Star.
London, England, 1819-08-12 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

YORK Ansmr.s, AUGUST 5.
TRI:S?Miti.—MELBOURNE V. MAUDE.
Mr. &leant Ilut.Locx opened this Special Jury
cause. The question really at issue was, the right
of the defendant to shoot over the grounds occupied
by the plaintiff. The action was, in fact, brought
by Sir Edward Smith, of Newland, and Lord of the
Manor of Nurmanton, in which the scene of trespass
was situated.
• Witnesses were called, who swore that the spot on
which the trespass was committed was the property
of Mr. Wilkinson, and that the defendant was seen
shnoting there. Notices discharging the defendant
were put in evidence.
Mr. SCA MATT, for the defendant, said, it was the
first time he had the honour of addressing a Special
Jury in an action of trespass for Is. damages. It
was new in this cause, too, that a tenant was nominal
plaintiff, while the real plaintiff was the Lord of the
Maaor, who was not proprietor of the ground. Sir
Edward Smith was one of his oldest friends in the
world, and he was very sorry that a gentleman so
respectable and so good-natured should have been
persuaded to bring such an action. But litigation
arising from the Game Laws was necessary in the
country to animate existence ; without it the stream
of life would become stagnant. The Newspapers had
had lost their interest, and some of them were printed
in too small a type for country eyes : this was, there-
fore, the only resource. If the report of a gun was
heard, the quire-artillery, as a certain writer called
it, wl.e:her the report was a neighbouring gentle-
man's guns, or the game-keeper s, a notice was
sei ved, and an action at law was instituted. But in
the present instance the action must fail, for the de-
fendant had the license of Mrs. Strawbenzie, to whom
the property belonsed, and of the plaintiff, her tenant.
This he slioulu prove, and then be entitled to their
verdict. ilre object was to get it established, that
nolie could shoot game, even upon the license of the
proprietor and tenant, without the license also of
the Lord of the Manor. He hoped it would give
no offence to Sir Edward Smith, but he was very
sure that the Jury would never allow such an unjust,
oppressive, and tyrannical claim. Mr. Maude was a
gentleman of the utmost exactitude, and kept a jour-
nal of his depredations in this way, and it appeared
that in the year 1817 he had killed five partridges
and sevea hares. Upon this daring depredator, who
killed game by dozens, all these notices had been
served.

A boy, who accompanied Mr. Maude on his shoot-
ing excursions, in order to carry the killed, deposed
to Melbourne having, upon seeing Mrs. Sirawben-
aie's letter, (which gave the fullest license to the de-
fendant, and which WAS proved and put in evidence)
given his verbal consent to the defendant, but refused
to sign his name, for fear of offending Sir Edward
Smith. He also deposed that no mention had ever
been made of the close in question being tho property
of Mr. Wilkinson, and not of Mrs. Strawbalzie.—
(This close had since been purchased by the defen-
dant, whose property it now is).
Melbourne's daughter and servant were called to
contradict the boy, and prove that Melbourne had
given no consent.
Mr. SQARLETT asked the daughter if she had not
stood at the Ear of the Sessions in Rotherham ?

Mr. Serjeant fluttocK contende.i that she was not
bound to answer that question.
Mr. SCAIMETT insisted, if put upon that ground,
that she had.

Mr. Baron Wcon.—A witness is not bound to an-
swer questions that would disgrace himself.
Mr. ScAntErt.—My Lord, I have a right to dis-
credit a witness. Lord Eilenborough laid down a
rule, that no witness could be obliged to discredit
himself ; Lcrd Erskine, when at the Bar, contended
against the rule ; Lord -I:Alleaborotigh afterwards
abandoned it, and Lord Erskine always insisted on
the right while he was at the Bar.
Mr. Baron Woon.—l know it has been matter of
doubt: but I think Lord Ellenborcugh's rule was right.
Mr. SCARLETT.—I hope to live to feed no douots
upon the subject. lam not allowed to ask the wit-
ness if he stoocl_t7on thepillory ? •

Mr. !lam' Woeo.—l think not.
Mr...:icisp.l.sTr. al:l:trice,' the Jury again, and Mr.
Ser.'cant iIULLOCK replied at considerable length.
Jt.ry, after long deliberation, found their ver-
dict fir the plaintiff. Damages—One Farthing.