Star.
London, England, 1826-07-22 00:00:00

ROBBERY IN COURT.

As a Gentleman named Lambert, who appeared to
oppose an insolvent, named Dunhar, was sitting on one
f the seats immediately behind the witness box, which
is directly in front of the bench, one of the• pockets of
his trousers was turned inside out, and a bag contain-
ing seven sovereigns extracted from it. He immediately
communicated the circumstance to the Court, upon
which the doors were ordered to be closed,-and an officer
was called in, for the purpose. of searching a young
'man upon whom his suspicions lighted ;no trace-of the
stolen property, howeier, was found upon him. Several
other persons, who had been sitting in Mr. Lambert's
neighbourbood, invited a search of their persons, but
no vestige of the money was discovered. It was stated,
that shortly before the alarm was given by Mr. Lam-
bert, two young men, who had occupied seats near him,
had been observed to quit the Court in a hasty manner.

SUMMER ASSIZES.

YORK, Jutv SO.
DUKE OE DEVONSHIRE V. LODGE.

Mr. Tnism. opened the pleadings. The declaration states, that
the defendant had broken and entered the free Chace and warren of
the plaintiff, and had destroyed great quantities of game therein.
Plea, general issue. . _

M. SCARLET? stated the case to the Jury. The plain-
tiff, in this action, had been compelled to resort to a
Court of Law, in order to establish his rights to a species
of property which had been for centuries possessed by
himself and his ancestors, viz. the right of a free chafe
and warren in the Forest of Langstrothdale, in that
county. The forest had', in very early times, been vested
in the Kings of England ; but in so early a period as
the reign of Edward the Second, had been granted to
the Earls of Northumberland. By family settlement,
it had been next transmitted-to-Clifford. Earl of Cum-.
berland ; from him it passedlti to the Earl of Burling-
ton ; and from him it passed to-the ancestors of the Ca-
vendish family. By that means it had descended to the
Duke of Devonshire; the present plaintiff. The Forest
of Langstrothdale was situated in Craven, in a remote
part of the county of York. It was an elevated moun-
tain, but it was itself a small valley, comprising several
hamlets. It would appear that in early times, the
family that possessed it had owned the moon by which
it was surrounded, but that in the course of time the
whole had been parted with, except.the possession of
about forty acres. He should show the Jury to-day,
that, from the earliest times, respecting which evidence
would be collected, the proprietors of Langstrothdale
had exercised the rights appertaining to a royalty. His
Lordship would tell them, that; by the law of the land,
a royalty of-that kind embraced every inferior species
of royalty, including a free warren. A free warren gave
the right to the partridge, moor game, and other game
of that description. A chafe gave a privilege to kill
deer, and the higher species of game, and a forest in-
cluded both the others, and was of the highest descrip-
tion. He should begin by :hewing to the Jury, that,
during the minority of the Earl of Northumberland, in
the reign of Edward H. the King, who had a right to
the wardship of the great Bain* who held by Knight,
service, had appointed an officer to preserve the rigis
of the chafe and forest, end that evidence would :hew;
not only that it bad been a forest, but that it had been
vested in the Northumberland family.. He should also
shew, that in the reign of Henry VIII. a similar officer
had been appointed, with. a salary, and that in his ap-.
pointment the former. appointment had been recited.'
He would also shew them, that at that time Courts,
called Swainmote Courts,.had been held, and that those
Courts were peculiar to a forest. He should then ap-
proach a period nearer their own time, and they would
find that, in the year 1609, the Earl of Cumberland had
granted leases for life of the property of which the forest
and manor consisted, and it would- be of great import-
ance for the Jury to attend to those leases, because in
them they would find an express reservation of the fo-
restal sights. It would appear, that a fees years after-
wards, whilst these leases had subsisted, the owners had
parted with the possession of the fee, and he would give
in evidence a counterpart of one.of the conveyances, in
which they would find a recognition of the right now
sought to be established. It was remarkable, too, that
the quit rents reserved on that occasion agreed exactly
with the rents reserved under the leases. From the year
1629, up to the present moment, the only part of the
soil which had remitirsecriti the possession of the ances-
tors of the Duke of "Devonshire, had been forty acres,
which had been retained for the purpose of breeding
deer thereon. Since 1-768 the keeping of deer hid been
given up, but they would find an important fact, viz.
that the. Duke, though not the owner of the. soil, had
constantlygranted the right of killing game on the
waste—a right which the Lord of the Manor could not
grant, but which was granted only by the person pos-
sessing a free warren and chace. Notwithsfatading that
only toffy acres had been reserved, he would shew them
that'so far back as human memory went, the Doke of
Devoiishire had tonstantly'appointed .a person to pre-
serve the forestal rights; and that,. when silep.had not
granted a deputation, they had given tickets, which en-
titled the holders to shoot on the whole of the property.
To the right now claimed
.there had only 'been one in-
stance of resistance before the present, and that had
been made. by a Mr. Lister, a magistrate of the county,
who had owned land on a part of the forest.- An action
had been brought against Mr. Lister, who; after giving
.the subject a further consideration, had thought proper
to drop his resistance, and the action had never been
brought into Court. The late Duke of Devonshire had
been in the habit of giving the deputation to the late
Duke of Hamiltsn, at that time Lorl Archibald Ha-
milton, who, in his younger days, had resided near
Lancaster, and to him the right to grant licenscs had
been given. The Duke had been a good natured man,
and he had given orders, that if any of the tenants'
wished fir a brace of birds, they should not be prevented
from taking them; but he had constantly ordered that
strangers should not be allowed to shoot. From 1807
to 1810. the Duke of Devonshire had not granted the
deputation to any one; bat he had given tickets, with
his seal p4fised, to his agent, who hod given the tickets
to those Gentlemen who applied for leave to shoot. It
would be proved that pers ns, holJing• those tickets,
,
h4dtbeen in the habit of shooting, not over the Duke of
Devonshire's land, tor' he bad none, but over the whole
forest; and that no person betides h .d ever been per.

mitted to do so. From 1813, the deputation had been
granted to Mr. Ramsden, who had used it in the same
way. It did sometimes happen that a right of this kind
was exercised in a harsh and offensive manner,.and he.
allowed that it was most natural for personsy wtto had
perhapsfurchased their I4nd without being *wire of
thr,t free iiitreri, to feel sore at being -told that not only.
had another petscin a right to the game on their land.,
but thaethey shciuld not be allowed to shoot on their
own land themselves. But he believed there was no,
man alive who was more solicitous thrn the Duke of
Devonshire to render the exercise of such a right as Mae i
oppres.ive as possible, and this action had only been
brought because Mr: Lodge, the defendant, had given
notice that he world resist the right, and would only
submit to the decision of a Court of Law. He admitted,
that if the land had been granted away, and the forestal
rights had not beeri reserved, or if, when reserved, had
not for a great length of time been exercised, that this'
. action must fail ; but he had no doubt that the evidence
would prove both that the right had beery reserved, andl
that it had been constantly exercised. He therefore
looked with confidence to their verdict.
Ile evidence, which was a mere illustration of the
speech of the Learned Counsel, was then gone into. It
consisted of documents, some of them as ancient as the
reign of Edward 11. wh;cla shewed the appointment (by
King Edward in one instance, and the Duke of Northunt-
berland in tie other) of different persons to be supervisors
and head keepers of vert and venison in the forest of
Langstrothdale. The leases granted in 1606, and the
deeds of feoffment conveying the fee, were also pat in,
and from them it appeared that the forestal rights had
been reserved. The rolls of the manor .were also proved,
but none were put in of a date within the last hundred
years. The tickets, granting to different persons a.l cence
to shoot, were proved, but it appeared upon them that
Langstrothdale was called a manor, and not a forest.—
Several persons were called to prove the reputation, but
their evidence scarcely supported the plaintiff's case.—
The oldest amongst them stated, that he had never
known the owners of land in the forest prevented from
shooting ntitil of late years, and that different persons
had kepttiounds.on the forest, and hunted there without
interruption. The trespass of the defendant was proved
by Mr. Ramsden, to wham a deputation over the forest
had been granted, who stated, that. he had seen Mr.
Lodge kill a grouse on the forest i,n November last.
This was the ease for the plaintiff. • ...
Mr. Wiuuras submitted, u a ground of nonsuit, that a grouse
(which bird alone the defendant bad been proved to kill) was not
a bird included in any grant of fret Awe and warren.
Mr. Justice PAIL:- overruled the point, but saved it for future

Mr. Wo.u.sus then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
Mr. Justice PASS summed up the case in favour of the defendant.
The Jury retired Cot about an hour, and then returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, one shilling.
It is supposed that this verdict will not stand, u it seems to be
urainit the eriden/e. The trial excited considerable interest, on ac-
count of the peculiar nature of the right claimed by the plaintiff.—
The right of free chace and warren, though common in ancient
times, has gradually been circumscribed, and at this moment there
are only two or three instances in the whole kingdom where the
right continues to be exercised.
GUILDFORD, JILT O.
A TKINSON tt. PAHL'S.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to eetovei
the value of some fox hounds, alleged- tehave been sold
.to the defendant. The plaintiff is huntsman to the Union
Subscription Pick of Fox Hounds, in the county of
Surrey ; the defendant is a sporting Gentleman of pro-
perty, residing at Oldhouse, not far from Worcester.—
In April, 1825, the defendant announced his intention
of raising a suincription pack of fin hounds, to hunt the
tonnty of Wokester ; and having advertised fot: a pack,
the plaintiff replied to the notice, that ,he had a pack to
dispose of. Defendant agreed to pay ,the expenses of
their removal for him to approve, which he afterwards
declined to do,and ultimately returned the hounds, which
=bad suffeted much from the fatigue of -the journey, in-
.somuch that' some were killed,. and,others sold consi-
derably under their value. Verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 151.