The Express. — 1848-01-21 (London, England)

THE CASS OF STABBING AT WELLINGTON.— Francis Cunningham, the Irishman who was stabbed in a conflict with some colliers on Christmas-eve (en account of which appeared in this paper), died on Wednesday, the 12th inst., from the wounds he received on that occasion. An inquest was held on the body of the diseased on Friday, when the jury returned • verdict of "Wilful murder" against George Taylor; and against Thomas Murrill, for .4 elsr.ng and abetting in the said murder." They were admitted to Shrewsbury gaol. HurEREFORDSHIRE. ARE BUSHES AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ?—Con Monday last, at the Guildhall, Hereford, Mr. J. Jones, tailor, of Broad-street, was summoned at the instance of Mr. Buckham, the lessee of the turnpike-tolls, for refusing to pay toll at the Above Eign gate for two horses drawing a cart laden with bushes. Mr. Hardwick read the clause in the act under which corn, straw, fodder, and other agricultural produce, not intended for male, was exempted from toll, and contended that " bushes" were not agricultural produce within the meaning of the act. Mr. Jones said that he rented land on both aides of the gate, and that he was removing the bushes tram one part to the other for the purpose if repairing the fences. The bushes, he contended, had grown upon the land, and were as much an agricultural produce as any other article—corn, straw, or fodder. He had been summoned once before for the same alle offence, when the magistrates had decided that bushes, being used for agricultural pupae., were exempt from toll.—Mr. Hardwick said the bushes were not the produce of Mi. Jones's labour; and it might upon the same ground be argued that timber was an agricultural produce, because it had grown upon the land, but without any reference to the skill or exertion of the occupier.—Mr. Barra thought Mr. Hardwick's comparison did not hold good, and he conceived that they were bound to put a beneficial construction upon the act under which Mr. Jones had been summoned.--The mayor and other magistrates coincided with Mr. Barra, Mr. Davis observing that if any doubt arose, it was their duty to give the farmer the benefit of it —Mr. E. Pritchard said that he was in no way concerned in the case, and perhaps Mr. Jones wculd not thank him for his interference, but he wished to re mind their worships that theraleof construction in theucases, as laid down by the most eminent members of the legal profession, was, that "all other agricultural produce" must be ejtudeg genesis—viz., of the same sort or kind as that which was mentioned before in the wording of the act. Mr. Barra : But, Mr. Pritchard, gentlemen in the law do draw extraordinary lines sometimes. It was only a short time ago doubted whether ploughs and harrows were articles of agricultural husbandry.—Mr. P.: If our legislators were all well versed in law there would not at ise so many difficulties or ambiguities in our acts of parliament —Mr. Barra: I do not exactly agree with that, for our laws are made abstruse and unintelligible by lawyers themselves (laughter) ; you know if there was no mystery to be explained away, or no difficulty to be overcome, there would be infinitely lees work for you professional gentlemen.—At the close of this little episode the magistrates decided that bushes were agricultural produce within the meaning of the act, and therefore exempt from toLL—Case dismissed.