Star.
London, England, 1810-08-17 00:00:00

Illtintained at the suit of the plaintiff against the de.
fondants, as a Common Law remedy.
- The Judge appeared of this opinion, and conse-
quently reserved the point for the judgment of . the
Court of King's Bench next Michaelmas Term ; and
his Lordship, in sum Ming up, stated the expensive
terms stipulated by the plaintiff upon the defendants,
in obliging them to lay out so many thousand pounds
on the plaintiff's own estate; and that whatever might
have been the usage in former repairs, yet it had been
shewn in evidence that the improvements which the
plaintiff had (beneficially to hitnself) imposed upon
the defendants in erecting Stich extensive works, mast
necessarily require the use of more water, and should
it therefore ultimately be determined the plaintiff
might be liable to any small damages pensioned by
a larger head of water, he must and ought to be con-
tented to pay for a little occasional damage, when
he had by his lease required itiipmvements to the ex-
tent of so many thousand pounds from the defen-
dants ; that if the plaintiff expected such enormous
improvements, it was unreasonable he should recover
in this case, and therefore he should reserve the point
of law.

The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff, for
sels 12s. 9J. the amount of the repairs ; and as the
Judge reserved the point of law, consequently the
cause will not ultimately be decided till next Term.

CHELMSFORD, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST IS.
HAMMOND T. CIWIWI!.
This was a Special Jury cause, which occupied
nearly the whole morning ; it was an action for £l7
15s. but the real question in the cause was, whether
two fields, called White Pits, were copyhold of the
manor of Longham, or whether they were freehold
property ? As the cause was protracted to a great
length, and appeared as if it would occupy much great-
er time, it was at length agreed to refer all the title
deeds to a Professional Gentleman, who was to de-
cide between the parties.
STEVENS V. HARDY.
This was an action against the defendant for a
breach of agreement, by which the defendant agreed
to give up his business of a baker, at Burstead in this
county, to the defendant, and not exercise the trade
himself in that parish, or assist any other in doing i!.
The defendant, after he had left Burstead, opened a
shop at Stock, an adjoining parish ; and the only two
instances in evidence were, that once he gave an old
customer in the parish of Burstead a bushel of bread,
and once a person came from Burstead and bought
four strikes of pollard at his shop at Stock.
The Learned Judge held this no breach of the
agreement, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
PERRY V. BROWN&
This was an action of trespass, for breaking and
entering the plaintiff's house, at Billericay, in this
county, and making a great noise and disturbance,
and taking away divers goods and chattels.
By me evidlace it appeared that the plaintiff kept
a basket-maker's shop at Billericay, and that an old
woman lodged at his house of the mime of Catherine
Browne, a relative of the defendant. In May List,
she died, and Browne, the defendant, was determined
to have all her personals, for which purpose he came
in his carriage, with his waggon in attendance, civil
tered the plaintiff's house, and carried off the pro-
perty of the deceased, consisting of a joint stool,
an old red petticoat, a beaver hat, a stump bedstead,
and divers other articles of equal value. For the
plaintiff, it was endeavoured to be shewn in evidence
that the deceased had felt such anger at her heir for
awkwardness shot n to her during her life, that she had
determined to disinherit him, and accordingly the
village schoolmaster was put into the witnesses' box,
who proved that a will produced was written by him,
from her dictation, in which she had bequeathed her
red petticoat to the plaintiff's wife ; and after some
other " valuable" legacies, she made the plaintiff re-
siduary legatee of the stump bedstead and joint stool.
It was also proved that the defendant in his haste
carried off some old shoes, the property of a cohler,
who lodged in an adjoining room ; but on discover-
ing his mistake, he returned these articles the next day.
The Lord CHIEF BARON observed, that neither
party had proved any right to the old woman's pro-
perty, as there was no probate of any will, or any
letters of administration. A trespass was proved, and
they would say how much damage had been done.—
Verdict for plaintiff—Damages £5.
CRIMINAL SIDE.
Charles Don was indicted for stealing a cart-horse,
the property of James Goodeve Sparrow, Esq. of
Gasfield. The horse in question had been seen about
noon on the Sunday on which it was stolen, and was
missed between four and five o'clock in the morning
following, when persons were sent in search of it.—
It was taken from the farm-yard of Mr. Sparrow.
The prisoner arrived about half-past seven on the
same morning at a public-house at a considerable dis-
tance from Mr. Sparrow's, mounted on the horse,
without a saddle, and nothing but a halter, when he
called for some beer, said he was going to Cambridge,
and offered afterwards to sell the horse, it being, as
he alledged, too heavy for him. The landlord, hav-
ing a suspicion from his appearance, that the horse
was stelen, said he did not himself want to buy him,'
but would undertake to find a gentleman who would!
buy him. He went accordingly to General Elwes, a
Magistrate of the county, who resided close by, told
him his suspicions, and brought the General back with I
him to his house. General Elwes being of the same
Opinion with the landlord, detained the prisoner, and
in the course of the day those who went in pursuit of
the horse, arrived, and identified him, and the pri-
soner was then fully committed for trial.
Upon being called upon for his defence, he said
he had found the horse wandering on the road
about seven miles from the public-house, that he
mounted him and rode him to where he was stopped,
that he had never offered to sell him, but on the con-
trary meant to go forward with him to the end of his
journey.
Lord ELLENEOROUGH remarked on the inconsisten-
cy and dishonesty admitted by the defence, and left
the facts to the Jury, who immediately pronounced
him Guilty.
Richard Corday was indicted for stealing six pieces
of wood, the property of the King. The prisoner
was Deputy Woodward of the Royal Forest of Wal-
tham, and had sold the wood in question to a car-
penter, recently after a sale had taken place of some
refuse wood of the forest, by order of Lord Glenber-
vie, the Surveyor-General of Woods and Forests.
Upon being charged with the fraud, he said one