Star.
London, England, 1827-08-25 00:00:00

DIXON AND °TRIMS N. WIN OP.

This was an action brought against the defendant, to
try the extent he had to a large extent of commonage,
in right of a farm which he held under a demise from
the Earl of Egremont. For the plaintiffs it was con-
tended, that the fell on which the defendant claimed a
right of pasturage for 800 sheep, was the exclusive and
private right of the Noble Earl, as Lord of the Manor.,
Mr. F. Pouiscc conducted the plaintiff's case.
Mr. BROUGHAM, on the other side, called such a body
of evidence, to shew that there wits a prescriptive right!
attached to the farm under which the defendant claimed,
that the Counsel for the plaints could not rebut.
'A verdict was given for the defendant.
HARRINGTON V. JOHNSON.
This was an action upon an agreement by whip it'
was alleged that the defendant had sold to the plaintiff
the stock, crops, household furniture, and implements
of a farm. To which it was pleaded that the agreement
was a forgery.
In support of the agreement the son of the plaintiff
was called, who distinctly swore that he was present at
the Grey Goat, Carlide, when the agreement was signed,
and he was corroborated by another person.
On the part of the dt fendant, it was shewa that the
plaintiff was his son-in-law ; that in the month of June,
previous to the alleged signing of this agreement, he had
by process in the 411 ,g's Bench ejected him from the
farm, and that without any evidence of a reconciliation
having taken place, it was pretended he had sold !rim
the farming stock, &c. of great value, for a mere no-
minal value. Witnesses were also called to prove that
defendant was at home at his residence, about thirteen
miles from Carlisle, at the time of the signing of the
instrument.

Mr. baron Huw.occ, in his charge to the Jury, said
that there was manifest perjury on one side or the other.
They must weigh all the circumstances, and decide.
The Jury, after being absent from Court some consi-
derable time, found a verdict for the defendant.

BRIDGWATER. Acorn? 23.
(Before Mr. JUStia BOZROUGH.)
ASSAULT.—KINGSBORT V. COLLINS AND ELMS.

..-- ---
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendants, for n grievous bodily injury which he
had received from them while engaged in his lawful
occupation. It appeared that he was employed in
cutting teasels upon sine land which he and another
bad engaged to cultivate for the proprietor of the soil,
on cettain conditions, when the defendants came up,
ordered him off the ground, and upon his refusal beat
and kicked him in a violent manner, and then remaved
him by force ; afterwards conveying him as a prisoner
before a Magistrate, who dismissed the charge of tree
pass
.which they brought against him. st he defendants
endeavoured tq justify their violence, upon the ground
of pos%es,ion of the land having been given to them by
Mr. Curtis, the former landlord; and their Counsel
(Mr. Sergeant 80/Aiwa) contended that there was no
proof of severe injury. and that the defendants were
poor labouring men, unable to defray even the costs of
this action, much less any amount of damages.
Mr. Justice Suattotton, in charging the Jury, said,
that the assault was one of extreme aggravation, and
that the perpetrators of it had no right to shelter them-
selves under their poverty. The rule of law was, that
the plaintiff should be awarded, in such a case as this,
the amount of damages which he deserved, and that
the defendant should be made to pay in person, if he
could not in purse, fur the ir.july be bad unlawfully
ionflicted.

The Jury found a verdict for the ptsintiff—Damages
2001.—The pleadings in this cause were so voluminous,
that the parchment on which they were written would
hAve covered the ground on which the teasels !pew,
the tenure of whi&l involved the main dispute.