Shrewsbury, Saturday, July 30. SUMMER ASSIZES. OXFORD CIRCUIT. This was a very singular action. It was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman of lauded property, against the defendant, a farmer, to recover damages for the loss of two cottages which had been burnt down in consequence of the ignition of a stack of hay belonging to the defendant and which was on the premises of the latter, adjoining to the plaintiff's cottages. Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and 1lr. Whateley were for the plaintiff, and ir. Mlauln, MIr. Bather, and Mr. Richards were for the defendant. The plaintiffalone caUed witnesses, and from their testi- mony it appeared that one evening last autumn the hay-stack in question caught fire and was wholly consumed. The fire communicated to the farm buildings of the defendant, and at- terwards to the cottages of the plaintiff, and the whole were destroyed. The stack had stood about a month or six weeks, and having been observed to smoke very much, an iron rod had been driven through it, and some prtion had been cut out. It was said, however, that the defendant had not done enough, that the appearances of the stack for some time be- fore its combustion were such that it ought to have been shifted and taken down, and somne of the witnesses stated that they had given notice to the defendant of the dangerous condition of the stack. The valuc of the cottages was proved to have been about 1501., and the amount of the defendant's loss was 5001., for which he was not insured. Mlr. AIAILE addressed the jury for the defendant, and told them that this was a very novel action. He contended that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the de- fendant; he had acted upon that which seemed to be themost prudent conduct, and the jury would not judge him by the event. The witnesses now, indeed, professed to find out that his conduct was wrong, but that was after the event had happened and it was impossible for the defendant to have adoptet ailIthe advice which was offered him. He urTed that it was evident the defendant did not think he was acting negligently, because his own property was destroyed to a very large amount. Mr. Justice PATTESOV told the jury, that they must say whether the defendant had acted as a man of ordinary skill and judgment wreuld have acted under the circumstances of the case because, if not, the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict, since it was not enough that the defendant had done what he ?ondu fide believed to be sufficient. He might be a rash and imprudent person, aind therefore his neighbour's pro- perty was not to be endangesed by his injudicious conduct His Lordship, however, left it to the jury to say whether the defendaat had acted negligently in not removing the hay- stack. X he Jury retired for a short time, and then returned a ver- dict for the plaintiff-Damages 61. The verdict was a surprise upon the whole court, because, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, there did not ap- pear to be anY reason whv he was only to recover .9L I SHREXWSBURY, SATURDAY, JULY 30. VAUG.A'N V. 3fEILOVE.-(SpCCial Jurn.)