The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-03-31 00:00:00

'E STATESMAN.-

ration, althonch they admitted that the cure preyed that
it was not the result of scrofula. _

-. -----
Mr. A. Moona, in his reply. commented in rather
severe terms upon the evidence of Mr. Petikeril, WIIONP
professionit! character was as much at stake as that of '
the defendant ; and us to the nephew, independent of
relationship, his know...dire was too ta beyond his
ears to have any weight. Indeed, two more interested
witnesses coal oat been brought fpr.vatil to sup-
port a cave. The pl•intitr had sustained the most seri-
ous injury through the Kress mismatm,reaouit of the de-
fendant, •nd was therefore entitled ill hair an adequate
compensation, as well tor the ronsequences as fur the
torture he had unnecessarily endured.

31r. ilaron Wr►ou, in slimming up, dechirril, that
every man also engaged in a profession was hound to
possess a competent skill, and was answerable fur any
ail consequences arising from want of skill: but that no
man was to 1w upon to answer for an error in jii,!g-
meet. fo►r, were that the case, no man would be found
to engage in a profession so useful. and indeed so essen-
tial to society.

The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the defendant.
Mr. A. Moonlit and Mr. CARTER conducted the cause
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Pau., Mr. lIASELEIC,
and Mr. ADAM. for the defendant. The trial lasted
nine Lunn; and it will have been fortunate for the
towns of Plymouth and Plymouth-dock if no acci4ent
or illness took place for three or four days, since hardly
a medical man o as left in either place.

of murder, though she might be convicted of man-
The Jury almost instantly frand the prisoner gnilty of
monslaugliter, and she Will sentenced to five months im-
prisounen t.
Jaw, Steadman, Chapman, and Jessica
Chapman, were indicted ander the 57th (leo. 111., for
being found in the night time of the 31st January, in
the parish of Ripley, armed with guns and bludgeons,
with intent illegally to destroy and kill game.
The prosecution nu conducted by Sir. NicroLsost.
and the defence by Mr. Annaxus ana Mr. ADOLNICS.
It appeared from the evidence of Win. Shrimpton,
gamekeeper to Lord Cranley, that between two and
three o'clock on the nsorningwat the 31st January, he
and two other gamekeepers were on_ the look-out for
poachers in the parish of Ripley, and hearing several
shots fired, he and his companions went to the spot from
whence the firing proceeded; in their way they met the
three defendants coming out of a nom% each armed with
a fowlimr-piece, and one of theta curving a bludgeon.
They were desired to surrender and inihnsit to be search-
ed. A sent& ensned, anJ James Chapman said, " that
sooner than he sl hi he taken he %%Link] die on the
field." They were all. however, uterpuwered and se-
cured, and in each of their pockets was found a phea-
sant just killed.
• The Learned Counsel for the defendants submitted
two objections to the form of the indictment, trhich,
however, were over-ruled, and the Jury, under the
Learned Judge's directions, found the prisoners Cniltv.
James Chapman was sentenced to twelve months
imprisonment, and the other prisoners to nine mouths
each.

CIVIL •IDL
(Before the Chief Baron ends Special Jury.)
SKIMS O. WIIITSW!CIL

This was an action against the de fentLint, a Magis-
trate of this county, to recover a compensation in da-
ungew, for maliciously, and without any reasonable or
probable caw, presenting a certain bank erected by the
pla:r .11, near the King's higlou ay, leading from Chen-
c.v. as a nuisance.
*The plaintiff's ease was coniliteeil by the Commie
SEKJERNT, Mr. HTTCOUTSON. awl 31r. CIIITTT; and the
defendant's by Mr. Not..t:i and Mr. Tt. 'vox.

The rasr un the part of the plaiiiraf was in substance
this :—The plaintiff was a tanner by trade, and occupied
an estate on one side of the road opposite to that of the
defendant. In consequence ..f great inconvenience ex-
perienced hr the overtioning of a ditch by the road-side
next to the plaintiffs premises, n Welt cunt: smelly ;!ussdeil
the road, and thereby constaetly !.tept it old of repair,
the plaintiff erected a *hank for the purpose of keeping
the water in its minimal rhatine., so as to guard age' no
seat inconvenience, without obstructing or tiarrunim.
the highway.
At the Michaelmas tjaarter Sessions, 1614, the de-
fendant presented the bank as a nuisance, and the pre-
sentment barb% been reteuved by certiorari into the
kiug's Bench, it came on to he tried at the last Spring
Assires ; but the tiefetplant not bring prepared with
evidence to support the proseention, the plaintiff was ac-
tritted, and, in coneetptence ..f the proceeding, had in-
curred expenses to the amount of I sad upwards.
It was stlgirested, that the defendant was intleeneed
by aiotiyes of malice, for the purpose of harassing the
ptaintiff, and that his object was to remove the alleged
nuisance for the better ento,iing him to enclose a part
of the road, so as to increivie anti improve his own lawn.
The defence set op Wif, that the bank in question was
in fact a nuisance and an obstruction to the roil, and
that therefore the defendant had reasonable and proba-
ble reuse for the presentment.
Several witnesses were examined to sustain this de-
knee, and among others, three county Magistrates, who
del•oee,l that the bank was a nuisance.
The We, which occupied nearly the whole of Wednes-
day, went to the Jury. noder the learned Jndge's direc-
tions, who left it to them to say, upon the facts proved,
whether the defendant had reasonable and probable
case for the pr,sentment.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found their ver-
dict fur the plaintiff—Daninges •200/.