justice Peat disposed of five or six cases in the Crown'
Court, one of which was that of a young man, named Thomas
Vaughan, for highway robbery. The prosecutor, J. Robinson, was
passing along the turnpike-road between Shiffnal and Wolverhamp-
ton, about nine o'clock on the Ist of July last, when he was at-
tacked by three men, one of whom was the prisoner. They
knocked him down, and while two of them knelt on him, the other
(the prisoner) rifled his pocket, and took from hint 7s. 9d. in
silver and copper. They afterwards made off in the direction to-
wards Rimburton ; and the prisoner was apprehended a day or two
afterwards, and had on at the time the hat and shoes which he had
takes from the prosecutor, who was much injured by the violence of
the prisoner and his companions.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and judgment of death was
recorded against him, with an intimation, however, by the learned
Judge that his life would be spared.