1807—At the Summer Assizes a special jury cause at Nisi Prius, in which Sir John Geers Cottrell, Bart., as heir at law of Mrs. Freeman of Henley Park, brought an action of ejectment against Joseph Harris, Esq., of Stanford, the sole executor and residuary legatee of that lady, appears to have excited much interest. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, establishing Mr. Harris’s right to a considerable estate in the parish of Rock, and other property. Attorney for defendant—Mr. Hyde, Worcester. At the Summer Assizes the cause again came on, the plaintiff having obtained a new trial. Some of the most celebrated counsel of the day were engaged—Mr. Garrow being retained by the plaintiff, and Sir Thomas Plumer for defendant. After a twenty-four hours’ battle, the jury confirmed the verdict of the former jury by a verdict for defendant. The finding gave general satisfaction. 1808—AUGUST—At the Worcester Summer Assizes this year was tried the cause of HILL _v._ SMITH, an action brought to try the right of the Corporation of Worcester to toll on wheat sold by sample, and of course a matter of great interest to the agriculturists of the county generally. The Corporation pleaded—“1st, that from time immemorial they had taken a pint of wheat out of each bag, as a toll on wheat sold by sample in the market, and afterwards brought into the city: 2nd, the same justification, except that the taking was in the name of toll, and not as a distress: 3rd, that the Corporation were seized in fee of the Manor of Worcester, and that the toll was taken in respect of such manor: 4th, that the Corporation had immemorially repaired the horse and carriage road in the Corn Market, amongst others, and by reason thereof had immemorially taken the toll on all grain brought over the Corn Market to be delivered to a buyer.” The evidence fixed the custom of sale by sample to have commenced in the year 1760. The learned judge directed the jury to withdraw from their consideration the question of toll traverse in respect of the manor, and toll thorough (the last issue), the Corporation being unable to support these issues, and desired them to consider whether the grant (by charter, enabling them to toll wheat) was not originally for all corn sold, both where the bulk or only a part was brought into the market. The jury, after an hour and a half’s consideration, returned a verdict for the Corporation on the second and third issues, and for the agriculturists on the others. Counsel for the agriculturists—Mr. Sergeant Williams, Messrs. Jervis, Abbott, and Lord; attorney, Mr. Hill: for the Corporation, Messrs. Dauncey, Wigley, Puller, and Mence; attorney, Mr. Weller.