Surrey Sessions.
Y Mesterday AIfr. Henr, itnt was indicted for an amsault Lnoon 2Ur. Hailet, a chytnist. Two of his servantg were tried for 'the same offence. The prosecutor, who residles upsn premises contiguous to Mr. Hunt's. in Broadwall, stated that Mr. IIunt had actedl in the most obnoxious manner to hiin. One day, while witness wvas it, his houvse, he heard a row fro:n oatside, and upon going ottt ob- served 31r. Hunt abusing hiq cer-:ant and shovelling mudt andi stones tpon the premises. l'trness bad ordercd his servant to clear away some rubbish, and thte defendant took untbrage at it, and1 orderedl the rubbish to bc shovelled ba3ek; but the rubbish was thrown upon witness's servant, and witness irmmTediately e't- Itostultted with M1r. Hunt, rs!lo abandoned all ceremony. used the most abusive languasue towards the unofi'ending 'Ir. Hallet, and not content with that vengeance, shovelled wuid and stones and cinders upon him and his servant. WiV;iels escaped anv severe personal injury, but his servant suffered flr.t, the raxe of Mr. Hunt in no slight deg-ree. Upon his crMs--e-tamination by Mr. flunt, the witneis adniitted that this case wpsi dismissed by the magistrates of Union-hall. Hit, tateitnOnt was confirmed by the evidence of his servant. Mr. Hunt, in his defence, stated, that fie biad, instead of acting with any 'hostility towards the co nplainant, treated him vith kiind- ness and forbearance, and that on the occasion allided to, Mr. H.Mllet ha(l in reality been the agzressor, antid an aggressor, too, without being retaliated upon. After several observati3ns upon the conduct of the complainant, Mr. Flunt called- Mr. Chu--e, Pearson, t\te st1icitor, who stated,. that he had called ttpon Mr. H un: on the day of the aileved assaul'. and wit-essed the difFlrcnce htttween the pruseLcuor anti the defe" daert. There were some angr-y wond upon both ttes, bttt Mr. iiallet twas evidentlr as severe as .MIr. Hunt, and ercouraged h.s nn;r ta shlovel snm0e rutebisih upon ithe rnadt close tol Mr. !-lunt's iirennises, Mr. IHunt halving very ytrefully Mac-d,l,nized that vact of ttic road. Mr. Hiunt's ttren and 3Mr. Hunt e hioself tirousiht pro r to ,itovel bac' the rubhici, and in the stloveitng one party sufoereil as nucIt as t:ie other. wo;ichi was in ftrtt nothing at Lil. T!;e prosecutor's party, however' seemed to be he augressors. Other witrcse, stated te the same eafcct, and the Chairnsan was about to surn up tl:e evidence, when The Jury requested hatl he would not takC that trouble, as they were convenecl upon the subiect. :Mr. 'luant wsas then imrne-iatel aeejuiIe. I .% ar ?p el SURREI' SPS IOGNS.