Star.
London, England, 1824-03-29 00:00:00

LENT ASSIZES,

KINGSTON.
John Ratelifwas indicted for breaking into the dia ell-
house of John Akehurst, in the day time, atFetcham,
and stealing from the person of Elizabeth Haynes,
against her will, 12s. or 13s. in silver. '
It appeared from the evidence, that Elizabeth Haynes
is servant to the prosecutor, both these persons being
at the advanced age of 80. About ten o'clock in the
morning, on the 7th of March, the prisoner opened the
door of Mr. Akehurses house, walked in, and meeting
Elizabeth Haynes in the first room he entered, he told
her he hrd been at work in the village, and wanted to
see her master ; after remaining 'a short time with the
pr is,iner, Haynes proceeded up stairs to her master's
room, who was then lying ill in• bed, die prisoner fpl-,
lowing her, with a bill-hook in his hand. On gaining
the room, the prisoner told Mr. Akehurst that lie came
for money, and' was determined to have it. Ile war told
there was no money in the house, upon this he ifushed
the prosecutor down in the. bed, and threatened much,
if he did not get money. Haynes seeing this, and
being teiriged beyond' measure, implored him not to
hurt them, and that she would give him all the money
she had, which, in effect, she produced to about 13s.
'Laing gilt this, the prisoner broke open a box belong-
ing to Haynes with his bill-hook, but finding nothing
of consequence in it, he went down stairs, and, taking
the key of the door, went our, and locAing the door, he
thus prevented the two frightened inmates from giving
the alarm. The prisoner was taken up that afternoon.
Elizabeth Haynes swore most positively to the Wen-'
tity of the prisoner, and the Jury returned a verdict
of Gailty.
• Mr. Justice Best then passed sentence of Dcath, and
gave'the prisoner no hopes of its being altered.

SIR wiLLLAM CURTIS, BART. AND ANOTIIER V. TIIE IN-
, _HABIT %NTS OT Tilt HUNDRED OF GoDLEY-BURST.
This was an action on the Black Act, 9 Geo.l. c. 22.
to recover a compensation in damages against the Hun-
dred fpr the felonious destruction, by fire, of 160,000
fir trees, of mole than the value of WC!. by some per-
son or persons unknown.
Mr. MARRYATT (with Whom was Mr. CHITTY) stated
the case. The plaintiffs were T: ustees of the late Mr.
Timothy Curtis, who had purchased a quantity of waste
land on Frimley Common, which he had planted with
fir trees, for profit, about twenty years since. By his
will, the plaintiff's were made his ti ustees and executors.
By the will, he devised his Frimley estate, and the trees
iii question, to his grand-children. The woods had
been placed under ttre of an- authorized agent,
who resided at Frimley. On the flth of May last; a
great .destruction of the wood had taken place by fire,
which was wilfully kindled by some person or persons
unknown. It was concluded to be intentional, inasmuch
as two unsuccessful attempts had been made to destroy
the wood in like manner,within the preceding fortnight.
Mr. BOLLAND, for the defendants, submitted that the
plaintiff's remedy, it any, should have been founded not
on the 9th Geo. I. called the Black Act, but on the Ist
and Gth Geo. I. which make the inhabitants of the next
contiguous parish, arid not the Hundred, liable for
damage of this description. He called the attention of
the Learned Judge to the provisions of these latter
staLres, and to those of the 29th Geo. 11/upon which
he argued with great ingenuity, and submitted that the
plaintiffs must be nonsuited.
Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. CHITTY were beard contra,
ccntsnding. that the damage by fine *as.a damage
within the meaning of the Black Act, for which the
Hundred was liable.
The Loan Cum BARON said he would reserve the
point for the Court above. - •
Mr. BOLLAND then contended that the evidence for
the plaintiff was insufficient to justify them in coming
to the conclusion that the fire complained of was oc-
casioned under such circumstances as would bring the
case within the Black Act, so as to make the Hundred
liable. There was no evidence, he submitted, to shew
that the woods in question wei e wilfully, maliciously,
and feloniously set on fire. The cause of the file was
mere matter of conjecture. It might have been •occa-
sioned by some mischievous boy—some tramper or
gipsey lighting his fire, and accidentally igniting the
neighbouring plantation. Being so le.ft in doubt, the
Jury would be slow in making the defendants, who
were perfectly free lions any blame, liable for the
damage which the plaintiffs had sustained. The same
cattainty of proof required to support an indictment on
the Black A ct, was requisite to sustain this action against
the Hundred. No such evidence was adducett and
therefore the verdict ought to be for the defendants.
The LORD CDIEF BARON summed up the evidence
for the Jury, and left them to consider whether the in-
jury complained of was occasioned by the wilful and
malicious act of some unknown incendiary. The evi-
dence upon this point was certainly loose and vague, but
it was for the Jury to decide that question in the plain-
tiff's favour before they a ould be justified in finding.a
verdict against the defendants.—The Jury found a ver-
dict for the defendants.