Star.
London, England, 1827-08-03 00:00:00

sons have remained off the course in consequence: A
man named Wright was so kept off two years ago.—
Wright is an inhabitant of Ne• market.
—.Greville,Esq —Knows M t.H twkins.the defendant;
has seen him nn the heath on the day on which the race
was run by" Monody." Mr. Hawkins was on horse
back, and near Lord Wherncliffe's carriage. It was on
Wednesday, the 18th of April. Saw Mr. Hawkins ride
about for mitre time before he came ap to Lord Wharn-
cliffe's carriage. There is no high road upon the heath.
Saw Mr. Hawkins on the heath half an hour after he
had come tip to Lord Wharncliffe's carriage.
Cross-examined by Mr.Rostsson—Part of the heath
is called the Flat. Witness is not aware of the bone.
daries which separate two parishes, in which the heatbi
is situated. Knows the heath for 16 years. Is a member
of the Jockey Club, but is'quite ignorant what rights ha
may have io that character to the lands in question;
had once a share, but sold it; is not a trustee of the
Jockey Club ; and is not aware of the terms upon which
the Duke of Portland holds the land under the Club.i
During every season in which the Duke has been tenant
he has never put the slightest obstacle in the way of the
races ; believes Mr. Weatherby manages the race ground.
Mr. Wm. Weatherby is one of the solicitors for the
plaintiff; saw Mr. Hawkins upon a part of the heath
called the Flat several times on the 20th of April last;
it was in that part of the Flat which is in the parish of
Burwell. Witness asked Mr. Hawkins for the name of
his attorney ? Mr. Hawkins said he would let witness
know in a week or two.
Mr. Weatherby, son. has been for several years solici-
tor to the Jockey Club; let the course to the Duke of
Portland from Christmas, 1823 ; the letting was by
parole; and there was no reservation whatever of any
rights for the Jockey Club: the rent was 1181. and it
was let from year to year; the land is not is the parish
of Newmatket, but is a most important part of what
is called Newmarket Heath; persons have been com-
pelled to remain off the heath; three actions have.been
brought for trespass ; damages have been recovered
against one defendant, and the other two submitted;
has known the heath for a great many years. Is
the agent and treasurer of the club. Is the keeper
of the match-book, and publisher of the Racing Caka-
dar. The races are published in the Calendar, and by
lists published at Newmarket about a week beforehand.
Daring the races all persons present go backward and
forward as they please upon that part of the heath on
which the trespass has been said to have been cow.
sniued. This has been the case for half a century.
Reaexanoined—When witness said that the people
went up and down as they pleased, he meant it with
the exception that thee had not received any notice to
go off the ground.—This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Bowsaws,. before addressing the Jury for the
defence, submitted to the Court that the plaintiff ought
to be nonsuited, upon the ground of a variance between
the declaration and the evidence.—The objection was
over-ruled, and
Mr. Roarsutos proceeded to address the Jury for the
defence, and contended. that the fact of the Jockey
Club having always advertised their races. and invited
the public to attend to them, did of itself constitute a
license to all persons who should think proper to at-
toad the races, to go upon every part of the course, and
to pass without restriction wherever their inclinations
might lead them.
The Lotto CHIRT BARON then proceeded to charge
the Jury, which was special and highly respectable. In,
reference to the plea of the defendant (the 4th in order)l
that the public had a right to be present when certain
lawful racesfor lawful stakes are run upon the heath,
his Lordship declared that it was a species of right of
which he had never heard, nor did he think that the
mere fact of the Jockey Club having suffered the public
to be present at the races on their ground, gave all
mankind a tight to come there whenever a race was
to be run.
The Jury, after a short consultation, having inquired
what amount of damages would carry costs, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is.

CHELMSFORD, Auayse i.
The Auizes for this county commenced yesterday,
before the Hon. Mr. Justice Parma on the Crown side,
and the Hon. Mr. Justice GAUL= on the Civil Side.
In both Courts the business is considerable.
Thomas Johnson was indicted for uttering with a
guilty knowledge, to Richard Bush, a forged Si. Bank
of England note.
The prosecutor, a labouring man, had sold a horse
to the prisoner at Romford market, and received in
psyment the note in question, on the 11th of
The note was paid at the King's Arms public-house,
and the prisoner told the landlord not td say he knew
soy thing of him in case he should be asked about him.
The prisoner rode off in a great hurry. Soon after-
. wards the note was ascertained to be forged, and nest
day the prisoner was discovered at a public-house on
Cambridge Heath. The ptisoner attempted to make
his escape by climbing a garden wall ten feet high.
The prisoner denied all knowledge that the note was
forged.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence of
Death was pronounced upon hint.—Though a young
wan, he has been in trouble before for uttering base
money.

Joseph Perry was indicted, under Lord Ellenbo-
rough's Act, for shooting at Joseph Parish, at Margaret-
ting, on the 9th of July. with a loaded pistol, with in-
tent to murder or do him some grievous bodily harm.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and sentence of
Death was recorded.

YORK, JuLy 51.
Cam lkoz.—(l3efore Mr. Justice Beer tr.)
DOLBY AND WISP AGAINST SHAW.

Mr. Poit.oca stated that this action was brought by
Mr. Mark Dolby, and Penelope, his wife, formerly Miss
Penelope Staveley, of Driffield, in the East Riding of
Yorkshire, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Jonathan
Shaw, of Driffield, cornfactor, who had paid his ad-
dresses to Miss Staveley, before her marriage, the sum
of 1401. which she had deposited in his hands. When
the Jury had heard the circumstances, they wruld think
that the defendant had not much regard for his charac-
ter in defending this action, for the defence intended to
be made would certainly reflect very little honour upon
him. The defendant, at the close of last year, was pay-
ing his addresses to Miss Staveley, and it was not an
unlikely thing that she should deposit a sum of money
with the man she expected would become her husband;
but they afterwards quarrelled and broke off the match,
and then the defendant denied that he had ever re-
ceived any thing from Miss Staveley, and now thinks
he can protect himself from the present action because
the money was deposited in his hands by Miss Staveley,
when no one else was present. -It would, however,
be proved teat Miss Staveley received a sum of 1501.
on the 23d of last November, 1001. in a bill of