PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss DUPLOCK.

     PETTY SESSIONS, Tuesday.—Present, Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), J. H. Waddington, and G. Forbes, Esqrs. 

—   John Voakes was charged by Mr. Superintendent Fey with stealing seven fowls belonging to Mr. H. Hedger, of Steep.—Mr. Fey deposed: In consequence of information which I received on Tuesday, the 15th inst., I went to Mr. Hedger’s at Steep, and there saw traces of a man’s footsteps leading to and from the fowl-house. I then went to prisoner’s house, and saw his wife; she allowed me to search the house. Under the bed I found a pair of half-boots, which I now produce, and on which I found spots of blood. I then went to a place near Stodham, where I found the prisoner working on the railway; I examined his trousers, and found blood on them. I took him into custody and charged him with stealing some fowls belonging to Mr. Hedger. I brought him to the lock-up at Petersfield, and then returned to the fowlhouse and compared the half-boots which I had taken from prisoner’s house, and which prisoner had owned were his, with the footprints which I had seen. I did this by making an impression with the half boots by the side of the footprints; the ground was wet. They corresponded exactly in every particular. Next day, in consequence of a message I received from the prisoner, I went to his cell, accompanied by one of my men. Prisoner then told me he wished to speak the truth about it. I told him I would take down anything he had to say if he wished it. He then stated that he was sorry for what he had done; that he was drunk at the time, or he should not have done it; and that he had hidden the fowls in the corner of Mr. Etherington’s barn, where I should find them. I went to that bam and found there seven fowls, which I now produce—four with their heads off and three with their heads on; they were in the corner of the barn, covered up with straw. I took them to Miss Hedger, and she identified them as her father’s property.—Fanny Knight deposed: I am servant to Mr. Hedger. I look after the fowls; the fowl-house is in the garden. I saw the fowls on Monday night; I locked the fowl-house door with a padlock; there were 17 fowls altogether. Next morning, about twenty minutes to six, I went to the fowl-house, and found one part of the door was open and the other locked; the lower part of the door had been pushed out. I found nine fowls; they were alive. I saw where the thatch had been pulled off; the door had been forced open from the inside. Witness identified the fowls produced as those she had locked up with the others on Monday night.—Ann Hedger, daughter of prosecutor, deposed to finding in the fowl-house four heads, now produced, and which clearly belonged to the fowls in question. She also identified the whole of the fowls as belonging to her father. She considered they were worth about 12s.—The prisoner pleaded guilty.—He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. 

—   Constables were appointed for the several parishes within the district. 

—   A highway rate was signed for the parish of Empshott.

—   The Eastmeon Assault Cases.—Pink, Hooper, and Budd, v. Francis Dear; and Pink v. John Dear.—These were four assault cases arising out of one and the same transaction, and originating in a long existing feud between the first complainant and the Messrs. Dear respecting the ownership of some property situated at Eastmeon. Mr. Greenfield, of Winchester, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Albery, of Midhurst, for defendants. Previous to the opening of the case, the Chairman strongly urged upon the parties the desirableness of coming to some arrangement, and the advocates on either side withdrew for the purpose of a private conference; but after being absent about ten minutes, returned without having effected any compromise. Mr. Greenfield then opened the case on the part of the plaintiff, stating that about twenty years ago Mr. Pink purchased a meadow in which was standing a shed. He (Mr. G.) here produced a plan, which he had sketched that morning from a view of the premises, shewing that this shed was still standing, some yards within the meadow. Having explained this plan to the Magistrates, he went on to state that some 25 years ago a person named Shoell rented this meadow and shed. When Mr. Pink purchased the property, he allowed Shoell to continue the use of the shed. About two years ago Shoell died, leaving Dear executor to his will; and it was under that will that defendant set up a claim to the shed. On the 23rd of February last Mr. Pink sent a notice to defendant to give up the shed. On the 1st of March, pursuant to that notice, plaintiff went to take possession. When he arrived there he found Francis Dear standing at the door of the shed, with a sledge hammer in his hand with which he struck the plaintiff a blow on the chest.  Hooper and Budd came to plaintiff’s assistance and were assaulted by defendant. Mr. Pink was struck a violent blow in the face by John Dear; he was knocked down and afterwards throttled by Francis Dear until he was almost strangled; the two Dears, father and son, then dragged him by the legs out of the shed into the meadow. These were the facts which constituted the assault, and to prove which he should call Mr. Pink and other witnesses; he would however suggest, in order to save time, that the four cases should be taken together, as they all rested on precisely the same evidence; and Mr. Albery having assented to this, he called George Pink, who deposed—I am a surgeon, and reside at Eastmeon. Some years ago I purchased a meadow of the executors of the late William Morgan ; at that time there was standing upon it a shed, that shed is there now. On the 27th of February last I sent a notice to Mr. Dear (copy of notice put in.) On the 1st of March I went to take possession. I took with me Andrew Hooper and William Budd. I saw Mr. Bricknell and George Colverstone there. When I got to the shed Francis Dear was standing against the door, and John Dear stood ten or twelve yards from him. I told my man to open the door. Francis Dear had a large sledge hammer in his hand, and struck me with the hammer on the chest. When Hooper had opened the door I went into the shed. Francis Dear pushed down and got upon me; he got his knuckles against my windpipe, and I could not speak. Budd said to Hooper, make haste, they will kill master; they came to my assistance and got him away. John Dear then came into the shed, and, with a very gross expression, up with his fist and knocked me down; they then took me and dragged me by my legs several yards from the shed into the meadow. I then went home. I had marks of violence on my face and neck, and pain in my chest; the former were from John Dear, the father; those on my neck from Francis Dear, the son. —Cross-examined by Mr. Albery: Both the men were in the shed when Francis Dear knocked me down—Mr. Albery: Has this shed ever been in your possession? Witness: That has nothing to with this case.—Mr. Albery: Has this shed ever been in your possession, Mr. Pink? Witness, still refusing to answer, was told by the Chairman that he must do so, and he then replied that it had never been in his possession. Gave instructions two years ago for an action to recover possession.—Mr. Albery : Did you abandon that action and pay Dear's costs for the day? Witness: I did, but it was your fault in not coming over as you promised to do. —Mr Albery: Have you taken any further proceedings to recover possession? Witness: No, I went to take possession on the 1st of March, by direction of Mr. Todd, a solicitor, whom I had consulted. Did not carry a sledge hammer with me, but had a pickaxe to open the door.—Re-examined by Mr. Greenfield: On my oath, I took the pickaxe for no other purpose than to open the door. —By the Chairman I am quite sure Dear struck me before I attempted to open the door. I had given my man instructions to open it.—Andrew Hooper, William Budd, George Coverstone, and Thomas Bricknell were severally examined by Mr. Greenfield, and cross-examined by Mr. Albery, but their evidence was merely corroborative of the foregoing.—Mr. Albery, for defendants, made a powerful appeal to the Bench to dismiss the case as one in which they had no jurisdiction; he considered it a disgrace to a civilised country that such an inquiry as the present should be made. The plaintiff admits that he never had possession of the property in question, and that he commenced an action of ejectment, which he saw fit to abandon; and after the lapse of two years he thinks proper to with crowbar and pickaxe to take forcible possession of that for which he had not dared to proceed with his action. Was ever anything so monstrous? He had brought the assault upon himself by his own violent proceedings. Mr. Albery then cited the 9th  George IV., c. 31, s. 27, as an act expressly prohibiting a decision by magistrates in cases of assault where a question of title was involved. Here the title was disputed, and this was not like the case of a person who went to recover possession of that from which he had been wrongfully ousted. An action was at this moment pending, and Mr. Pink and those with him were the parties who ought to have been here to answer for a breach of the law, for it was a flagrant breach of the peace to go, with the village assembled to see the ‟fun” as they might deem it, and thus by force to secure possession. He felt sure that the Magistrates would decline to act in such a case, and thus leave the parties to try the question of title in a court of law. If Mr. Pink would venture to do so, let him establish his right by lawful means. He submitted that the magistrates had no jurisdiction.—The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on returning into Court the Chairman stated that having considered these four cases of assault conjointly, as arising out of one and the same transaction, the Magistrates were sorry to find disclosed a scene of gross and utterly unjustifiable violence on the part of defendants, but inasmuch as an action of ejectment had been commenced by Mr. Pink, and from some cause not followed out, thus leaving the title to the shed still in dispute, the Magistrates considered that their jurisdiction was barred by the statute 9 Geo. 4th, c. 31, s. 27. Still he (the Chairman) felt bound to say that however ill-advised Mr. Pink might have been in attempting to take forcible possession, nothing could justify the violence of Francis Dear in striking him with a sledge hammer, and it was well the blow was not attended with worse consequences, or defendants might have had to answer a far more serious charge than the present one. The case was dismissed on the ground of no jurisdiction, and each party would pay their own costs.