Star.
London, England, 1822-08-07 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

SUSSEX.--I.F.WES, AUGUST S.—CIVIL SIDE.
ittoTos V. 'WILKINS.
The def....lant was the proprietor of the Stable-
yard of the New Ship Hotel, at Brighton, and the
plaintiff by this action sought to recover 401. and a
fraction, as wales due to him, at the rate of 7s. a
‘veek, ac ogler. The defendant contended the con-
tract with lligton to on the footing that he was not
to receive any wanes, but was to be compensated by
the perquisites resulting from his situation. This was
denied by the plaintiff. After contradictory evidence
rffered as to the cony act, a verJiCt was giien
the plaintiff.

CIIFFSMAN TAMPLIN.
This was an accion to recover 71x11. apon an agree-
ment, the plaintiff tieing the owner of three acres of
garden-ground at liiighton, for a term of fifty-eight
years, at the reserved rent of 361. per acre. The
plaintiff a.siyned it to the defendant, who was a
brewer at Southwick, for the purpose of erecting a
brewhouse. As an inducement to the plaintiff to
part with his garden-ground, the defendant was to
give him 300/. and 100/. more in case he did not
otter to ►he plaintiff the first public-house which was
vacant in his connection, or, in case such an opportu-
nity did not occur within seven tnonths, the 1001.
was to be pAd. The agreement being put in, and
the defendant faiing to prove the otter of the public-
house, or payme.it of the 1001. a verdict was given
for the plaintiff.

CROWN SIDE.
Henry Diu-rant, alias Henry Hood, was indicted
for assaulting Mai y Austen on the King's highway,
in the parish of Ticchurst, on the 7th of June, and
stealing from her various articles of grocery, and two
pair of boots. This case was marked with circum-
stances of brutal violence.
Mr. Braila:NS stated the case for the prosecution.
The prosecuti ix was a widow woman. On the 7th
of June, ,he went from her dwelling at Swiftsden to
Ticehurst, to purchase some groceries and other arti-
cles. Returning homewards, at seven o'clock in the
evening, she was overtaken by the prisoner, a stout
youug mall of twenty, who first asked her the way to
Saleslmrst. She pointed out the way. He asked her
what o'clock it was ? and, having told him, he im-
mediately knocked her down with a bludgeon. For
a moment she was insensible, but immediately re-
covering, she had an opportunity of observing the
person of the prisoner, whose face was marked by a
large scar. He demanded her money. She said she
had none, turned her pockets inside out to convince
him, and begged for mercy. The prisoner struck
her another violent blow on the head; then ran off
with a small pat cel, containing some tea and. sugar,
and two pair of leader boots, which she had bought
for herself and daughter. Violent as the blows wet e,
she was perfectly sensible ; but, in consequence of the
loss of blood, she was unable to pursue her way.—
With difficulty, however, she crawled• to a neigh-
bouring house, where she was known. In consequence
of her description of the prisoner, he was apprehended.
On his person was found a dark smock•froc k, stained
with blood. The ',insectaria swore that the prisoner
had worn a dark smock-frock when he attacked her.
She had no doubt whatever of his identity. When
the prisoner was taken up, he gave contradictory ac-
counts of the smock•frock. He said he was at a place
called Newich, 25 miles distant from the spot where
the robbery was committed, at the time the offence
was alleged to have been perpetrated. As to the
marks of blood, he said they were occasioned by a
fight in wh kit he was engaged with another man, about
a week befote, and that his nose was blooded on that
occasion. These statements of the prisoner were com-
pletely contradicted.—The prisoner said nothing in
his defence.
The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up the evidence,
and the Jury found the prisoner Guilty—Death.
The Learned JUDUE proceeded to pass the awful
sentence of the law, and conjured the prisoner to pre-
pare for its execution, assuring him that he certainly
could hope for no mercy in this world.
AUCUST 5.
SMITIIERS V. HOLLINS.
This was an action to recover a sum of money for
a quantity Of oats sold and delivered by the plaintiff
to the defendant. The parties reside at Leeds. Evi-
dence being prnJuced on the part of the plaintiff
to establish the demand, the defendant was called
upon to shew that the money had been paid, or the
claim otherwise satisfied.
The defendant proved, that prior to last Doncaster
races, the plaintiff had ha him 150 guineas to twelve
against Jack Spigot ss inning the St. Leger, and that
the oats wet e den vered to him on account of the wager.
'1 he Learned Judge charged the Jury, that in all
cases whete money, or any commodity, is delivered
in satisfaction of a wager, it cannot be recovered back
n,_--Verdict for the defendant.
anal
Blta:ALII OF PROMISE.—FRANCE V. POWELL.
The plaintiff in this case was a servant girl, living
with a livery-stable-keeper near Finsbury-square,
London, and brought her action against the defend-
ant, at that time stable-boy at an inn (but who it
seems has since succeeded to a considerable property
in Derbyshire, and is now become master innkeeper
in his turn), to recover a compensation in damages
for a promise to marry the plaintiff, which he had
broken by since bestowing his hand on another lady.
, The promise having been made in this county, the
action was brought at these Assizes. The Jury found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £lOO.
STAFFORD.
John Lewis, who was indicted for bigamy, pleaded
g.rilty; and on being advised by the Court to retract
the plea, he " begged to be informed what use it
would he, as, to the best of his knowledge, he had
three wives? "He was then sentenced to seven years'
transportation.
At these Assizes, Mr. Baron GARROW called the
attention of the Grand Jury to some important altera-
tions which had taken place during the present Ses-
sion of Parliament, in regard to the criminal law..
Previously, the receiver of a hat, coat, or any article
of trivial value, 'might be snhject to a sentence of
transportation, while the receiver of money stolen,
though to ever so great an amount, could not t.e con-
victed of that offence ; but now the receiver of money,'
bonds, bills, notes, or other securities for money, was
equally liable to be convicted, and have sentence of
transportation, as if he were the receiver of those ar-
ticles for which he was heretofore punishable. Mali-