Star.
London, England, 1827-10-02 00:00:00

I it• r.i. - T • . * ,
t I .
• . 4 . „ ~..1..--1- '''''s
00 ••'• 'AP- . i .
. • : :a.s • ''''s
°IN': '''-i'' •
' ' li , f . .• l) t
4 .41x.
- -,1414141111ri5-t
-"ENCE.
--=1 1
t
1,1

to escape. .
--An addition has been Made to'the dietary:iv/flicking'
consists of I}:b. of bread) tibl of potato-f;' 4nL of oari-
meal, and halt an ounce of salt daily; the weekly colt
is about •21. lid. per Iread.•
The greatest number of prisoners in confinement
one time fast year was .20 ; and- the total 'number-di,
commitments during the year was 113.
AMIBORNE.--CIUNTY HOLUM' or toitirehirr.
• haivery, 1 ale.
No alteration has been made in this prison since the
pub) cation of the last Report. Although the greater
number of prisoners confined here ale convicted ofa.
fenders, no means of hard labour of employment ale
cartied on. except ih the case of a pris sner belonging
to a trade, at Which he can safely bt permitted to ivdtk
in the prio,n.
.The 'dietary his been ;careered since -the.last Itepoit,
and it is now the state as tlidt Of Cisesterfi4d House of
Cor v @dim "
Prayers are now te.id every morni-ig, either by the
Chaplain of the keeper; and a warm: is preached On
Sundays.
TM greatest number of prisoners at one time ip the
year was 31; and the trail number of cormnitmeate
during that period was 95.
rtue•avra.4.--couxry noon os coansartow.
January, las&
The number of commitments to this brualLprivoi*
during the rcar amounted to 27; and the 'realest nun/•
bey confined at orte time was five.
These is no classification ; and no means of employ..
ment are provided.
.Prayers me read by the keeper, there being no chaise
lain appointed.
Toe dietary is the same as that allowed at the other
houses of collection.
WIRKSwOI:T/i.-..COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTION.
January,lsm.
No system'of classification is observed in this prison.
During she last year there was-but (me female prisoner..
Tiiirty-seven convicted offenders were in confirremerk
s..lur.ng the year; 34 were misdemeanants, and the re-
mainder were felons. Ti.e greatest number of prl.
wmesa-at one time was nice.

.No means of employment or hard labour are pro.
vide.l. There is no all >w•ar,ce of clothing. The dietary
has been increased. and is. similar to th..t described at
the other houses of correction in this county..
The kreper reads pfafers every morning ; but no
provision is made for the instruction of plotters, add
no chaplain is appointed.

LAW IN ELLiti ENO&
COAT Or COMMON PLEAS, wES:r4I24SITI!, Ops. 1.
(Atristurned Sidings af:et Trkity 'Term, before die Liao emax
• JetrilLeipaies, Oeouebhi Jeriee.) -

. -
itEWLETT V. Jr ll'.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDY •tared that ►his was an action
• f trespass. The plaintiff was the tenant of a public.
house, called the Duke of Albemarle on /I or,ehack,
•ituate in Stafford-street, at the corner of Dover-street,
Piccadilly. The defendant was in the ocv.pition of
an ,adjoining house, and the object of the pi e.ent action
was to ascertain to which of these parties a certain pas-
sage, leading to the plaintiff's back premises, belonged;
From the peculiar situation of this passage, it would
appear that the defendant had foioned.a mistaken no•
non that he was the person to vrhiain it in fact belonged,
and that the plaintiff, although in possession, had no
right whatever to it. The situation of the Fsssage was
.ertaignly calculated to st-etißthen such an opinion. It
was adjoining the plaintiff's house, having a room
above, and a kitchen below, belonging to the defend-
ant's house. The Learned Sergeant would Notre, how.
ever, that this passage had always belonged tO and been
considered as part of the plaintiff's house. In fact, she
had no other means whatever of getting in:o the yard
at the back of her house. When the defendant had
twined the erroneous idea that the Learned Sergeant
had mentioned, be proceeded in the most outrageoiss
manner to take possession of the property. 'Fre not only
bt.r.ke a way through the will of the house, but in tin
doing destroyed a large cupborrd, containing minty
•aluables, belonging to the plaintiff. On heivg
stratea with, he said he was by that means tryiag a wrjt
of sight. In order, in some measure, to rept' this
jury, the plaintiff elected a quantity of snood arsh%
which the defendant also thought prisrea to devisoy;
land having cut away a prop supporting the
the whole of the pavement fell in, a circumstance which
of course deprived the plaintiff of the advantages apt
had derived from the use of it. The object of the action
was, therefore, to reetmer mine compensation for the
injury and inconveniei ce she had sustained.
Several witne,ses were then called, who stated, that
from theip earliest recollections, the passage bad always
belonged to and been used by the tenants of the plain-
tiff's. house.

Mrs. Adkins, a former tenant, stated, that she went
into the house' 1792, and had lived there ten years,
during which time she hid been compelled to repair
'the passage in question.
The deed granting the lease of t'.e hou:e was then,
put in and read. It was dated in September 1706, and
:fully described the passage as a part of the tenethent:
Mr. Sergeint WILDE, for the defendant, contended,
that the passage in question was not the same that was
mentioned in the deed which had just been read. The
passage there described, he should proie )sad since been
added to the parlour of the publitlonst, aria thai the
passage now in existence Lad been liken firma the pat.
lour of the defendant's houses as be should prove •ntst
only by witnesses, but also by a dead eaecutest bet Weep
the same parties as those mentioned in that end by his
learned friend. Another circumstance which' would go
tar to prove that the passage had 'been taken horn- the
defendant's house was, that the satne cornice that or ne-
tnented the defendant's parlour was continued through
the passage.
A. number of witnesses were then called, and a deed
was put in and read, but the testimony of neither ap-
peared strong enough to refute that given by plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant 'PADDY was about to reply, but
The'LoanCnislAntrica thought it would be woe-.
ecstasy. His Lordship then asked the Jury if they 441
a• doubt that the passage belonged to the plaintig?
The Jury hesitated for a shod time, but at lengds
turned a verdict for the plaintiff.—llunages,

414 t•it

•1

A