Lent Assizes.
The Times, 1824-03-30T00:00:00

X tils was an aetion tor sporting on the plaintiff's land, after notice. Tne plaintiff was tenant to Lord Grantley, of some land abutting on one of his lordship's game preserves, in the parish of Dunfold, of which the defendant's father was rector. On the 4th of October, 1822, the defendant was seen sporting with his father on thc plainu tiff"5 land. He wvas served witn a notice on the 27th of December in the same year. On the 13th of October, 1823, he again came on the plaintiff's land, with his gunand dog, and was seen beating for garne. For this trespass the action was brought. The jury, under the learned Judge's directions, fouud their ver- dict for the plaintiff-Damages Is. BROMIFIELD V. WORTHAMr, alias WHITE. This was an action for the use and occupation of a house, No. 15, Short-street, Lambeth, for balf a year, at 401. per annum. It appeared in evidence, that during a period of about five months, the defendaut (an attorney' lived in the plaintiff's house with a young woman named Blake, by the name of Mr. ani Airs. W' hite. Prior and bubsequent to that time, they had lived tcge- ther by the saime name in several other houses, and had a fa- mily of young children. Credit was given for one pound paidI as a deposit. The defence set was, that although the defendant and the lady did live together by the name of lr. and DIrs. White in several other places, still, in this instance, the house had been taken solely by Mrs. White, without any privity between the defendant and the plaintiff. Mirs. WVhite, alias Blake, was called to prove thi' defence, ard she swore that she alone had taken the house,and thatclr. Wortham ltd rnotlhiig to do with it. Mr. Worthani lived with his uncle in C(sufe- street, Holborn, and only visited her occasionally. During the period of her occupation of the house, the defendant was ill and out of town; but since then she had lived and now does live with him, by the name of Mlr. and Mrs. NlWhite, in IsabeUa-street, Christ- churchi. The jury, under the learned Judge's directionm, found theirverdict for the plaintiff-Danmages 91. CeRoWS SIDE.-THE KINXG V. THE REV. W: WILLIAMS. This was an inlictment against the defendant for assaulting Estiher Smith at Hascomb, on the 24th of Januarv. The defendant was curate of the parish in which he resided, and the prosecutrix was his servant. Sbe deposed that she went into the defendant's service on the 2d of December. She lived or, bad tersis in his service: he had offered to take liberties with her. He often threatened to send her to the tread-mill. On the 24th of Ja. nuary he beat her, and used her very ill. He struck her on her face and heatd. She did not know ho'. many blows. He broke the comb in leer lhead, and knocked her against the copper in the wash. house. Her ear-rings were knocked out, and she was severely hurt. She lost a goodl deal of blood. This violence was committea towards her because she would not boil a copper of potatoes for the hogs. During this time he kept his hand on her month to prevent hler crying out. The defendant had two nieces and his wife in the house at this time, He pushed her out at the back door, and threatened her life. She was afraid to run away, she was so far from home. The defendant wanted to be rude with her, bixt she would not agree to his terms, and therefore be bad a spite against her. AMary Stilwell proved, that on the 24th of January, about nine o'clock, she saw the prosecutrix. There was blood on her apron, but she did not know the cause of it. She complained of notnizg. The prosecutrix's apron was torn behind. Mr. CHITTY, for the defendant, addressed the jury, and eom.. mented upon the incredibility of the prosecutrix's story. He had no doubt as to the verdia; but for the sake of the defendant's cha- racter lie felt it necessary to call witnesses to prove thatt the prosecu- trix's story wyas without foundation. Mliss E. Powell, niece to the defendant, deposed, that on the day ia question the prosecutrix had been dssiBl to light the copper-fire for the purpose of washing; she sworeshe7 would not. In the afterneo, and in the evening, she was again and again desired to do so, and eact time she refused.Intheeveniing shewentintothe washhouse; witnesa followed her. Witness said that the defendant must see that she lighted the copper fire. The defendant fastened the washhouse door on the otlher side to prevent her comiing into the parlour till she h3ad done wasliing. The defendant never went intr the washhsuse again. Ina tev iunittes afterwards theprosecutrix was found to have left the house. WVitness positively swore that the girl's statement was. utterly false as to the assault, &c. Otlher wvitnesses were ready to be called, whien The learned Julge put it to thejury whether they thoughtt-he case should pxoceed any further. The jury selleed perfectlysatisfied, and immediately found the defendant notguilly. The prosecutrix w as immediately committed for perjury, and the defendant bound over to prosecute her. LENT ASSIZES. KIIN'GSTON. SURREY. MONDAY, AIAIECf 29. 'CIVIL SIDE .SFIN'EIt V. BARTHOL03fEW-