Star.
London, England, 1827-05-28 00:00:00

TRI KING V. P. MACIRONE, ISQ.

This defendant was convicted at the last Berkshire
Assizes, of an assault upon a man named Shepherd,
servant of the Rev. Mr. Ogle. On the motion of Mr.
TAUNTON, the defendant was brought up for judgment.
According to the Judge's report, the defendant was
fishing in a punt, near Henley-upon Thames, where the
Rev. Mr. Ogle claims to have a private fishery, when
the prosecutor, by the direction of his master, warned
the defendant he must not fish there. The defendant
persisted is his right to fish in a public navigable river,
and after some altercation, the defendant threw three
stones at the prosecutor, one of which bit him on the
shoulder.
The defendant now put in an affidavit in mitigation
of punishment, denying that he had, in fact, struck the
prosecutor, as stated at the trial ; but had merely thrown
the stones towards him to warn him to keep off, after
he had splashed water against deponent, and attempted
to obstruct him in the common right of fishing in a
public river.
An affidavit was put in on the part of the prosecu-
tion, in aggravation of punishment, in which was intro-
duced the copy of a letter written by the defendant,
since the trial, to a man named Carter, advising him to
h 4 fish with nets in Parson Ogle's private fishery, and
to take care not to throw any lish back again into the
water."

The defendant read a long written statement to the
Court in mitigation of punishment, urging that all he
did was in the attempt to exercise the right of fishing in
a public liver, which he conceived to be indisputable.
Mr. TAUNTON (With whom was Mr. SHENIEZUI) spoke
in aggravation, and urged, as a specimen of the defen-
dant's disposition to observe the law, and peaceably try
civil right, the letter which had been writtea by him
to Carter, and submitted to the Court.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY told the defendant, is passing
sentence, that he had fallen into two errors; first, in
supposing that under all circumstances the public had
a right to fish in a navigable river, inasmuch as in many
eases a private person might have an exclusive right of
piscary in a public river ; and, second, in supposing
that, being splashed with water, he had a tight to throw
stones at the prosecutor. ,The letter written by the de-
fendant since the trial, certainly gave him no claim to
the forbearing consideration of the Court, although they
I could not take it into account in awarding punishment
for the offence in question. The sentence of the Court
was, that he should pay to the Log a fine of 501. and
find sureties for his good behaviour for two years.

THII KING V. WALKIIR AND °THUS.

'Peas defendants, the Rev. Robert Finals, the Rev.
.William Walker, Bayley, Horner, Wingfield, Moyott,
Bridge, and Oates, who were convicted at the last
Essex Assizes, of a common assault upon a con-
stable named Curtis, at Billericay, in July last, shortly
after the Maldon Election, were, on the motion of Mr,
Knox, now brought up for judgment. The particulars
of this case were made public at the time of the trial,
The defendants had been indicted for a riot, but acquit.
ted. Affidavits were put in on the part of the de,
fendants, iu mitigation of punishment.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. BRODERICK were heard on the
part of the defendants ; Mra MARRYAT and Mr. KNOX
were heard in aggravation.
The COURT had recommended the defendants to go
belore the Master, but this they declined.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY animadverted in strong toms
on the conduct of the defendants, and sentenced Oates
and Horner to pay a tine of 401. each, Bridge to pay 301.
and Firaiin and Muyott to pay 251. each, Walker Id pay
201. Bayley to pay 101. and Wingfield 101. and all the
defendants were ordered to give security fur two years.

Ores in 0/spooks a Bill in Partied*); for inelosint limas
iu two pariseo in .tlte:countruf Caermal then.'
The Critittr,'under-thle circumstances stated, granted
a R ule Wiri, • •
fin itrxd d. a. e. ofttretrna.
Mr. C. Plartiass moved fbr a Rule to shew tante
why a cambia isformitielii should not be filed against
Mr. Samuel Young Griffiths, Of Cheltenham. The
offid evits of Mr. Prince, a respectable Solcitor of that
town, stated that he had been appointed an arbitrator
between Mr. Griffithrend a person of the name of Hal-
pin, and that he had made his award, for the sum of 521.
in fatour of Halpin ; which he had done cortscientidttsly,
after examining into the- merits of both parties. It
appeared that Mr. Griffiths irritated at this award;
insulted Mr; Prince, applying td him the epithets of liar
and scoundrel. Mr. P. treated such conduct as it deserved,
until, atlast, having received a letter from Griffiths, re.
iterating these offensive epithets, under pretence that Mt.
P. had circulated some foul reports of him, but in-reality
ander the irtitatiOn of the award, he thought it hip
time to apply to the Court for protection. Mr. Noce
distinctly denied ever having circulated any report cod-
cerning Griffiths.
Mr. Justice Brtir.rr=ls the handwriting of the lead'
sworn to ?
Mr. PHILLIPS--Yes it is sword to be the bane:
writing of Griffiths.
Lord TkliTlßDlll4—Take a Role:

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MiA, se. .
HOUMA= 2.
In this ease Mr. Sergeant Wm's' moved to obtain g
rule to shew cause why an annuity which had been
granted by the plaintiff should not be set nside:--:
The Circumstances under which it had been granted
were these: The plaintiff was a young Gentleman
who had become miller embarrassed in his peces
diary affairs, and seeing an advertisement which
bad been inserted in some of the newspapers by
the defendants, ( who, it appeared, were members
of the Koightsbaidge. bank, but whose names were
not mentioned,) in which they offered to advanat
any sums on the most advantageous term, by way of
annuity,--attracted by the eloquence of this adveitise•
ment, the plaintiff applied to the defendants and ob-
tained a suns of several hundreds, for whichi howesets
the defendants deducted 2.1 per cent. for the deed, tout-
Mission, and qther expenses. • The Learned Sergeant
was going on to state his grounds for making the peva
sent motion ;and on *hid: he hoped it nonld be gtartt
ed, when
The LORD CHiEFJUFTICE interrupted him, observing
that the young Gentleman evidently required some
person tb take care of him ; and the Cwitt heing of
opinion that sufficient grounds had been stated, granted
' a rule to show Cause.

A rule Nisi was also granted in a similat application
between the same parties.
STIRRUPS COURT', RED LIONSQUARR, May 2S.
CALM. COW.-RAWLINGS 9. MARSH.

This was an action brought to recover compensation
in damages from the defendant, a surgeon, for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS was for the plaintiff; he waited a
considerable time in the expectation that Counsel would
appear foe the defence, but no one appealed.
Mr. PHILLIPS addressed the Jury. It Was not, I e
said, his fault that the case was apparently undefended
and deprived of the skill and ability of a professid
man,—that no Attempt was to be Wade to mitigate, by
one shilling, the damages sought, for the greatest injury
which one man could inflict upon another. By coming
into the Sheriff's Court, the defendant had supplied
abundant evidence that he had inflicted that injury ; and
submitted himself to whatever award the Jury should
think proper to make in a case which was incapable of
palliation. The extent of the loss sustained by the un-
fortunate husband would be ptoved by his sister, who
had been in the habit of witnessing his connubial hap-
piness, ever since the marriage took place which had
been thus violated. Mrs. Rawlings was the daughter of
a Gentleman named Williams, who had retired from
trade, after having realised a fortune of 90.0001. and re-
sided at Cheltenham ; she was at the time of her mart iage
about 20 years of age, and the plaintiff had not exceeded
26, so that there existed no pretence of disparity in that
respect. He (the Le .rned Counsel) did not know how the
intimacy commenced,but the defendant, having the nian4
ners, appearance, and rank of a Gentleman, found no dif-
ficulty in gaining an introduction and an access to the
house of the family whose peace he had succeeded in
destroying. Whether those qualities entitled him to im-
punity upon seducing the wife of an honest tradesmar, it
was for a Jury of honest tradesmen to determine. It a as
for them to decide whether they did not estimate the pct'
rity of their homes as highly as those regarded their nun
honour who were distinguished by the most e'evatrd
situation in life. It was unnecessary to produce evi-
dence of the marriage. The most important testi-
mony with which he should trouble the Jury, was a
mass of correspondence of no ordinary nature, from
which the criminal act could not but be inferred. That
correspondence certainly contained, as most corre-
spondence upon subjects of the kind usually did, such a
heap of nonsense, that it was necessary to bespeak the
patience of the Jury, however interesting the letters
might be to persons of levity And idleness. One thing
they would prove at any rate,—that his client was quite
in the dark during the progress which the defendant
was making in the affections of his wife. The injnise-
dons to the closest secrecy were frequent and immative ;
and there were other circumstances in the eorrpond-
ence which sheaved that there was a great dread of de-
tection. (The Learned Counsel here read tome quota-
tions from the correspondence, which excited much
laughter, and a very eager curiosity for the production
of the whole of the written evidence)t It was, he said,
then manifest that the plaintiff was ignorant of the dis-
honour meditated against him. It was equally evident
that he was not a careless, brutal. or immoral husband.
The letters which wete intended to thake the unfortunate
woman break her Marriage vow of fidelity, were filled
with assurances of the possession of that very quality in
the highest possible degree. Her seducer had succeeded
by such weapons in gaining the affections of the wife
of a man who had regarded her with love of the purest,
affection of the tenderest, and fidelity 0: the tr ost tette
kind ; and yet be asked her whether she doubted his
honour or his lore? Whatever other charms of incan-
tations he had thought necessary to use, he had calcu-
lated upon the effect of poetry in aid of his designs;
and he accordingly interspered scraps of rhyme in his
beautiful effusions. From some of those effusions it
was evident that the defendant was apprehensive that
his victim would be separated from hint. He proposed
flight, bat the plaintiff was to learn his disgrace before
she left him. The first intimation he received he could
not credit. After baring made some observations upon