Star.
London, England, 1828-07-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT—BEDFORD, Jun' 23.
IMPORTANT TO COACH PROPIHETORS.-MART V. PEN-

NINGTON.

In this case the plaintiff, a coach proprietor, sought
to recover the sum of 551. Bs. 6d. true to him from the
defendant, a co-proprietor of the Paul Pry coach, in
which other persons had also been interested. The
plaintiff and defendant had, with others, been engaged
in horsing the Paul Pry from October, 1826, till April,
1827, when, the speculation being found to be a bad
one, it was agreed to relinquish it in favour of a more,
promising concern, and Paul Pry, with all his attractive'
qualities, was allowed, unlike his celebrated rival,
Liston, to retire from public notoriety, and sink quietly
back.into the shade. kappeared that the plaintiff was
the proprietor at the extreme end of the road through
which the coach had to eon froth the Golden Cross,
;Charing Cross) London, of which inn Mr. Home is the
landlord in chief. The plaintiff had from time to time
Paid sums over and above his allotted share, and the
way-bilis or fare bills from Mr. Horne's office had di-
rected the defendant to pay the plaintiff the surpitis,
which, consisting of three items, amounted to the sum
,of money claimed.
Mr. Sergeant Svoncs, with whom was Mr. SMITH,
conducted the case for the plaintiff; Mr. KELLY and
Mr. Guttstau fur the defence. .
. Stephen Mart, brother to the plaintiff, And for some
pusßose his attorney, proved an examination df the
account, between the plaintiff and defendant in his pre•
sence, and snadmission by the defendant that the amount
claimed was right, that he was sorry he could not pay
it, but would remit the amount in a few days.
The witness was cross-examined at considerable length,
but nothing material was elicited to invalidate his
testimony.
Mr. Km.te submitted that there must be a nonsuit.
OH the ground of partnership and non-cr ncurrence cf
the other partners, admitting the account put in to be
correct, as the claim made by the plaintiff. The ac-
count was only the account of Mr. Horne, and if the
plaintiff had any remedy it was in equity, and not at
law. He quoted several authorities in support' of his
opinion.
The. Loan CHIEF BARON was of opinion that lie
had not made out a case for a nonsuit, and directed
the cause to proceed.
Mr. KELLY asked leave to move for a nonsuit.
The Lotto Cuter BARON—No; I wilt not give you
leave.

Mr. Kp.t.it then addressed the Jury fa the defendant,

and called one Morris, who bad been tor '2B days a
pa►trer in the coach in question, to prove that an agree.
ment, different from the one proved by the plaintiff,
had been made by him.
Cross-examined—He admi►ted he was and always had
been •ei y ►ntimate with the defendant.
Several other witnesses were called to prove that the
partneralip accounts were never settled, and that the
. .

test of the partners knew nothing of the claim made
upon the defendant, or his admission that it was doe.
Morris turned out to be a debtor to the concern and not
a creditor of it.
The LORD CHIRY BARON summed up a ith great
impartiality, observing, that the question was one • f'
pest iMpoltiOCCt which had occupied a great deal
4at time, but he hoped would not occupy so much of
' the time of the Jury in the disposal of it. The question
for the plaintiff rested mainly upon the evidence of the
witness Mart, without which he had no case at all, and.
would be driven to the more expensive, tedious, and•
disagreeable coarse, by bill in Chancery. The conver:
sation in October, between the defendant and this wit.
ness, was very strong and sattsfactory. But these were
witnesses on the other side, who had given a -different
complexion to the case, and it would be for the Jury to
decide to whom they would give the balance of credit.
The defendant's witnesses had sworn that the accounts
of the partnership were still unsettled.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
Several leading coach proprietors were in Court.
CHELMSFORD, JULY 24.—Befere Mr. Baron Gaaaow .

John Wallis and Lucy Bartlett were charged with
having assaulted John Wren on the King's highway,
and taken from his person a purse containing 555.
The prosecutor was a deaf and dumb man. He
had been for many years in the employ of Mr. Twy-
ford, of Itomford, and could only give his evidence by
means of gestures and yells, which Mr. Twyford un-
dertook to interpret. According to that Gentleman's
version of these signs, it appeared that on the 29th
of June he was in a public house at Itomford, kept
by Mrs. Layman, where he bad, share of three pints
of porter. The prisoners came into the house while he
was there. He left at eleven o'clock at night, and had
not proceeded far before the female prisoner came up to
I him, collared him, and attempted to throw hill down.

•
. .
He war, however too strong for her, and the.other prl
toner came to her assistance, and knocked him down.
They then took from his purse, containing 11. 1.514
in silver.
The evidence of the prosecutor was in some degree
corroborated by Mrs. Layman, at whose house he had
been; and French, the constable who arrested the pri-
soners, and who found thirty-shillings on the person of
Bartlett, deposed, that the moment tlse prosecutor saw
them, he intimated by signs that they were the. persons
who Mad robbed him.

Mr. Baron GARROW, in summing up, observed
strongly on the great advantage" the law extended to
prisoners, in giving them an opportunity ofkross-
examining witnesses. Now this could not be done in
the present case, or perhaps it might be shown, by what
passed before the transaction; and what in addition to
the evidence given, that the offence was not of the
heinous nature charged. In a.caie, therefore, which
might affect the lives of the accused, he thought it
hardly sale to rest on such evidence.
. The Jury immediately returned a verdict Not.Guilly.
Before Lord Tasmania.
Robert Pranks, a substantial farmer at Waltham
Abbey, surrendered to take his trial on an indictment
charging- him with having riotously assembled,' with
divers other persons, and assaulted Philip Taber. It
appeared, that on the 2d of February, the Ffrosecutor
WAS at the Three Tuns, at Waltham Abbey, when the
defendant came in, and endeavoured to provoke him to
fight. Prosecutor refused, and soon after left the Three
Tuns. Defendant followed him, abused him as an in-
Isrmer, in consequence of prosecutor's having been in-
strumental in causing him to be fined for keeping an
illicit poaching net, collected a crowd about him, and
at length struck him down, and kicked him violently.—
Verdict, Gsegig.
The Loan Cum? JUSTICE 'sentenced WitU.:to be im-
prisoned for sill months, and at the end of that period
to find sureties to keep the peace.
William Whipps, aged 16. servant, was put to the
bar, charged with having feloniously assaulted, with
intent, &c. Eliza Whale, an infant of the age of six years.
The child was on a visit to her aunt, an innkeeper,
at Bocking, in whose service tie prisoner was at the
time, in the capacity of " boots." The (Armee lists
committed in March last, in a cowhouse. The prose-
cutrir, a very pretty and intelligent child, .gave her
evidence with great clearness.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and the Learned
JUDGE immediately sentenced him to two months.' soli-
tary confinement, and to be twice privatalf whipped. •

Richard Green/till, aged twenty•f. ur, w-a► indicted for
feloniously breaking and entering the duelling hou,e of
James Smith, at-Great Chishall, and stealing therein
several articles of dress and some halfpence, the property
of the said James Smith.
The prosecutor was at chapel when his cottage was
broken open and the property stolen. A neighbour of
the prosecutor's saw the prisoner .t7iiig up a bundle in
the garden of the prosecutor,and in consequence at her
,ttformation, a pursuit was made, and the prisoner over-
taken, with part of the property in his possesuioll.
He was found guilty, and set.tence of Death recorded
(Before Mr. Baron GAIIItOM and a Combas Jeri). . • .
• surmise (mimic) v: 711MAII.
This was sin action brought bythetplatatittOrepergr
the rent of a farm *hid) he had let to ele 'aefendittirs
brother, on rig -uo 'teems the derendr

)rt. _c,- to guarantee of the defendant.
~
From the evidence, it appearedd-thit siefelidei;L4
brother died, leaving two years'': rent:. jinpaid.. which
amounted to 7431. of which sum' it waftia, admitted Sgt
IDSI. had subsequebt'y been paid=i4itt-ihat thek 441
remained, according to the plainiirt 'scion*, deOjt
of 6581. It appeared; however; 'lliat.:the wiclosis,tas
w v l
suffered remain in sseisinny pays
sums en account of rent, though 'neva pattni
her way-wso that the plaintiff, it hilt, 'gait :direr tens
that the stock should be seized, aid every thing sold,tp
meet his demand. By this course he obtained opwatits
of 5001. and the Widow was utterly tallied. to thepst
sent cause it was contended by his Conesel that DOOOf
the sums paid by the widow were iipliCable
back-rent lett by the deceaied, and' tot which be lei,
fendatit had made himself responsible..
.Mr. Baonatcx, is the course of bit Speech for the de-
fendant, commented very igir erely'on the course which
'the pl.intiff had puriued; died likewise on the circnina.
stance-of the plaintiff's broilier being the attorney id the,
cause, and' ot his putting himself into the witness bo*
for the purpose of endeavouring to show that thi der
fendant, by some unlucky phrase, had conspromis'ed tbe
goodness of his defence.
Mr. Baton Ganaow summed up, at great length,.
and the Jury, after a short deliberation, found a Verdict
tor the defendant.