APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



^n 



removal, but to no purpose ; Mrs. 

 Macnamara oonteiuling that the 

 passage was an innovation, and 

 that the BUie Road was the proper 

 line of communication. He pro- 

 ceeded, however, by force, to re- 

 move the obstructions in ques- 

 tion, but they were soon after- 

 wards re-established. Mr. Bushell 

 again remonstrated, but in vain ; 

 and he accordingly gave notice, 

 that if the obstructions were not 

 removed in twenty days, he would 

 again proceed as he had before 

 done. Accordingly, on the 13th 

 of February, he went to the spot, 

 accompanied by some men, where 

 he found the defendants marshal- 

 ling theii labourers, and Mr. Hill, 

 in particular, ordering them not 

 to mind what Mr. Bushell said. 

 The parties on each side then 

 commenced, the one to fill up, 

 the other to dig the trenches, and 

 alternately to pull down and re- 

 move the obstructions, the other 

 to replace them. During this 

 struggle, the defendants threat- 

 ened to send the other party to 

 gaol; but they persevered, and 

 succeeded in theii- purpose of re- 

 moving the obstructions. These, 

 however, after some time, were 

 again raised, and it became neces- 

 sary to bring the present action. 

 The learned counsel, having ex- 

 patiated upon the nature of the 

 oflFence in question, proceeded to 

 call a variety of witnesses, sur- 

 veyors, farmers, caniers, news- 

 men, persons who tithed the road 

 side, who ri'[)aired and improved 

 it, and individuals, some of whom 

 had known and traveised the road 

 whicli had been obstructed for 

 more than seven, others for ten, 

 liftcen, and even fifty years pre- 

 vioublv. 



The foregoing fact? were fully 

 proved by a variety of witnesses, 

 among whom were Messrs. Bush- 

 ell, Taddy, Woodward, Pasmore, 

 &c. 



For the defence, Mr. Gumey 

 made an ingenious and animated 

 reply, and called nearly twenty 

 witnesses in support of his state- 

 ment. 



Lord Ellenborongh having 

 summed up the endence, the 

 defendants were found Guilty. 



Court of King's-Bench, Wednes- 

 day, July 10. Hume, esq. v. Old- 

 acre. — This was an action of tres- 

 pass. The plaintitF resides at 

 Pinner-park, near Stanmore: the 

 defendant is huntsman of a pack 

 of hounds employed in the Berke- 

 ley hunt. The trespass complain- 

 ed of was, that the defendant 

 broke and entered a close belong- 

 ing to the plaintiff on the 4th of 

 April 181. '5. 



The Attorney-General said, that 

 the Berkeley hunt had been es- 

 tablished about 30 years ago by 

 the Noble Earl who bore that title, 

 and it had afterwards been con- 

 tinued by Lord Sefton. At that 

 time it was conducted in the most 

 regular and inotfensive maimer, 

 and a field of noblemen and gen- 

 tlemen was always assembled, 

 who restrained their sports to 

 other parts of the countiy, with- 

 out wanton destiuction of pro- 

 perty in the vicinity of Stanmore 

 and Watford. The hunt then fell 

 into the hands of subscribers, and 

 its character was completely 

 changed, for any cockney who 

 could hire a horse, or any groom 

 who could borrow one from his 

 absent master, repaired to it for a 

 day's sport, to the great injury of 



property 



