Star.
London, England, 1827-07-27 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

ABINGDON, Jinx U.
Cou. Suia—Before Mr. Justice Lensuctr.
tRRIOCIS CHOLMILT. ESQ V. SIR CHARLES COCIERIILLI

AND °THU&
This was • writ of fonnedon, brought by the de-
mandant (the plaintiff) in this cause, to recover from the
'tenants (the defendants), as lineal descendant of Bir H.
Rnglefieid, the celebrated estate of White Knights, near
Reading, late in the occupation of the Duke of Marl-
borough. The cause bas been for a considerable time
in Chancery, and when Lord Eldon resigned, was ripe
for jud,sment. which, by consent of both parties, his
Lordship pronounced subsequent to his resignation.—
The judgment was given in writing, and, in order to
receive the opinion of a Jury on the facts therein con-
tained, tke ancient and almost obsolete writ offorrneden
was resoTted to. By adopting this process, the tenant
(defendant) is prevented from availing himself of the
fact of 20 years' adverse possession. And the novelty
of this proceeding at the present time attracted consi-
derable cariosity. Mr. Cholmely, the demandant, is a
• Gentleman of fortune, residing in the county of York.
He claims to be descended from the old family of the
rglefields, whose pedigree can be traced beyond thp
Conquest; and were said to have been formerly te
owners of all, the property in this county. called by dif-
ferent names, but terminating with the word a field,"
via. Winkfield, Benfield, ecc. &c. The tenants (the de-
fendants) are surviving mortgagees in lee of the pm-
petty in question, which, after passing through various
hands, came 'into their possession after the Duke of
Marlborough had expended immense sums of money in
improving the mansion and pleasure grounds.
By the will of Sir Henry Englefield, the grandfather
of the deenandant, certain trusts were created, with a
power of sale, the proceeds to be invested in certain!
securities tor the benefit of the right heirs.' Sir Henry
Englefield died in the year 1780. Sir Charles Henry;
Englefield succeeded to it, and the estate wai sold by
the trustees to Byam Martin, Esq. father of the present
Sir Byam Martin, for 15,400/. Sir Henry Charles
Englefield, the tenant for life, without impeachment of
waste, was entitled to•cut and dispose of the timber;
but instead of stripping the estate at the time of the sale,
by a separate contract with Mr, Byam Martin, sold hens
the timber. Some years after, a doubt was raised as to
the legality of this proceeding, as his interest was not
reduced into possession, the timber not having been
severed from the estate. To obviate any difficulty that
might arise from the litigation of that question. Sit
Charles Henry Englefield invested the sum produced
Wile sale of the' imber in the three per Cent. Cansoli.
in the names of the trustees appointed by the will of
Sit? Henry Englefield. The question in the cause was,
whether those trusts had been properly executed? if
not, the demandant would be entitled to recover pos-
session. After a trial which lasted upwards of six hours,
the Jury found a special verdict for the demandant,
subject to the opinion of the Court above.

NORTHAMPTON, Jim 25.
LiNTow V. 111ILLRY.

The Arroattar-GasanaL, who came down on a
special retainer on behalf of theplaintiff, stated that this
was an action of replevin ; but the real question for the
Jury to try was, whether or not Lord Sondes, whose
tenant the plaintiff was, bad a right of common in gross
for 120 sheep, on a part of Rockingham Forest, called
" the Lord's-walk 7' The cause had been tried before,
about two or th;ee years ago, and a verdict found for
the plaintiff ; but in consequence of its being doubtful,
from the evidence, whether Lord Sondes's right of com-
awn was that of common in gross (which is a right be-
longing to the person), or common appurtenant) which
is annexed to the land), the Court of King's Bench
granted a new trial.
Evidence was adduced to spew that the right of
common in question had been enjoyed by Lord Sondes
and his ancestors for upwards of a century, and that it
had been let to different persons, independently of any
particular land.
Mi.CLARKE for the defendant, who is bailiff of the
manor of Rockingham, contended that the evidence did
not support Lord Sondes's claim to a right of corn.
pson in gross.

The Jury, which was special. without requiring the
Learned Judge to sum up the whole of the evidence, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff.
ROAR V. BOSWORTH AND OTHERS.

This was an action of libel. The plaintiff kept a
public•house called the Red Lion, in the• village of
Great Creighton, in this county, last year.. The de-
fendants were the churchwardens and overseers of the
parish: In the month of September. 1826, shortly be-
fore the meeting of the magistrates for that division of
the county took place, the defendants addressed the fol-
lowing letter to one of them, namely, Mr. Ward:
Sin—We, the undersigned, beg leave to inform you, that we
eonsidor the publie•house known by the sign of tho Red Lion, and
kept by John Rose, hithly disorderly and dangerous to the morals
of she inhabitants of Great Creighton and the neighbouring vii.
Ape LEsigned by the defendants.)
In consequence of this communication, which was
the alleged libel, the Magistrates stopped the plaintiff's
license; upon which he instituted the present action
against the defendants, and produced his neat-door
neighbour, who' swote that the house had always been
orderly and regular. but that a green before the door
was the resort of the idle and vicious persons in the
meilhboarbood, which sometimes caused appearances
to be unfavourable to the house in question. To spew
maim on the part of the defendants, it was stated that

in consequence of (Image, ant of dip defendants, being
said to ill-trea& his wife, a proceeding called 4, a riding',
was resorted to-by some of tbe Inbobitants, as was cur'
tomaryia this village "hawser a man was known to
beat his wife. It was massaged in this way—a person
was dressed out in a fantastical way, placed in 'a cart,
and then driven up before the door of the offending
husband, followed by the mob. Upon this occasion the
procession was said to have moved from the green in
front of the plaintiff's house; but no evidence whatever
respecting the alleged occurrence was offered.
On behalf of the defendants, who pleaded a jostifica-
don, several witnesses were called, and proved occa-
sional scenes of disorder and quarrelling at the plaintiffs
house, from which women were obliged sometimes to
fetch their husbands home at unseasonable hours.
A rebutting case was gone into by the plaintiff, and
some of the inhabitants of the village were called, who
swore that they did not consider the Red Lion a chs-
orderly house. Oa going into details, however, upon
cross-examinatio% their evidence did not materially
affect that of the defendants. The Jury returned a ter-
diet for the defendants. -
WESTERN CI ttp .-WINC HESTER, JOLT 25.
ttf
Chu. Sum—Before Lord Chief Joule* Bur.

STATUTE Or LIMITATIONS..—SUTTON V. Touts&
This was an action brought to recover the amount of
a promissory note for 2501. which was given in Nov.
181 S, and payable at ten days after sight. • ••
It appeared that the defendant was of the hankies
firm of Trim and Tamer, of Southampton. The lot
tiff, at the date of this note, deposited a sum of
in this bank, and received this prorniesOry note, 4114
going the repayment of .the money, at an interest
1
of SI. per cent. Some dispute appeared afterwards
to have 4then upon the terms. whether the interest
was to be 2.k or S per cent. The defendant first pleaded
tbs./rural issue, and next the Statute of Limitations.
ttiwas given of the deposit of the money and the
y of the note. The firm had become subse-
quently changed. Mr. Tula* having died, and Mr.
leumer retired in the year 1819. In 1825 the note was
resented for payment, together with the interest. Mr.
Toorner expressed his strrri-e, as he -thought it had
been cancelled, but requested Mr. Pritchard, a partner
in the new firm, to pay the interest at 2k per eat. as
there was a diminution in the value of money, although
Mr. Sutton had previously received S per cent. lie,
however, consented to the proposed alteration.
It was contended for the defendant, that by the alte-1
retina the note was destroyed as an instrument having
legal effect, u n" new stamp had been affixed to it;
and secondly, that there was no proof of acceptance.
• The Lotto Cum 'Nance decided, that the payment
of the interest was a sufficient admission of the princi-
pal debt.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the
amount of the note, and interest at 2k per coat. from'
1825. •

The other cues at the Civil side were quite devoid of
interest., nor is anything entered for the sittings at Win-
chester which is likely to attract attention.

CROWN SIDL-RORSL•S'KALfNA.

. .
Benjamin While Wm indicted fair stealing, on fhe 29th
of May, two saddles, two brilles, and some horse fur-
niture, the property of the Rev. George Henry Hisker,
vii Heckfield. He was likewise i•tdicted for stealing
two geldings, the property of the same Gentleman. The
prisoner was a smart active-looking man, well known
in London among a certain class of horse-dealers and;
hackneymen. His family is respectable in this county.
Mr. MMING stated the ease to the Jury. He said that,
the evidence was entirely composed of a train of con-
necting circumstances. It would be proved ►hat t
bones were :Ate in the prosecutor's stable on the night
Of May 28 t but the dolr was found open on the morn-
ing ei the 29th, and the horses stolen. The prisoner and
another man were seen on the road to London with
three horses a day or two after, two of them being of
the exact description which the Rev. Gentleman had
lost, and he was also ()'served near the spot on the night
of the robbery. There was this fut %her strong fact, that
the saddles and bridles were found in a stable belong-
ing to the prisoner.
J. Everard, one of the servants of the Rev. Mr. Has-
ker, proved the horses to have been safe in the stable
on the night of the 28th of May, mid his having locked
the door, as well as that of the coach•house, in which
were two bridles, two saddles, and six girths. On the
following morning at six o'clock, the places were all open
(not broken open), and the horses and saddles, &c. gone.
Wm. Henry Burgess proved that the stable doors
were found open as early as three o'clock in the morn-
ing, and the horses missing. He also found a stick near
the spot.
Mr. Monk, a coach proprietor, residing in the neigh-
bourhood,-knew the prisoner very well, and proved his
having been near the Rev. Mr. Harker's at the very
time of the robbery. He also proved that the stick
alluded to by the last witness was one which he had
seen with the prisoner.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS,
he persevered in his belief of the identity of the stick,
although it was one of the ordinary ash sticks which
are in common use.
James Alley, a barber, who had shaved the prisoner,
also spoke to the identity of the stick.
Thomas Smither, a collar maker, residing about a
mile and a half from the Rev. Mr. Hacker, proved the
prisoner to have been in the neighbourhood at the time
of the robbery.
Thomas Townshend, on the following day but one,
met the prisoner and another man on the road from the
neighbourhood towards London, with three horses.
In his cross-examination, be admitted the night was
dark, and that no conversation toot place between the
parties.
JohnTowashend, the brother of the last witness, con-
firmed his testimony.
James Warwick, a horsekeeper in the employ ofJoha
Till, 3, Princes-mews, Prince's-stt eet, Lisson-gr ove, said
he knew the stable No. 8, in the Mews, and saw two
persons bring three horses to it between 7 and 8 o'clock
on the 31st of May.
Elizabeth Till resided in these Mews, and saw on the
Wednesday of the Epsom race week, three horses having
their feet washed. Two men were with them, one of
whom was the prisoner.
John Harrisson, one of the Bow-street patrol, appre-
hended the prisoner on the Bth of June, in Pitt-street,
Tottenham-court-road. On taking him into the back
parlour of the Bell public-house, he was rather eiders;
and on searching him there were found two keys, a Si,:
note, and a purse.
Robert Duke, a Bow-street patrol, obtained the keys
from the preceding witness, and went with them to Pitt-,
street, Tottenham-court-road,:where the prisooerresidedi
and •he there found, ja a box •rider the bed, the two

papers which be now preseated to the Court. Upon
searching the stable-loft in the mews, he found the two
saddies.btidles; and stirrups, which ballad now in Court
Richard Harris, a tobaceonist, residing in Oskrrd•
street, proved•that he bad let this stable to the prisoner,
upon a memorandum of agreement. He gave the ley
to Mrs. Till, who lived near the plate.
Mrs. Till, upon 'being recalled, prated that she
handed over the key to the prisoner, who came and
asked for the key of No. 8 stable.
In her cross examination she said, that this stable was
freqUented by a great number of persons besides White.
The Reverend George Hilary Halter identified the
two bridles, saddles, kc. to be his property, and the same
that were stolen from his stables on the 29th of May.
The bow-street Officers, on being recalled, said, that
no account could be obtained of the stolen honer, irons
the knackers, er any other quarter. The prisoner denied
any knowledge of them whatever.
The evidence for the prosecution being closed, the
prisoner left his defence to his Counsel, rho called two
witnesses to speak to character. One of them knew
nothing dishonest of him; and the other admitted that
he was a little wildish.
.The Jury found him (hay, but recommended him to
mercy, on account of character.
'Mr. Justice BUREVOUGH thought the point of the-
' racier was veryslight indeed.
• The prosecutor joined in the merciful reconsnmsda-
don, and. the Coutt promised, if possible, to cbuoider it.
•
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MA NSION.HOUSR.
Mr. Drinkahl, one of the riders of the Waterosen's
appeared yesterday in the Justite-room to ash tin aidZ=l
It seems that from the great increase of plesetisem by the -steals
bests up and down the river, there has grown Op a eonsidetalile
degree of confusion at Tewerotairs, and altodt theneighbeurbood,
at the times of emb-rtadon. Of this the thieves have made a
'highly profitable account, first by direct add impudent pillage of
-trunks, termites, and parcels ; and secondly, by acting u watennen
and ticket porters withoarthe City's licence.
Mr. Cope, the City Marshal, sated that °fitters bad bean sent to
regulate the watermen, but the Deputy 'Governor of the Tower, or
some one acting acting for him, declared that the waternsen were
under military protection, and a file of soldiers was tuned Oct.
Mr. Drinkald admitted that the confusion was, in some degree
- -
attributable

alsensithorities in the Tower denying the right and
use oldie *lai' to the citizens, for the purposes of embarkation.
ailleetnan Answer, who set for the Lord Mayor, pranieed
that nessintes should be immediately adopted to remedy the roil.

BOW-STREET.
Yesterday George Mason, who owns a cottage and a small piece
of land immediately adjoining Target Cottage, the property of the
Baron de Berenger at Kentish town, was summoned by the latter
for threatening his life with aloaded fowling-piece.
Prom the statement of the Baron it appeared, that being en-
gaged in the prosecution of various scientific discoveries, he bad
taken a cottage at Kentish-tOwn with a view of forwarding his
studies, to which place he bad removedhis family. He had, how-
ever, the misfortune of haring in the person of the defendant a most
troublesome and unaccommodating neighbour. It happened that
he (the Baron) owned a good many ducks, and these ducks were In
the hAbit of resorting to a large pond upon his grounds, from which
pond there ran a ditch (a branch of the ancient Fleet ditch), and
into this ditch the ducks would sometimes waddle for pastime, and
from thence amend the bank at the opposite side, and ramble
thrones-the defendant's garden. No there was so disputing that
this was not a trespass, and the decks were liable to be impounded
for the same ; but the defendant thought proper to adopt a mote vin-
dictive course, and arcording as the web-footed Intruders enteredlis
premises, he shot them without any ceremony. This conduct the de-
fendant insisted on pursuing, and, without any'regard to the slats aba
age of the unconscious offenders, duels, drakes, and ducklings were
maimed and killed without the slightest mercy. Threats and re-
monstrances were equally in vain. The gun of the defendant kept
up ari almost incessant fire, until at last twenty-seven duels, In-
cluding some of the tender age of nine days, fell victims to its re.
morsekss aim. It was not, however, so much the loss of the duckai

that the Baron complained of, as the danger to which be and his
family were exposed front the random ditootibg of the attendant.
His (the Baron's) children were comma* ennolog abaft thel
grounds, and they were not onfrequently at ptay at al. Odin side
of the ditch, at the very moment when the shot from the defendant's
gun rattled against the adjoining hedge.
" Well, ble. Mason," said Mr. Halls, a what baye you to say
to the serious those preferred against you
"I have got this to say," said the defendant," that I itad a
right to shine these here duels, because they were eating' pmy
' cabbages, and destroying my young plants. I have been terribly
annoyed, your Worship, both by the ducks bad the baron's chil-
dren, who are constantly trampling down my garden."
" The children never go near your garden," said the Baron
" except now and then that they climb over the wall to pick up the
dead ducks; but you generally take care, Air. blasoo, to save them
that trouble."

Mr. Hatts, after observing that the defendant's conduct bad
shewn him to be a man whose temper rendered him unfit to be
trusted with fire arms, directed hint to Snd good ball to keep the
peace towards the Baron and the rest of the King's subjects.
A dirty.looking man, without a coat, and the reotaindet of
whose garments did not appear to be worth a shilling, was sem-
moned•by the drivel- of a hackney.coach for refusing to pay hits as
additional sixpence. The appearance of the defendant as a party
complained against in such a cause excited some surprise, and as it
appeared that the coachman was justified in making the demand,
Mr. Ham.' could not but express his astonishment at the folly of a
man with a dirty shirt, and without a coat, enjoying the luxury of
a drive, and then subjecting himself to be pulled up (or sixpence,
at the hazard of being saddled with the expenses in the event of the
coachman proving his case, which they generally took care to do.
" I merely wished to try the question of distanee," said the de.
fendant, quite coolly, " and as I find the coachman was right, I of
course must pay." •
Eleven shillings, said Mr. Sedley, the clerk, including the dis•
parted sixpence.
Only see, aid the Magistrate, what ',Our folly has brought you to.
" Why it's rather a dear ride to be suit," said the man, " bat I
wished to try the question." Su saying, he drew a handful of
money from a greasy pocket, paid the ataouot demanded with the
greatest good humour, and seemed quite tveonciled to hit lose, bay.
ing had the ati►faction of " trying the question."
II ATTON-GARDEN.
Val:lens ilele►, a youth shoot Sfeeen-years of age, was charged
with stealing a hearth-rug, the property of Mr.Cowelt, of Southeettp.
ton street.
bits. Cowen identified the rug as being the reopen, of her bar•
band. It had been exposed for sile in the shop. She saw the rug
in the shop on Saturday morning, at half-past• eleven, and missed in
about an hour after. _ _ _ _ _

Taylor denied having stolen the rag, and said that be found it in
the street rolled up.
Mr. Lasso told Taylor to make the Jory• believe, if he could,
that he found the rug In the street.—Committed for trial
_William John Ainratan was charged with assaulting Wary Arm-
strong, his landlady. Mrs. Armstrong • stated that the defendant
lodged in her house, and was removing his furniture, which she
endeavoured to prevent. A scale ensued, and be struck her.—
Witnesses were called who proved the assault. Mr. LAWS ordered
Kingman* to find baiL