Star.
London, England, 1817-08-07 00:00:00

DEVONSHIRE ASSIZES.

These Assizes terminated at the Crown Bar, on
Thursday evening ; and at Nisi rrius, on Saturday
evening.

James TriNun Watt, was indicted for forging an
order to receive prize-money, dne ro Joseph Perry,
Irciat..wain, in his M.ijesty's ship Plicehe, (from the
capture of the American ship Java). It appeared,
trom the evidence of Mrs. Petry, the wife rat the said
Joseph retry, that prisoner had written 2 letter, for
her, to her huihand, then and now in the East Indies ;
by which, kliowing that it WAS not likely he would
came linare, he in the month of September (as WAS
most clearly proved by Mr. Solomon, then a !wry
agent at Plymouth) came to the latter with an order
to receive the said prize-money, and Mr. S. agreed
to transact the bossiness for him, which he did. The
Captain of the Pticebe swore positively, that the silt-
nature to the order, was not the hand writing of
Joseph Perry.
The—prisoner asked several questions scarcely at
all connected with the business; but asserted in the
most positive manner that Mr. Solomon had sworn

The evidence being summed up, the Jury retired
for about a quarter of an 'sour, and then returned a
verdict of Guilty.
The Learned Judge in the most impressive manner
proceeded to pass sentence of death, assuting him,
that no mercy would be extended to him, in this
world, anJ urging him to prepare himseli for that
into which he was about to enter.

Henry Harris and John Ward were convicted of sa-
crilege in the church nt Ashburton on the 27th April.
Joseph Mudge, the piri:h clerk, prose(' the he.
curing the church on that day, and that on the lA.
lowing day lie found the lock of the church do..r had
been fumed, and a silver Non, two silver salvers,
a surplice, &c. stolen Irom the vestry a window on
the north side had also been forced ope...

The sett-n corroborated this evidence.

Emanuel C..hen, a silversmith of Plymouth, proved
that Godfrey (one of the receivers) came into his
shop with a bar of silver for sale : the witness gave
her SM. for it; it weighed 18 ounces : soon alter she
came agaiu with H. Harris to receive the silver back
again, because it WAS not money enough : witness
Rave him 4s. more, and he went away : iu about
nab an hour he returned again with another of the
prisoners, Ward, who brought two other bars of sil-
ver, which witness purchased for 15 guineas.
The clerk GI the parish identified part of the silver
taken from the prisoners.
They were sentenced to seven years transportation.
Harriet Godfrey and Catherine Smith, indicted for
receiving the property, were acquitted.

NISI PRIUS.
PRANCIs V. DAME&

Thursday a case of considerable importance came
before the Court, and which, from the nature of the
circumstances, and having been before litigated at the
last Summer Assizes, (when a verdict was given for
plaintiff.) occupied heady ten hours in hearing, and
excited very great interest. Mr. Francis, a farmer,
residing at Crediton, and the tenant of Mr. T. B.
Luxmore, of Okehampton, brought his action against
Mr. Duke, a miller, also resident at Crediton, for
having added to the height of a certain ancient weir
constructed across the River Yew, adjoining to which
the plaintiff has some fields; by means whereof two
of the said fields, one called Denbury Broad Marsh,
and the other Three Cornered Marsh. are materially
injured. The plaintiff, to establish his case, called
two witnesses to prove the height of the weir, the effect
produced on the property of the plaintiff by the height
of the weir, and a surveyor to prove the amount of
the damage done. One of the witnesses, called Stuc-
key, on the part of the plaintiff, swore that a former
plank weir was from 18 inches to 2 feet higher than
an original raddle•weir, and that the present stone-
weir is also from 18 inches to 2 feet higher than the
said original raddle-weir ; and that the rush of water,
lin consequence of the too great height of the present
weir, had worn a pit in plaintiff's Broad Minh, of
very considerable dimensions.
On the part of the defendant, several witnesses
were called, who proved most decidedly that the pre-
sent stone-weir is five inches under the height of the
old Brushwood, or raddle-weir, before mentioned ;
and two surveyors swore, that the bed nf the river
near to, and immediately above the weir, is only two
feet six inches from the top of the sill of the ..err;
consequently, should any reduction in the height of
the present weir be made, some mills, the property et
the &tendons, situate just below the weir, and the
stream or lent to supply which branches off from the
river by the weir, must be rendered useless. Other
witnesses proved, that in that neighbourhood there
are frequent Roods cf water, and that the damage
sustained by plaintiff, was caused by his inattention
to protecting his ground, by weiring or raddleing,
against such floods, end not by the heigl:t of &fen-
dant's weir, as alleged by plaintiff.
The Jury (a special and most respectable one, of
which J. T. Wtight, Esq. was Foreman) retired for
about 20 minutes, and returned a verdict for de-
leadant.

CLOUGH, VA V. NEIMAN.

This was an action of trespass, against the defen-
dant for entering and breaking a lock in the plain-
tiff's close= the ease was fully proved. Verdict for
the plaintiff with costs, which established his right to
the ground in question.