PETERSFIELD.

     At the Petty Sessions, Sept. 21st, present J. Martineau and R. Steele, Esqrs.

—   William Stacey pleaded guilty to the charge of taking a pheasant, in the parish of Bramshott, on Saturday the 4th inst, fined 4s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. costs, or 21 days’ imprisonment—the money not being forthcoming, defendant was committed.

—   John Hetherington, was charged on the information of William Warner, jun., with stealing clover grass, value 1d., growing in a certain field in the parish of Hawkley. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was adjudged to pay 7s. 6d. costs and 1d. damages, or seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour—the money was paid.

—   John Cannons, was charged on the information of P.C. James Edson, 38, with having cruelly treated a horse by overloading it, in the parish of empshott, on Wednesday Sept. 8. It appeared from the evidence, that defendant was the worse for liquor and drove furiously from Liss to Greatham, and thence on the Alton road for a mile and a half towards Empshott, thus endangering the safety and even the lives of the public; but although clearly guilty of this most reprehensible act, still the evidence did not sustain the charge of cruelty, and the defendant was accordingly discharged with a caution.

—   Mr. James Light appeared to answer a charge on the information of James Harding, of having trespassed in search of game on certain waste lands within the Manor of Liss. Mr. Albery, of Midhurst, appeared for complainant (Sir Charles Taylor, the Lord of the Manor), Mr. Light conducted his own defence. On the witness being called to prove the trespass, Mr. Light rose and said he would save the time of the Bench by at once admitting the facts alleged in the information, as his defence rested on quite different grounds, viz., a denial of Sir Charles Taylor’s right. Mr. Albery here rose and said that as defendant took this line of defence, he felt called upon to adduce other evidence and requested to be sworn himself, which having been done, he deposed as follows: I am employed by Sir C. Taylor to attend to his interests as regards the Manor of Liss; proceedings are now pending to enclose the waste of the Manor. At a meeting to hear objections to claims which had been put in under the enclosure, at which defendant was present, an agreement was entered into whereby on the part of the late Sir C. Taylor and the commoners, it was agreed that Sir Charles was to receive an allotment of land of the value of 10l. a year, in lieu of a compensation for his right of sporting, and some other rights, which are not included in the provisional order, but up to the present time there has been no report or award under the enclosure or any such allotment made. Cross-examined by Mr. Light—Some waste lands have been sold to pay the expenses of the enclosure. Mr. Light in his defence, contended that it is a maxim in law or at any rate in equity, that a thing agreed to be done is as a thing done, and cited Sir E. Sugden, now Lord St. Leonards, as an authority, which he was sure the Bench would consider of great weight on such a question as the present; he therefore submitted to the Bench that as soon as the agreement deposed to by Mr. Albery was entered into, Sir C. Taylor parted with his manorial rights in so far as concerned the present question. Again, about 100 acres of waste land had been sold and duly conveyed to the purchasers by the Commissioners and by them alone. Sir C. Taylor was no party to the conveyance, which clearly proved that he had no interest in the matter, in fact if the doctrine set up by Mr. Albery that Sir Charles retained his manorial rights until the awards should have been actually made be admitted, it would follow that he still retained his right over those portions which had been sold, which it would be quite monstrous to suppose. Such right had been clearly parted with and became vested in the purchasers—some of those purchasers were his (defendant’s) clients, and his only object in going on the land in question was to maintain those clients’ rights; he did not care for the shooting, as he only went once or twice in the season, and no notice had ever before been taken of it, and it was a pity the question should have been raised now, as in all probability in the course of a month or six weeks the awards would be made, and there would be an end to all question on the matter. Mr. Albery replied, contending that the maxim cited by defendant of a thing agreed upon  being as a thing done, did not in the least apply to the present case; they all knew very well that an agreement to purchase an estate was binding on the parties entering into it, and so far in equity as a thing done, but this was a different case altogether, here Sir Charles had agreed to give up certain rights when a certain thing should have been done; that thing had not yet been done, and until he should have received a quid pro quo it was absurd to say that he had parted with his rights. With regard to Mr. Light’s going over the waste on behalf of his clients—if one person could authorise him to do so another might; and was it to be said then that 100 or 150 persons might give defendant authority shoot over the waste. Mr. Light was not even a commoner, and did not claim to be, and he (Mr. A.) contended that there could not be even the shadow of a pretext for saying that he had any right whatever to shoot over the waste, and therefore he submitted to the Bench that the alleged trespass had been committed. The Magistrates seeing the case to be purely one of law, expressed themselves unwilling to adjudicate, and ultimately adjourned the case for a fortnight.