Star.
London, England, 1826-07-06 00:00:00

SL'm~IER ASSIZES:

_ -
• W NCHESTRR, JULY 4:
The Western Circuit commenced here yesteitity.—
There are but sixteen prisoners, end rlo one charged
with an offence of any particular dnotplityi
' George Frankunt, aged 33, wai indicted for stealing
a bay puny from the premises of Edward Ellis Femer,
at Eversley, in the county-of Berks.
The pony in question had been taken out of a field
about the Bth of April, and a few days afterwards it was
sold by the prisoner in this county, twenty miles from
the place at which it was stolen.

The defence set up by the prisoner was, that he, being
an itinerant basket-maker, had bought the pony of a
strange man in the public road. To prove this, he called
1 two witnesses, one a rag-gatherer, who said he had no
place of settled residence; and another a chimney-
sweeper, These witnesses positively swore that they
were present in the road, and saw the sa'e take place:
that the prisoner gave three sovereigns, two one pound
notes, and four half crowns to a strange man for the
pony. These persons underwent a severe cross exami-
nati ; but they agreed in the main circumstances.
Ihere were certainly some variations ; and the question
was, whether these shewed the asserted defence to be a
false one, or whether the variations. might fairly be as-
cribed to the infirinity of human memory. One of the
witnesses said the strange man, the seller, gave back a
shilling to the prisoner " for luck ;" the other said that
nothing had been given b ick. One said he was present
for about five minutes and not more, while the other
said that that witness was present for full a quarter
of an hour.

The Learned Judge summed up the evidence, noticing them
variations; but leaving the „Piny to decide as to their just effect.
The Jury deliberated for about twenty minutes, and then returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
Henry Bromfield, aged el, was indicted for stealing, on the lith
of February, a mare, the property of Richard King—Acquitted.
Thomas Allen, aged 25, a soldier in the marine artil-
lery, was indicted for burglariously breaking and enter-
ing the dwelling-house of Letitia Snell, widow (at Port-
sea, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of her
the said Letitia Snell. In another count he was charged
with the breaking and entering, and with actually steal-
ing certain articles the property of Henry Snell, in the
said dwelling-house of the said Letitia Snell.
Lieutenant Snell, of the Royal Navy, living with his
Mother, the prosecutriz, brought the principal charge
home against the prisoner. On the 13th of May, at
about three in the morning, the witness was awakened
by a noise in his bed-room, and on looking he saw the
figure of a man leaning on the table near the window,
through which he had got in, having cleared his way
by breaking a part of the fastening. The witness started
up; and resolutely seized the prisoner and secured him.
His drawn sword was found in the room ; the scabbard
close by it. He made no resistance on being taken;
but begged he might not be sent back to the Artillery
GuArd-house, as he would rather die than be sent back
to such a tyrannical corps. No article was missing;
except the shaving utensils of Lieutenant Snell, which
were found in the room near the window, from off the
table in which they had been either taken by the pri-
soner, or slipped off by his feet on his getting in at the
window. The gallant Lieutenant admitted that the lat-
ter was not impossible.
The prisoner in his defence said, that Its was in liquor at the
time, and bad be rscollection of anything which had passed.
Lieutenant Snell, on being recalled, said the prisoner appeared
as if he had been drinking, but that be was in his perfect senses at
the time:
The Learned Judge, in charging the)ury, observed,
that they would probably give the prisoner the benefit
of the doubt as to the stealing of the articles belonging,
to Lietitenatit Snell, as- that Gentien2an admitted the
possibility of their being brushed off by the prisoner's-
feet on his getting in at the Window.
The Jury acquitted the prisoner of the stealing ; but
found him guilty (in the [Corm suggested by the Learned
Judge) of breaking and entering, with intent to steal
any goods, no matter whose, that he might find in
the house.

The Judge desired that sentence of death might not be recorded
for the present.
Lieutenant Snell informed the Court that he had heard a fa-
v.kurable character of the prisoner from his Regiment. This, the
Learned Judge said, would be attended to hereafter.
_ _

Samuel Sloe;scer, aged 32, was convicted of stealing a sow, which
was traced in his possession front Crandall, in this county, to Houn-
slow, where (it being much distressed and fatigued by recessive
driving) he sold it for a He was sentenced to seven years'
transportation.
There was no cause of any interest this day on the civil aide.
NORTHAMPTON, JULY 4.
SHERARD V. ROBERTS, D.D.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attor-
ney of this county, against the defendant, who is a ma-
gistrate and a clergyman, to recover the amount of a
bill incurred by ihr defendant for conveyancing, &c.
Mr. CLARK detailed to the Jury the circumstances of
the case, as he hoped to be able t, establish them in evi•
deuce. The defendant had been the possessor of a living
of considerable value is this county, and he was anxious
to effect an exchange with another Clergyman. For
this purpose he had employed the plaintiff, and the
amount of the bill warincurred for his professional ex-
ertions in facilitating the exchange in question. How-
ever, he now sought to evade the payment of the plain-
tiff's very reasonable demand ; and it would be for the
Jury to say, whether, upon the fair result of the evidence
which he should lay before them, there existed the least
ground for this resistance on the part of the defendant.
He should show, by professional men, that the charges
were most reasonable; and having done this, unless he
was greatly mistaken, he should entitle himself to
their verdict.

The evidence of the case having been concluded.
The Loan Come B• our read over his notes of the evidence to
the Jury, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £2O.

SIMARD V. NOSSOPF.

This was an aedon brought by- the same Genthtman who was
plaintiff In the last cause, against the defendant, for work and labour
in his office of Steward of a Manor in this county, belonging to
Lord Carysfosto—Damages £66.

ABINGDON, Jinx 4.
Win V. lilt JOHN DASHWOOD RING, BART..

This was an action br iught by a small farmer of
Duckinghansshire2. against Sir John Dashwood King,
M.P. and a Magistrate of that county ; and the decla-
ration, in no less than 18 counts, averred three distinct
causes of action. The first six charged the defendant
with having maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff under
the Ist Geo. IV. cumnionly called 44 The Trespass Act."
The second six charged the defendant with having sl.irr-
derously said of and concerning the plaintiff, 441 could
have hung West long ago, if 1 had chosen to appear
against him personally ; I had Lim in Aylesbury gaol
long ago, and the man who was indicted veith him was
transported." The last six counts, rather curiously,
were in trover fur 1200 trees, in a wood called Phillip s
Hill Wood, belonging 'to the defendant, which; were
to leged to have been purchased by the plaintiff.

the defendant pleaded Not Guilty to all the slander,'
save and except the words, " I bad him in Aylesbury
gaollong ago, and the m in who was-indicted with him
was transported.." These were justified by fhe defendant
as true and titi plaintiff has derntirrid to the jtastifica-
lion. ibe'Venue, aftei' hating been otigimaly laid in
London, *As mdved last terdi, At the' instante of the
plaintiff, from Buckinghamshire (whdr the supposed
cause of action arose) to this, as the nett Adjoining county.
The short gist of the facts eatablishbel in evidence was
this, Sir. 3. Dashwood King, the defendant, is possessed
of a considerable track of wdod land, in the county of
Bucks, denominated Phillip's Hill Wood. On the 13th
of December, 1824, he sold by public auction a quan-.I
tity of the tirhbei then growing there to different per-
sons ; part of it was purchased by a person of the name
of Nicholls, whd paid a deposit according to the condi-
tions of sale, but paid nothing more. Nicholls became a
bankrupt within a month atter his purchase, and be-
tween the pet iod of his purchase and the issuing of his
commission, he sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pro-
ceeded to take a considerable ottani ity of timber under
this sale, but was wrested in his progress by the defen-
dant,as he had not receive! any valid payment. The
cause of action, with respect to the malicious prosecti-
ti.on, was early abandoned by the plaintiff's Counsel.—
The counts for troves were also given up in the progress
of tits case, and the action then solely depended upon,
the slander. As to this point, it was proved by an At-
t:Tney's clerk that when he went to deliver the defendant
a formal notice, demanding peaceable possession of the
timber in_ question, the defendant used words in sub-
stance similar to thoseimputed to him by the declaration.
Mr. Justice littßOVOti charted the Jury that the* Words Were,
actionable, bat left it for them to confider whether such provoca-
tion did not exist as to account sufficiently for such expressions
being made use of by a Gentleman defrauded of his property.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict [or the plaiti-
tiff—Damages, la. •