what I expect your honour will stand my friend, for I'd sooner come to your honour for justice, than to any other in all Ireland: and so I brought him here before your honour, and expect your honour will make him pay me the grazing, or tell me, can I process him for it at the next assizes, please your honour?" The defendant.

now, turning a quid of tobacco with his tongue into some secret cavern in his mouth, begins his defence with-"Please your honour, under favour, and saving your honour's presence, there's not a word of truth in all this man has been saying from beginning to end, upon my conscience, and, I wouldn't for the value of the horse tell your honour a lie; for please your honour, I have a dependance upon your honour, that you'll do me justice, and not be listning to him, or the like of him. Please your honour, it's what he has brought me before your honour, because he had a spite against me about some oats I sold your honour, which he was jealous of, and a shawl his wife got at my sister's shop there without, and never paid for: so I offered to set the shawl against the grazing, and give him a receipt in full of all demands, but he would'nt out of spite please your honour; so he brought me before your honour, expecting your honour was mad with me for cutting down the tree in the horse park, which was none of my doing, please your honoru-ill luck to them that went and belied me to your honour behind my back!-So if your honour is pleasing, I'll tell you the whole truth about the horse, that he swopped against my mare, out of the face. Last Shrove fair I met this man, Jemmy Duffy, please your honour, just at the corner of the road, where the bridge is broke down, that your honour is to have the presentment for this year

29

long life to you for it! and he was at that time coming from the fair of Gurtishannon, and I the

same way. "How are you Jem

my?" says I." Very well, I thank ye kindly, Bryan," says he. "Shall we turn back to Paddy Salmon's and take a noggin of whiskey to our better acquaint ance?""I dont care if I do, Jemmy," says I; "only it is what I can't take the whiskey, because I'm under an oath against it for a month." Ever since, please your honour, the day your honour met me on the road, and observed to me, I could hardly stand I had taken so much-though upon my conscience, your honour wronged me greatly that same time-ill luck to them that belied me behind my back to your honour!-Well, please your honour, as I was telling you, as he was taking the whiskey, and we talking of one thing or to'ther, he makes me an offer to swop his mare, that he could'nt sell at the fair of Gurti shannon, because nobody would be troubled with the beast, please your honour, against my horse; and to oblige him I took the mare-sorrow take her! and him along with her!-She kicked me a new car that was worth three pounds ten to tatters, the first time ever I put her into it, and I expect your honour will make him pay me the price of the car any how, before I pay the grazing, which I've no right to pay at all-at-all, only to oblige him.But, I leave it all to your honour— and the whole grazing he ought to be charging for the beast, is but two and eight-pence halfpenny, any how, please your honour.-So I'll abide by what your honour says, good or bad. I'll leave it all to your honour."

I'll leave it all to your honour, literally means, I'll leave all the trouble to your honour.

AERIAL COMBATS.

AN account has lately been pub

lished of a curious battle in the air, between the Swifts and Swallows, at Saffron Walden.

Many records are to be found of battles as extraordinary, fought in the same element.

In a pamphlet published in London, in 1622, we read, that in the 12th of Richard II. a battle was fought between gnats, at Shene, now called Richmond; their multitudes were so great, that the air was darkened by them. It was computed that two parts of them were killed, and the remaining third suddenly vanished.-The above account is inserted as preliminary to one of an engagement between the starlings at Cork, in Ireland, on the 12th of October, 1621 they mustered four or five days previously, every day increasing in number. Some came from the East, others from the West, and, as it were, encamped themselves Eastward and Westward of the city. During the time of their assembling, those who came from the East sought their meat Eastward, and those from the West sought their's Westward; no one flying in the circuits of the other.

On Saturday, the 12th of October, they fought, and on Sunday none were to be seen. Upon this Sunday, a similar battle was seen between Gravesend and Woolwich, and a raven flying between the combatants. On Monday, the 14th, they again appeared at Cork, and fought with as much violence as before, the dead and wounded falling on the houses, into the streets, and the river. After this battle there were found dead a kite, a raven, and a crow.

Another pamphlet, printed at Oxford, in 1676, and purporting to be a translation of one published at

Lisle on the 17th of March, in the same year, relates a prodigious battle of birds between Dole and Salines, in the Franche Comte, on the 26th of February, 1676. The most numerous of the warriors were of a description not very much unlike our scare-crows, but there were above a hundred kinds. After fighting several hours, those who were not disabled retired no man knew whither. Bushes as high as men were hidden, and the earth covered with heaps of them for above five hundred paces in length, and the screams of the wounded and dying terrified the inhabitants of Burgundy. This extraordinary engagement had been predicted by Nostraciamus, about the end of the first century, in his 100th article.

The above pamphlets are now extremely scarce; they are, however, still extant in the British Museum, and the libraries of the curious.

SINGULAR CHARACTER.

MR.

R. Pratt, brother to the late Lord Camden.-This gentleman was a very singular character. He had a remarkably tenacious memory, and was reckoned one of the first whist-players in the kingdom. He remembered all the cards that were played in a hand, from an ace down to a duce, and could recapitulate their order of playing, which he has done for a considerable wager. He dined every day, alone, at the Queen's Head tavern, in Holborn, and always drank a bottle of port to himself. He occupied chambers in Grey's Inn, and lived in the highest floor, to prevent any disturbance over head. His taciturnity seemed even to exceed his memory ; a remarkable instance of which he gave in a voyage to the East Indies,

when

ON

N Monday, October 5th, several well-contested Rowing Matches took place at Blackwall, which were witnessed by a prodigious number of spectators. The prizes were as follow:

First man, a new whcrry, eighteen guineas.

Second man, won six pounds. Third man, dito, four pounds. Fourth man, ditto, three pounds. Fifth man, ditto, two pounds. Sixth man, ditto, one pound ten shillings.

First division.-John Payne, William Saunders, and John Woodley.

Second division.-Caleb Sellers, William Prosser, and J. Eagleton. Third heat.--Two first men in, from each division.

Fourth heat.-The two men that were left out from the two first heats, started together for the two last prizes..

Fifth heat. The two first men of the four that rowed together in the third heat, started for the boat and second prize.

The boats started at half past twelve o'clock precisely from Blackwall stairs, and went three times round each heat.

Woodley won the four pounds prize, Eagleton the three pounds, and Prosser the two pounds. The heat was stoutly contested, and the men had to row at least two miles and a half. One of the men, during the heat, was taken suddenly ill and declined. Payne and Sanders being declared the two best men of each division, on a signal gun being fired by the managers, started for the wherry. They were both young men, and excellently well matched. Payne kept next -the shore, but after proceeding about one hundred yards, Sanders crossed Payne, struck his boat, and obstructed him in proceeding. This was pronounced foul, as the laws made previous to starting were, that any man coming within a skull's length to jostle or cross could not win. The umpires gave it in favour of Payne, who got into the prize-boat, and towed past the town, amid the applause of the populace. He was then carried in triumph through the streets, though it is still contended that he was not entitled to the prize-wherry, not having rowed the whole way, though decidedly jostled by his adversary.

A FINE BUILDING THE RESULT OF A BOXING MATCH.

THE HE rebuilding of Lambeth-Palace is thus whimsically ac counted for: Bonniface being elected in 1244, took it into his head to become a visitor of the Priory of St. Bartholomew, to which he had no right. The Monk met him with reverential respect, but assured him the office did not belong to the Bishop; upon which he knocked down the Sub-Prior, kicked him, and tore the scope from off his back. and stamped on it as one possessed, his attendants following his example

upon

upon the poor Monks. The peo ple were much enraged at this conduct, and would have torn Boniface to pieces; but he retired to Lambeth, and, by way of expiation, rebuilt the palace with great magnificence.

SUSSEX ASSIZES.

LEWES, AUGUST 1. Before Lord Kenyon and a Special Jury.

SCRACE V. SMITH.

For Shooting the Plaintiff's Dog.

[In our Magazine for August last, page 253, we cursorily mentioned this Trial, and have now the satisfaction to lay it at full before our Readers.]

HIS was an action for killing a

TH

greyhound, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, first, that he was not guilty; and, secondly, that he was keeper of a certain antient park, called Hurstmonseaux Park, and that he killed the plaintiff's dog for hunting down the deer.

Mr. Garrow said, that this action was one which could not fail deeply to interest all who were actuated by the least sentiment of good nature and affection towards the brute creation, and particularly that most faithful of all animals, the dog. He knew nothing that

was more calculated to wound the feelings, and excite the regret, of any man, than to have a valuable and trusty dog destroyed. The defendant might be a gamekeeper, and justified in killing the dogs he found hunting deer; but in the present instance it would be proved, from the expressions of the defendant, after he had committed this act of malice, that it was not on account of the animal having hunted the deer he shot him. It would be necessary to attend to the species of

dog in question. It was a white greyhound; and every one knew that dogs of that breed never put up the game of themselves, but only hunted it down when they were set on. The defence was, that this dog was hunting; and it would be for the defendant to make out that fact; for the law of England did not authorise every saucy gamekeeper to kill all the dogs that went through the park, of which he had the custody; especially such a park as this, through which there was a common path for all who pleased to pass. Although

the defendant had had the assurance to say this dog was hunting, he at the same time perfectly well knew it was not deer, but game of a different kind it was pursuing. It was necessary to observe, that the plaintiff's was a male dog; and that the son of the defendant had a little greyhound of the other sex. This animal had won the affections of the white greyhound, and she was the object for which he resorted to the park. It would be for the Jury to infer how the two greyhounds were employed, when they considered the expressions used by the defendant to a person whom he informed of the circumstance-expressions which any man who had a drop of English blood about him, would have been ashamed to have used; he observed, he had tickled one of them, and that he had had a very good chance of killing both, but that he took good aim. He should prove these facts on the part of the plaintiff; and it would then be for the defendant to make out his justification, He repeated, that the dog certainly was one which would have killed game, but it had no taste for doing so unless set on.

Joseph Parks said, that on Saturday the 2d of April, he was in the neighbourhood of this park:

he saw a little lurcher bitch, be-
longing to the defendant's son;
and, shortly after, a strange white
greyhound, which he since learned
had belonged to the plaintiff, came
up to her. In a few minutes he
heard the report of a gun, and per-
ceived the white greyhound wound-
ed. Immediately after this. he saw
Smith standing with his
gun, and

asked him whether he had seen any dogs in the park? to which he replied, he had. The witness asked him whether he had not shot at them and he answered, that he had helped one of them to something that had tickled him. The witness then desired to know which dog he had shot, and he said it was the white greyhound; and added, that they were both a dead mark, and he had a very pretty opportunity of shooting them together. On his cross examination, he said, he did not know the defendant was Mr Nailor's park-keeper: this affair was after the defendant had taken a gun and net from him (the witness); the defendant did not tell him he had seen two lurchers chasing the deer.

Mr. Serjeant Shepherd said, his learned friend seemed to have made it the foundation of this action, that the defendant had boasted of having wontonly killed the plaintiff's dog, which was by no means the fact. The case was this: the defendant was park-keeper to Mr. Nailor, the proprietor of Hurstmonseaux Park, who, in the course of the last year and an half, had had five of his deer worried by the dogs in his neighbourhood, and if he was not allowed to kill them, his property could never be secure. His learned friend had stated, that greyhounds would not hunt unless they were set on; perhaps this might be true with regard to staunch dogs; but it was well known that all dogs, of =whatever breed they were, had a VOL. XIX.--No. 109.

33

taste for mutton; and it was fair to presume they had no objection to venison if they could get it. He agreed that it was improper for park-keepers to shoot at dogs merely because they came within a park; nay, further, he did not think they were justified in doing so, even if they were chasing the deer, provided a person was with them who could call them off; but in this case the defendant's dog had been chasing the deer without any one to restrain it; and, if it had not been seen by the park-keeper, would certainly have hunted some of them down and killed them He feared he should have some difficulty in proving this, as the defendant had alone observed them, and could not give testimony in his own behalf.

It was a circumstance rather suspicious, that the only witness the plaintiff had called was a man who, for poaching in the park lately, haď his gun and a net taken from him. If it had been denied that this place was an ancient park, he should have proved it beyond all question; but as that was admitted, he should prove a general notice on the part of Mr. Nailor, that as several of his deer had been worried, he would order his game-keeper to shoot all the dogs found in his park. It happened there was an old man near the spot who heard the report of the gun; and, upon inquiring the cause, was informed by the defendant, he had shot a dog. as he was hunting the deer. It was admitted that one of the dogs was a lurcher; and it could not be denied that dogs of that kind would hunt by the scent as well as the sight. If he proved the facts he had stated, he thought the defendant was intitled to a verdict.

Miller, the witness, offered on the part of the defendant, said, he saw the dogs, but did not observe them wandering at all, or hunting E

the