Star.
London, England, 1829-08-28 00:00:00

COHN—EXCHANGE. MARK—LAVE. Avo. 28.

The tnealing trade was not as brisk this morning as was everted.
after the unfavourable weather we Dave had since last market day :
indeed the business transacted was very tolling—•till One sample s
of Wheat supported Nlonday's prices. Barley, Beans, l'ea,, and
Oats, were also in the same {Me; each of them obtained 1.4,t Mon-
day's quotation.

IMPOILTATION4 SINCII MONDAY'.
Wheat, English (qrs.) . 750 Wiley, Foreign . 450
. . Osis Rnglisb .
• . 2,450

. _
Foreign . . 4100 Foreign . • 14,450
May, F.ttglob . . 4501 Irish . . . 4,704)
Irish . . Fluur (tacks) . . 4,100
SMITHFIELD A. 28.
CATTLI AT MARKT r.

Ileasts 584 1 Sbeep and Lambs 3,870 Pitt 180 I Calves 221
!krt. . 45 0.1 to Is 4.11 Veal . . 4s 8.1 to 54 Od
Nlutton . 4s Oi 44 6.1 I Pork . . 3s 10d 4s 8.1
Lamb . 4a 6d 54. 4:1 I
Hay prr load, E. 2 154. to £4 10s. Clover .E 3 5,. in h'.s Si
Straw £2 Bs. to £2 15s.

COAL lARKET.—Tists D•Y.

fl4Lr•rass Oew—The Coal Exchange was not very numerously
attended by merchants to-day, and the business done was not very
great ; there was a lair average supply both of Sunderland anti
Newcastle coal at market. Thirty-two ships have arrived since
Wednesday last, making on the week's arrival a total of 199 ships.
Ships arrived during the present month 574.
Best WaUsend Coals s2s. 4d. :Zs. od.
Oilier sorts
Ships at Market

Difcotiit
scv"iir 4 -'(4'
":4d- 0:o; ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

CARLISLE. Amgen 25.
Csvu. Sun—Before Mr. Justice LITTLIDALL
CORRY V. THOMPSON AND OTHERS.

Mr. WILLIAMS (with whom was Mr. PATTERSON)
stated the case to the Jury. The action was brought to
recover the value of a quantity of hay, of which the
defendants had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff.—
It had happened that in the month of April last a
person of the name of Bell, a grocer at Brampton, in
that county, had had a small demand against James
Anderson, one of the defendants. To recover that de-
mand Bell had instituted an action in the County Court,
and had got a verdict and issued execution. The execu-
• tion had been intrusted to the plaintiff, who was a She-
riff's officer, and he had gone to make the levy upon the
premises of the defendant Anderson. Anderson lived at
a place called Cold-fells, and there he had a byre for
cows, and a stack of hay. The hay had been taken from
two fields, in one of which the defendant Thompson
claimed a property, but it was notorious that Anderson
had always been regarded as the owner of the hay, he
always using it for his cows, and treating it in all respects
as his own. Upon that stack of hay the plaintiff had
seized, and had been in the act of carrying it away in
carts provided for the purpose, when a person of the name
of Irwin had come up, and claiming the stack as his own
property, had discharged the plaintiff from seizing. The
plaintiff had disregarded that discharge, and had proceeded
with the levy when another claimant to a property in the
stack had arisen in the defendant Thompson. It had been
explained to Thompson that only a minute before, Irwin
had claimed it as his own,and then Thompson had changed
his ground and said that it was Irwin's, but that Irwin held
it for him. The plaintiff feeling confident that the pro-
perty was Anderson's, had proceeded in removing the
hay, when Thompson had put in a threat that he should
soon be forced to discontinue ; and sure enough,
upon some signal of Thompson's, the Cold-fell had been
made to resemble the glen which Sir Walter Scott had
described in one of his poems ; for men had suddenly
shot forth on all sides to the number of about 100, and
had effectually prevented the bailiff from proceeding in
his work, and almost frightened him out of his senses.—
The hay had been taken back, and it was to recover its
value that the present action had been brought.
The proceedings in the County Court, the judgment
and execution against Anderson, were regularly proved.
John Lee stated, that on the 27th of April last he had
:accompanied the plaintiff to Cold-fells. Plaintiff was a
Sheriff's officer, and had a precept from the County
Court, commanding him to levy upon the goods of An-
derson. They went to Anderson's stack, and plaintiff
seized it. They then proceeded to put the hay into
three carts, which they had brought with them, and
whilst doing so a man of the name of Irwin came out,
and said the stack was his. Plaintiff went on removing
the hay. Defendant (Thompson) then came up, and said
the stack was his. Plaintiff said, " Why, Irwin said just
now that the stack was his." Thompson answered " Yes,
it is ; but it is his for me." Thompson then desired a
boy, who was near, to go and tell the kilnmen and the
railway-men that they were wanted. Immediately after-
wards a great number of men came and drove the plaintiff
and witness away.
Other evidence was given to show that Anderson had
always taken hay for his cows from the stack in ques-
tion, and had been regarded as the owner.
Mr. ALDERSON (with whom was Mr. Ramshay) ad-
dressed the Jury for the defendant. There would be two
questions for their consideration. In the first place,
he (Mr. Alderson) should show that the plaintiff, upon
being first accosted by Irwin, had voluntarily with-
drawn from the possession, and had said that he would
have no more to do with the stack. That being the
case, it would be for his Lordship to say whether the
possession being out of the plaintiff, he was entitled
to bring this action ? The other question would be,
whether the stack in question was the property of An-
derson? He (Mr. Alderson) should call witnesses to
show that it was, in fact, the property of Thompson; and
if ale Jury believed that to be the case, then the defen-
dants would be entitled to a verdict.

Evidence was then offered to support the statement of
defendant's Counsel, but the defence failed, and a verdict
v. as given for the plaintiff—Damages, 121.

Before Mr. James BATLEY.

Caowx COURT.—John Allen and Isaac Rae were
indicted for feloniously assaulting Patrick Faggy on the
King's highway, and robbing him of 1/. 10s. a watch,
and a pocket handkerchief. The prosecutor stated, that
on the 30th of June last, he was at a public house in
Wigton, and there for the first time met the prisoner at
the bar. The prisoner asked him to drink, and he com-
plied. After drinking together for some time, he went
out of the house, and as he was going along a place called
Water-lane, he was overtaken by the prisoner Allen.
Allen put up his fist to prosecutor's face, and prosecutor
struck him, but at the same time he received a severe
blow, which immediately knocked him down. Prosecu-
toi was for a short time insensible, and upon coming to
himself he found that he had been deprived of his watch,
a handkerchief which he had worn about his neck, and
about 30s. Prosecutor identified Allen, but he could
not" swear that the prisoner Rae was present. A
witness of the name of Jordan proved that the
day after the prosecutor had been robbed, Allen
came to witness's house, and told him that he
and another person had committed a robbery the night
before, and got a silver watch, some notes, and a silk
handkerchief. Jordan went to the cellar where Allen
said he had concealed the articles, and found the watch
and other articles lying there. Jordan took them and gave
them to a person of the name of Hodges, by whom they
were given to the Magistrate. It was stated that Jordan
bad become uneasy in his mind after the occurrence, but
could not for some days persuade himself to make a dis-
closure. A witness who had gone to Hodges to demand
the watch stated that Hodges had at first refused to give
it up, saying that it had been put into his hands by Jordan,
and that to Jordan only he would restore it.
The prosecutor identified the watch when produced in
Court.

The Jury found Allen guilty, and acquitted Rae.
Richard Hodges and Robert Jordan were then in-
dicted for receiving the property, knowing it to be stolen.
Mr. ARCHBOLD stated the case, and called nearly the
same witnesses as in the last case, and also offered in
evidence the examinations of the two prisoners when
taken before the Magistrates.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY expressed his disapprobation of
this prosecution, as it was proved that the prisoners had
voluntarily given up the property, and had, as far as they
could, facilitated the apprehension of the persons sup-
posed to have stolen it.
The Jury found both the prisoners Not Guilty.

The name of the present finisher of the law is Cheshire.
When. therefore, a " famlly an" inquires after any brother of
the craft who may have been banged, be Is informed. "that he
has gene to tin, and has waver beet bard gainer."