Star.
London, England, 1810-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZES.

The Assizes for Buckinghamshire eentmenced on
Monday last.
John Carry Cole was tried on three several indict-
ments for an abominable crime. The prisoner was 60
years old, and was an usher in an academy, and the
victims of his brutal passion-were three of the boys of
the school, who, awed by the situation the prisoner
beid there, could not resist him.
On the first indictment he was acquitted, in conse-
quence of the boy being too young to understand the
'Necessary questions put to him to substantiate the
crime ; but on the two last he was found Guilty, re.
ceiied sentence of death, and was left for execution. ,
_ In the Nisi Prius Court, an action was tried be-
tween a labouring man, plaintiff, and a baker, for
criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
It came out m evidence that the plaintiff married
his wife, then with child by him, knowing of her hay-
ingleen frail with several persons ; and that he still
lived with his wife in the same state as before he came
to the knowledge of the defendant's intimacy with
her. It sva: therefore contended, that the action
Could not be maintained, the form of whicil was—
.that the plaintiff had lost the comfort, sojiity, and;
assist:trice of his wife ;" but the Judge over-ruled the
objection, 'recommending, however, to the Jury to
give small damages. The Jury gave the Plaintiff
/Jive Pounds.
FIELD V. HOW.
This was an action for pulling down the plaintiff's
pew in the parish church of Chesham, and disturbing
bim in the enjoyment of it.
It appeared that the plaintiff lately came into the
parish, and wishing a pew, took a fancy to the singers'
*allay, and with the assistance of the Vicar and the
Vicar's Churchwarden, but againstahe consent of the
Angers and the most respectable inhabitants, inclosed
. a part of it to his own use. The singers, displeased,
left the church, and the greater part of the inhabitants
followed their example. The Archdeacon; at his vi-
sitation, ordered the pew to be restored to the singers.
The plaintiff and his friends, the Vicar and his
.Churchwarden, refused obedience, and surreptitiously
obtained a faculty for the !sew in question from the
Vicar General's Office at Lincoln. The Archdeacon

declared Was faculty was invalid in his Archdeaconry,
.eleept it had been granted (as it was dot) during the
lishop's inhibition, and he determined to have it re-
called. The defendant having more zeal than pru-
dence, knowing there must be great delay in the pro-
, eeedings to annul the faculty, took the law into his
6sstn hands, and pulled down the enclosure, and the
plaintiff commenced his action.
The Judge was of opinion the defendant could not
justify what he had done ; but as the plaintiff had no
title, except on his faculty, the point was saved for
the Opinion of the Court of King's Bench, whether the
Vicar General could thus invade the Archdeacon's
jurisdiction ? and till this question is settled, there re.
mains no harmony in the parish of Chesham.
bamages Eight Pounds, subject to the opinion of
ate Judges.

HERTFORD, THURSDAY, AUGUST t
This morning Lord ELLENBOROUGH, and the LORD
Cfflr BARON arrived in this town, for the pnrpose of
holding the Assizes. They were attended to the
Town Hall by the Corporation, with the usual for-
malities ; after which they went to the church, and
heard divine Service ; returning thence, they immedi-
lately ptoceeded to the business of the County.

FLOWER v. ca.s.
This was an action for the price of 10 quarters of
'Malt. The defendant had purchased 270 quarters
yf bah of the plaintiff at Wart, and sent his barge to
etch it ; when the cargo was delivered at London
there atm only 260 quarters ; and the question was,
Whether 270, 6r only 260, had been put on board at
ilettfori ?
A w►tness, of the name of 13anard, who lived with
the plaintiff, stilted, that he kept the tally of the malt
as it was put on board, and he was positive 270 quar-
tos were shipped in the barge.
On cross-eiamination, he• said he himself kept the
'account, andwas never absent during the whole time
it was shipping. The shipper, who was employed by
the defendant, counted it as it lay on board, and
agreed it was all right.
tor the defendant, the persons on board the barge
were called, and they proved that they delivered ►n
London all the malt they received at Hertford, and
none they were s►rie was stolen from the vessel on its
ppassage. When they came to London they had but
'l7O quarters in all, and they had 10 quarters on board
before they began to take in the malt from the plain-.
lift. Eanard, they said, was not present the whole
time it was loading. A person of the name of Jones
-tbas the person who stowed the lading, and kept an
'*Ccount for the defendant.
Jones was called, who said he kept the- aecottnt,
ittid had no doubt hut he made the mistake by taking
into the_account the 10 quarters which were previ-
ously on board the barge. As soon as they arrived
'in London, and the short quantity was discovered, he
rectly said the mistake must have arisen in that
tunnel-.
:`The Jury found a •erdict for the defendant, stat-
'ig that they were of opinion that the 10 quartet s had
*ever been delivered.
411111MINAWAY V. MUNN.
ounce was the proprietor of a

40Aoicz