1829—At the Midsummer Assizes, before Mr. Baron Vaughan, John Hunter, Esq., of Pershore, was tried for feloniously altering a deed. A true bill had been returned against Mr. Hunter at the Lent Assizes, but he was enlarged till the Midsummer Assizes on very heavy bail. The respectability of Mr. Hunter, who but for this charge would this very year have been High Sheriff of the County, caused the intensest interest to be felt in the trial, and the courts were thronged to suffocation. Mr. Campbell, K.C., Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, Mr. Carwood, and Mr. Godson, were the counsel for the prosecution; and Mr. Taunton, Mr. Sergeant Russell, and Mr. C. Phillips, assisted the defendant, who, as the law then stood, was obliged to address the jury himself, and could only avail himself of counsel in cross-examination, this being a misdemeanour. The charge against Mr. Hunter was that he had erased the words “part of” from a deed which he held, and the effect of the erasure would be to put him in possession of the _whole_ of the premises to which it referred. In fact, in 1825 he brought an action on the strength of this deed to recover the whole of the premises, but permitted himself to be non-suited. Mr. Hunter, in the written defence he handed in to be read to the jury, contented himself with denying any knowledge of how the erasure came about, and that it existed in the deed when it first came into his possession, he having bought the property as an entire property. The evidence given, and some of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, were of a very doubtful character; and after the long array of witnesses which Mr. Hunter called to speak to a long life of unblemished uprightness, the jury said they would not trouble his lordship to sum up, and Mr. Hunter must be _honourably acquitted_. 1830—At the Summer Assizes, before Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet, came on the case of CHALK AND HOLL _v._ ROBINSON, M.P., being an action to recover £13. 8s. 6d. for printing electioneering squibs on Mr. Robinson’s behalf, at the election of 1826. They were written and ordered by some of Mr. Robinson’s agents and solicitors, and his object in resisting the claim was to disown any personal connection with them. The matter was referred, at the judge’s request, to Mr. Holroyd; and he awarded the sum claimed to the plaintiffs, holding Mr. Robinson liable; Mr. Brampton proving that the orders came from his committee room. THE ODDINGLEY MURDER.