Star.
London, England, 1827-08-18 00:00:00

BRUTAL ASSAULT.

Rickard Fuher, a vagabond travelling tinker, was
indicted for a brutal assault upon Elizabeth Hicks, a
poor blind woman, upwards of 80 years old. The fel-
low had knocked at the door of the old-woman's house,
and used the name of another tinker, who was known
there, to obtain permission to rest; but the old woman
being alone, refused him; he, however, forcibly pushed
in the door, knocked her down, and was only driven
from the perpetration of a capital crime by her screams,
which brought some neighbours to her assistance. The
fellow had then the audscity to appear active in his
lamentation of what had occurred, and to state to those
who found him in the house, that he was attracted there
by the noise of a woman in distress. He was clearly
proved to have entered the house before the noise was
heard, andhis agitation betrayed him.
The Jury instantly f wird him Guilty of the misde-
meanor, and Lord Chief Justice Bear, after animad-
vetting in indignant terms upon the prisoner's brutality,
sentenced him to two years imprisonment and hard
labour, recommending him, when that time should
have expired, to quit this part of the country at least,
where he would find every man's arm raised against
him, for his cowardly and brutal conduct.

CIVIL SIDE.

ZORLASE V. DANIEL.-PROFE,SIONAL QUARRY&

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
damages from the defendant, for the use of defamatory
words which were injurious to his character. It ap-
peared that they were both surgeons, residing at Mei-
; stun, the defendant being the professional attendant of
II a gossipping club which met in the tap-room of a
phlic-hosse in the town. His attendance not being'
altogether satisfactory to some of the members, one of
them (Edmund Hodges) applied to the plaintiff to un-
dertake the healing of the club, which he declined, with a
feeling of professional delicacy that afterwards appeared,
to have been inadequately repaid ; for when Hodges went
one night into the tap-room, Dr.D.niel called him a d —d
little poacher or terrier, and desired him to go and tell
John Buries:: (the plaintiff) that he was a t!--d regne—
that he had robbed the Pascoe family cf 4001. or 5001.
—that his old father had robbed the Lizard-lighthouse
of 10001.—end that he would rob a church. So im-
pressed did defendant ap4ear that his brother surgeon
would consummate his depraved propensity, by endea-
♦ouring to commit this sacrilege, that be said he would
speak to Jacob Martin the sexton, to take care of the
church books.

Mr. ERSKINE, for the defendant, ridiculed this trum-
pery action, arising out of a spirit cf tap-room gossip-
ping, and st;mulated into Ito ther publicity by some cun-
ning attorney. There were other professions besides the
meJical, in which the lancet was applied for the copious
bleeding of a patient, and such operations ought to be
discouraged by honest Juries.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH left it to the Jury to say,
whether the words were used in the foolish heat of some
public-house quarrel, or with a deliberate intention to
impute a felony to the plaintiff? If they believed the
latter, they would estimate the amount of damages
according to their sense of the injury received by the
plaintiff.
After a short consultation, the forenian of the Jury
said, in broad Cornish dialect—We are of opinion, Sir,
that there was no intentional robbery—only we censure
such conduct:

The COURT—If you do not think the defendant ini
tended to impute a felonious act to the plaintiff, then
you must find for the defendant. If you think that he
did, then you must find for the plaintiff.
Some of the Jurors here said, " Then we find for the
plaintiff."
The COURT—In that case, you find that the imputa-
tion of robbery was clearly givrn ?

The Foreman—No, we don't; we say it was wrong,
and we censure it.

After some further colloquy, the Ju►y found a verdict
for the defendant,

AUGUST 15.
WILBRAHAM V. ARTHUR.-FALMOUTH TITHE&

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the Rev.
John Watkins Wilbraham, against the defendant, who
was an inhabitant of Falmouth, to recover certain tithes
for which he was assessed by the Corporation of Fal-
mouth for the use of the plaintiff, who was rector of
that town. There were 36 pleas by the defendant, to
meet as many counts on the declaration, but the whole
question hinged upon a boundary line, which was said
to limit the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Falmouth, as
distinct from adjacent parishes. It appeared that in
the reign of Charles 11. and by cement of the Bishop
of Exeter, wh• is patron of the living of Falmouth, a
new ecclesiastical jurisdiction was defined, far the pur-
pose of making the town a distinct place from the pa-
rish in which it was situated, as well as from an adj:cent
chapeiry of great antiquity. And it was on that occa-
sion stipulated that an assessment of 1..4d. in the pound
should be made by the Corporation for the rector's
tithes, for Falmouth town and 44 precincts." Falmouth
originally consisted of ten houses, but had increased to
200 in Charles ll.'s time, when it was separated, to use
the language of the law, from " the Mother Church,"
and made subject to a particular arrangement for the
payment of tithes, distinct from those of the parish and
Chapelry. A ♦erdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject
to a question of law for the consideration of the Court
above.—The mining cases lows been all withdrawn.