Star.
London, England, 1829-01-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OR XING'S BENCH, I - ARITA IT IL
THE KING V. WATTS AND ANOTHER.
This was an indictment against the defendants for
a nuisance.

Mr. Guaiin stated the case to the Jury. This in-
dictment was brought against the defendants fur cam•
ing on the business of a knacker in Sharp's-alien, near
Cow-cross. the nuisance arising from which was si great
th t a number of persons had been compelled to leave
their houses in the neighbourhood. The smell from
boiling tie bones and horseflesh was so noisome, that
it was hardly possible for persons to pass through
Sharp's-alley while the boiling was being carried on.
A great number of witnesses were called, who all
declared that the smell while the business was being
carried on was intolerable in the neighbourhood. Some
of them stated that there were other knackers in the
same place, but that the business was not conducted in
so objectionable a manner as it was by the defendants.
Many of them underwent a cross examination by Mr.
BROUGH AM.

Mr. BROUGHAM *thinned the Jury for the defen-
dams. He said that if this business had been carried
on in other parts of the town. undoubtedly it would be
considered a nuisance, but that it could not be considered
so in a place like Sharp's•alley. In this place there
were several metiers, the stench arising from which was
most unpleasant and annoying. He should call wit-
nesses to prove that the defendants had not increased
the nuisances or annoyance: in this alley. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses to prove
that the noisome smell, &c. had not been materially
increased by the defendants.
The Jury bound the defendants Guilty.
LIIIIrI—VESSZT W. NKR.
This was an action to recover damages for a libel
on the plaintiff, published in the Derby Reporter of
the 7th of April last. The libel was iu the tollowing
terms—

" EITRAORDI hART AFFILIATION—Among the affi
liation case., these was one which excited extraordinary
interest.—Nl.ntha Holt being called upon, on the plot
of the palish of Derby, undettuok to affiliate her child
on JIIIn Tnernas Albert.

Mr. CIA. k, Jail. on the pa►t of the parish. examined
this young woman, who stated that she had kis bwis Mr.
Albert some years at Uttoseter. She after that ioti-
ns icy became the servant of Mr. Vessey. and on the
death of hi= wife dual employed to take care of his
children. S'.e became pregnant by Mr. Albert last
hlay, and was delivered at Beveridge on the Sd of Feb.
She underwent a severe cross.esamination, which, with

witnesses, substantiated the facts, and led to proof that
she had all Acing been acting under instructions—that
she had been living in continued criminal intercourse
with Mr. Ve,sey, according to her (two acknowlek-
mem, and that she had told a person rel lied to Mr.
Vessey. that, by his direction, she had fur &certain pus-
pose taken a particular medicine. A letter to her from
Mr. Veoey, tinder a false name, was read, shich tended
t.. astabli,h the belief of an improper intercourie be-
tween them. The letter was detained, and *e under-
stand it is the intention of Mr. Albert to prosecute
Vessey and Martha Holt on a charge of conspiracy."
The plaintiff in his declaration denied the whole of
the shove statement.

Mr. lianvotrAu addressed the Jury for the plaintiff,
and celled the bruther of Mr. Vessay, who produced
the Derby Iteporter of the 7th of April. containing the
alleged libel.
The witness being cross examined by Mr. DENMAN.
was unable to sssear that all the matters contained in
the alleged libel were false. The Learned Coi,nsel con.
secpiently contended that there was not sufficient pro. f
to sustain the declaration.

Lord Tatcrannest was of opinion, that the allegation
declaring all in be fake, had not been proved. His Lord-
ship observed, if Om Jury should give a verdict for the
plaintiff, with a shilling damages, he should take case
that each patty paid their own costs.
After a lew remarks from Ms. BROUGHAM, the Jury
found a verdict for plaintiff, with One Shilling damages.

.711111111 V. LORI) BURADALBASE.
The plaintiff, a landbol ier at Wilsden, in Middlesex,
brought this action against the Noble defendant, to
rrcover two demands—first. he claimed 201. as being
due for preparing a lease for Lord Breadalbane, by order
of his Lordship's agent; and secondly, a compensation
for breach of covenant in not throwing manure upon
the land ht to his Lordship, It appeared that Lord
Breadalbane took some meadow land of the plaintiff,
and covenanted to manure and manage it in a farmer-
like manner. Several witnesses proved that a suthci .ht
quantity of manure had not been used, and tI e Jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1401. *hid
included 201. the expense of the lease.