Star.
London, England, 1825-03-18 00:00:00

LENT ASSIZES.

KINGSTON, MARCH 17.
WILLIAMS V. COOKE AND OTHERS.
This was an action of trespass, for dispossessing the
plaintiff of the Surrey Theatre. The defendants pleaded
the general issue.
The 'ease proved in evidence was this plain-
tiff, Mr. Williams, had beef tenant to Mr. West of the
Surrey Theatre, at a rent of 1,2001. per amium. In
the month of December, 18‘23, the defendants, Mr.
Cooke and Mr. Mitcheil, sited out a commission oil
bankruptcy against him,. an.f on the 6th of that month
the defendants, one of whom was I lamber, the mis-
ioengei , and Mr. Niblett, the solicitor to the commis.'
s;•pi, toget!ser with hey:JAI o; her prisons, went to the
l':.ratie in the evening. before the home opened, and
took possession. At that time the Sheriff was also in
rossession, under an execution for I ,2301. at the suit or
the plain; niothei. Air arrangement then took place,
by which it s‘ as agreed that the performances at the
Them., e shoul,l go n, a person being appointed at the
instance of the defendants, to over look the money-
takers, and keep an account of the receipts. Next day
some printed handbills eie posted in S:. George's-
, fields, and at the Theatre, announcing that the house
was cnsed until a day therein mentioned ; but in the
course of the same day must of them *ere torn down,
or covered with fresh bills. It did not appear.at whose
instance the actvertisemcult was made. No stop to the
. performances, however, took place. On the 15th of
December the eonimi•,sion against the plaintiff was so-
peseded by the Lord Chancellor, and on that day the
defendants, who had retained possession till then, re-
stored it to the plaintiff. In the interval there had been
performances every night at-the Theatie. Under these
circumstances the present action was brought. It was
alleged that the comini;sion had been sued out against
thei.laintiff, with kuo ledge on the part of the defen-
dants that it could not be sustained—that their object
in doing this was to ruin the plaintiff, and that they
had acted under the sinister influence of some of the
..plaintiff's enemies. Of these allegations, however, there
was no proof. The plaintiff was desciibed in the pro-
ceedings under the commission as a vintner of the Old
Bailey, but no evidence was giver of trading, petition-
ing creditor's debt, or alleged act of bankruptcy. It
appeared on the cross-examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses, that about the period of the alleged bank-
ruptcy, he was in embarrassed circumstances, and,
about that time was not always visible at the Theatre.
The effect of the proceedings against the plaintiff was
to bring his creditors. upon him, who had thrown hint
into the Fleet prison, where he is now confined as a
prisoner for debt. The defendants had paid the costs
of superseding the coninrission.
Alf. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury in mitigation of
damages, and contended that there was no pretence
for this action. There was no proof of any serious injury
sustained by the plaintiff. The defendant% had acted
in good faith, and under the advice of their solicitor,
who had been of opinion that the commission of bank-
ruptcy was sustainable. A verdict fdir a shilling would,
he submitted, amply satisfy the justice of the case.
No witnesses were called in defence.
The Lose Cuter Raton summed up the case to the Jury, who
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £lOO.
,WILLIAMS v. DELAFORCE AND OTHEAS.
This was an action on the case by the same plaintiff,
against the defendant, for damage done to the scenery
of the Suriey Theatre, whilst the latter was, tenant
thereof to the plaintiff.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's directions, found their
verdict for the plaintiff—DA:wages, £5O.
William Cherrii was indicted for assaulting and vio-
lently abusing Susannah Nightingale, against her will,
on the 27th of December, at Horley.
The prosecutrix was a young woman of 21, and was
servant to Mr. Wright, a farmer, at Chailwood, where
her father was a labourer. On the 27th of December
last she went to visit her sister, who was in the service
of Mr. Turner, a Gentleman residing at Horsehill, in
the parish of Horley. The prisoner, who is about 02
years of age, also lived as groom in Mr. Turner's fa-
inily. The prosecotrix's sister pressed her to stay to
dinner. During dinner the prisoner, who sat at *-
same tabie, inquired of the, girl which way she pro-
, posed to go home ? She told him by the turnpike-road.
He squeezed her hand. She desired him to desist.
About live o'clock in the evening she quitted Mr. Tur-
ner's house for the purpose of going home. It was
raining, and the evening was dusky. When she got
into the road, the prisoner, who had been waiting in an
adjoining lane, came up. to her, and °Feted to point
her out a shorter way home across the fields, and to ae-
CoMpitsy her.. She, however, said she was not afraid
to go home alone. He afterwards committed the of-
fence charged.
The prisoner, in his defence, said. that what had taken placebe-
tween him and the prosecutrix was not against her will.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
LANCASTER, MARCH 15.

William Cali*, iged V:5, was indicted under Lord
Ellenborough's Act, for having wilfully and maliciously
shot at Bennis Carter, a gamekeeper, on the 7th of
Novensber last. He was also charged with having been
:fo Fund. at armed with a gun, in the PlantatiOns
belonging t' Sir Henry floghton.
' The different gamekeepers
'and
the prisoner as
:the person who shot at Carter, and the suigeon described
'the nature of his wound as proceeding from the shot.
The Jury found a verdict of " Guilty. but without intent to kill."
• Mr. Justice Balmer—Then he is enti:led to an acquittal. There
are hut three grounds on which he can be considered guilty, if
pie verdict is with intent to commit murder, mayhew, or grievous
bodily harm.
Foreman—De certainly intended to do bodily harm.
Mr. Justice 134xF.Ev7-Witt intent to do grievous harm is
the charge. Consider your verdict, Gentlemen.
They consulted some titre and returned a verdict Gaily on the
third count, with intent to So grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Justic 13 Arttv—And with a view, in making the resisters*
to effect his e.caye. , •
Foreman—Yes, my Lord.—Sentcnce of Death recorded.
Belly Carle, alias Carroll, W 23 indicted for having
maliciously and fraudulently enticed away Elizabeth
Proctor, a little girl, daughter of Richard Proctor,
,tith intent to conceal and deprive him of the .aid child.
She was also charged with enticing it with intent to
steal the clothes of the said child.
Mr. SrAitritx stated the case. The rrisoner, on the
29th February last, came to the houte of Mr. Proctor,
who is ,a manufacturer at Colne ; she there saw his
raster-in-law, Mrs. Nlolineux, wins acts, as
,his house-
keeper. The prisoner reptesented to her -she W4S
in
great distress, and was willing-to work if she could get
applpyrnent, and for that purpose askedv " had Mr.
*proctor ony looms?" Mr.`Pi octor had not'any, and
Mrs. Molineux, from charii•ible motives, said, if she
•iiten,t to a Uri. Beek, •she would be likely to get some.
Tlie littleglrl, who was about 'fiie years Old, then came