The National Register. — London, England, 1822-06-02 00:00:00

r LAI+ INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. LINEI.JONES V. RTILVHENS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an atto ney, to recover damages from the defendailt, who is a law bookseller, for n libel published by him in a pamphlet. The damages were laid at 10001. Mr. Jervis stated the case. The plaintiff was a gentleman carrying on the business of an attorney at I lanky, in Stultstal • shire; and the defendant was a respectable law stationer and bookseller, well-known to the profession, and carrying on bud- PIeSS in Bell-yard. The libel in question, which had been pub lished and extensively circulated for the last two years, was con tained in a pamphlet addressed to the Master of the Court of King'► Bench. The subject was some fancied abuse which was stated to exist in that Court (the Court of Exchequer,) and the most respectable individuals, the Clerks of that Court, were made the subject of the attack. They were charged with filing decla rations on tinstamped paper, charging the duty to the client, as if it had been (mid• and misting it into their own pockets; thus defrauding tha 'subject or the revenue. In the course of this libel, which was written under the assumed name of Paul Wil kinson, and went on most wickedly to villify the learned Judge of that Court, as well as the clerks; allusion was made to LA CAW, where a party having entered into a bail bond, by some neglect himself and his two bail were tined, and in conacquence three declarations were filed against them, or. in other words. separate actions were c o mmenced against each of the patties, turd elle ori ginal debt being but 131. taxed costs to the amount of 211. were aectimulat-d upon it, and the Court refused to give relief to the parties until these costs were paid. This, which was a common ' .rse of proceeding in other courts, the author of the libel had used as the ground-work of his accusation, and burst out with Know, learned reader, that the attorney in this case was Thos. Jones, of Hanley, in Stsiliwelshire," and went on to say that his character and conduct might be learned from his neighbours, but that, according to his own account of himself, he was a man •• more sinned against than sinning." The libel went on at considerable length, in a strain of affected irony, to accuse the I:lint:di of being a disreputable practitioner of the law. The canted counsel concluded ky making an appeal to the Jury as o the value of character, and particularly professional character, and it would be their duty to give protection and compensation to the person alto now appealed to them, by billicting most exem plary punishment on the purse of the defendant. The publication of the libel was proved, and in the course of the evidence it was also proved that the three declarations filed in the actions on the bail-bona were without stainps. In the taxed bill of costs was one charge of lls. li. and another of 8, 7,1. for duty, of which no stamps were shown. The Clerk of the Warrant of Attorney-office was called to prove that the plaintiff had been, and was now, regularly enter das an attorney. On his cross-examination it appeased, that between the years 1813 and 1814, and from November to February last, no entry was made in the books of the defendant's being certificated. Mr. Brougham here submitted, that the plaintiff must be nun-suited, as it had been averred in the declaration that he was at the time of the publication of the libel an attorney. It was necessary to prove the avemnent, and to show that he was such attorney at the time of the publication; but by the evidence which had been put in to prove the declaration, it was shown that the plaintiff was not legally entered as an attorney. A penalty of fol. was annexed to the obi ace of practising as an attorney without a dire entry. As the admission of an attorney was no thing without his certificate, so the certificate of his adinission was nothing witnout the entry. A long argument ensued on this objection, which Baron Wood ultimately overruled, observing, that in the whole course of his practice he had never known of a case of the kind, and would not venture to stop the cause upon the objection, of which the plaintiff might derive the henclit hereafter. The puha was tltcrefore reserves' for the Bench. Mr. Brougham addressed the for the defendant, in reply to Nlr. Jervis, and said lie should give them proofs of the truth of the assertions contained in the an ph let respecting the conduct and character of the plaintiff, and consequently of the defendant's right to publish those truths. It had been admitted that the plaintiff had in his practice on the occasion spoken of, brought on one bond three actions to increase the costs, when one action would have otherwise sufficed. He cited the case of Kay v. 11111, where three actions had been instituted to recover tieble costs, When Chief Justice Abbott characterized the case as one which did not often come, but which always demanded the makes, censure of the Court as most improper. The learned counsel asked why the action had not been brought in Staffordshire, where the plaintiff' hail prac iscd, as Hanley well knew, and where, if lie durst, he would hare brought the action ; for there it was known, whether he was or not a respectable practitioner, useful or tolerable to his neighbours. Wily had he proceeded against the publisher, when the author was ready to meet him, unless that lee found it more safe to contend with one who did not know him, than with one who did? These facts alone, the learned counsel contended, ought, if the case went no farther, to cut down the damages to a farthing. But he would go farther, and show that every line of the alleged libel was true, and would prove that the plaintiff carried on a most flagitious practice of erecting Whet... 3 at two places, at one of which he put up a man of straw, whilst his clients could only have the benefit of his skill rend experience in another. The bunted counsel said, he rested for a verdict MI the proof of the truth of the matters alleged, and to which pout he requested their utmost attention. Some witnesses were calied, of whom it was tried to extract evidence of the general cluutecter of Joni*, but the Court would not suffer such a course of exanlination. Mr. Brougham said, that if the Court should afterwards coin cide with his Lonl.hip, in declaring such evidence inadmissible, it would prevedt any one from pleading in justification. N. Jone,, a grocer, deposed that he had employed I liimmond in a suit a! law which lie understood on the terms of" no cure no ' , Ay," and that no costs should be paid if the suit were lost. The suit was lost, when the plaintiff; Alt. Jones, sent him in a bill of costs, and tin his refusing to pay, he was arrested, and after con , ideruble imprisonment fur it, got out by taking the benefit of the act. Another witness, a grocer, deposed to the same efFect. It was proved that alter Hammond quitted Jones, each issued an advertisement cautioning their connexions against paying their rem wetive debts of L ills to each other. A variety of evidence was offered tor the purpose of justifying the detail, of the libel, but di:elated to be inadmissible, and the above was all that went to the Jury. Air—Jervis replied at great length, and ascribed the conduct of the witnesses who had *nue forward against the plaintiff' to a gnwrialle,s ill•will towards that gentleman. He contended that the libel had been by no means justified. Ali% Baron ‘Vood, in suinniibg up, said it was for the Jury to pronounce whether the libel, which he believed to be a most scandalous one, had rettivitl a Ctir justification. The Jury retired for a shuts time, and returned a verdict for he plainull:--tlani4es Sol. WEDNESDAY, MtY 29. MANNER 1 , . Litc.ba. This wag an action brought to recover damages for blander and defamation. The datita-c, were laid at Mil. Mr. Jervis said, the rilsirititr, Mr. Francis Manners, a res pectable tradesman in the city. proceeded against his the defendtuu,not to recover damages, but by the verdict which ho sought from the Jury, to put a shy to the course of ithuve which lie had received from his son-in-law, in return for the sup port, as,istance, told benefits which his kindness had bestowed upon him. The defendant, why is a young man of about bia-autl-tw tatty, THE NATIONAL REGISTER was in Court for the purpose of pleading his own cause; but Baron Wood interrupted the counsel for the prosecution, and n‘ked whether the case, which as between members of the same family must be a_peculially painful one to cuter into, could not be betties! out of Conti? Mr. Jervis said, it' the defendant would make an apology in the Court fur his conduct, and promise as publicly that it should never be repeated, all the purposes of the pruss.vutiun would be answered. The learned Judge advised the defendant, that he could not d et se more advantageously than by making the reparation demanded. - - . 'I he defendant, after a short consideration, expressed his son ow and repentance for the conduct he had pursued, and ptomised that it should never be repeated. A verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. was then taken; but it was promised that, so king as the defendant kept his word, the payment of the damage. and crests should nt t be enforced. Baron Wood gave an eloquent admonition to the defendant, on the folly and wickedness of his contltat ; particularly ani madverting upon the situation in which such cotaluct placed his unfortunate wife towards her parent. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. WEDNESDAY, MAY 29. TIIF. KING V. MARSHALL ARD ANOTHER. This was indictment against the defendants, charging them with conspiracy to give a foist character to persons, who thereby obtained goods from the London (:as and 'far Com pan). It nppeared in the course of the proceedings that live persona who stood in the situation of pios,cutors, were not sufficiently vested with the property lwliniging to the company to maintain the prosecution, and the defendants were acquitted. II I TOICOC I: V. BROW V. This was an scams to recover 151, for board and lodging furnished the defendant. The plaintiff kept a public-house at Southall, and Drown lived with her. Tae question was, whe ther he was eating and drinking at her house as a working man getting his living, or as a servant? It was alleged that the do residua( bargained to pay 12s. a week; but the defence was, that he worked us a servant, drawing beer, and attending as hostler its the stable. The Jury found al verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 151. ItUSPINI V. \S ATP,. This action was brought by the Chevalier Ruspini, against the defendant, who was one of 11... tissignees, under a com mission of bankruptcy against him, to recover the value of sonic goods which were alleged to he improperly sold. Mr. Gurney stated, that the plaintiff 's father, by will, left annuities to his wife and sons, which were secured upon the house and furniture, in Pall Mall. The property was vested in the plaintiff as eveutor of his father's will, yet the defend ant proceeded to a sale under the following ciicunistances : A commission of bankruptcy, was taken out against the plain tiff, under which Mr. Watts was appointed assignee. The commission was finally superseded , but whilst it was working the assignees had taken possession, not only of the plaintiff's repo ty, but the furniture which had been kft by his father to secure annuities. Mr. Watts employed an auctioneer to sell it, under circumstances, as alleged, of guest disadvantage.— lite learned counsel said, he should call the auctioneer to prove he sold it under the order of Mr. Watts, and bu entitled to recover the value. Mr. Davis. ...root the Prerogative Office, produced the will of the late Mr. Ittispini, the proltat of which was granted on the I 1 th of July, 1811, to the The testator gave annuities to his widow anti sons, and his furniture in tile house in I'4ll-mall was vested in trustees for the purpose of tl.e 'f lie Lord Chief Justice observed, after the will had been read:, that the property wan vested in trustees, and nut eke cubit ; and he could not ace how the executor could sue. Mr. Gurney was unable to satisfy the Judge that the plaintiff could support the action, and lie was nonsaited. Till KING V. This was an indictment le."minst the di Pendant, one of the select vestry of the parish ofPaddingtou, for an assault on a pauper, named John Child. Mr. Holland stated that the pros( cutor was a poor disabled man, with a large family. He applied some time ago to the churchwardens for relief. His wile was lying-in of her fifth child, and he could obtain DO relief. Ile was 'bid he must get a note from Mr. Thatcher. He accordingly applied to thc de fendant, who struck him. The learned counsel called several witnesses. Mr. Reader, no counsel for Mr. Thatcher, said, on the day when the assault was alleged to ha% e been committed, the man went for the purpose, not of obtaining relief, but to insult him. The learned counsel then called Butler, an inhabitant of Paddington, was in ➢Manor • place on the day the dispute took place between Mr. Thatcher and Child. The witness was talking to Thatcher when Child came up. lie said, ."fom Thatcher, how dare you call me a pauper e" Thatcher said, " Go about sour business, this is my private road." his reply was, abed not, Tom Thatcher." Ile ;loaded his list, and ran his elbow into Thatcher's side.— A gentile then took place between them, and Child threw Thatcher twice. Child put his fist in Ids face, COlllll efl hint, and threw him down twice. Child was not thrown at all. Cross examined by Mr. Bollard.—He said Thatcher did not use any improper language, nor did he kick the ran. Mr. Bollaud, in reply said, much was to be allowed for irri tation on the plot of Child, who had been denied relief wilt fete starving children. It was not lie believed, that a num wanting assistance would conduct himself as Butler described. The Lord Chief Justice left the Jury to decide elm had committed the first assault. If they lielie.ed the first assault ails committed by Child, in a state of drunkenness. The July found the defendant not guilty. THUIIsDAY, MAI 30. NICHOLSON V. This was an action by Messrs. Nicholson, who /RC distillers and rectifiers of British spirits, against the defendiud, a licensed victualler, to recover I 151. for stock transferred. Mr. Brougham stated, that the planitiik were respectable spirit dealers, who had been in the habit of supplying the Pun Cossack public-house, at Norton Folgate, with liquors. The house was in the possession of a person mimed Coventry, who kit it, and the defendaut being desirous of carrying on the bu siness, obtallied a lease. He then applied to Mussel. Nicholson fur a transfer of the spirits. The custom was that the outoiug tenant transfers to the in-comer the residue of his stuck, and the distiller accedes to the arrangements. Mr. Smith was ac cordingly debited with the amount, 'Adele was 21. d. and he signed what Ia called a transfer, acknowledging that lie ow, the amount to the plaintiffs. He was told time defendant had paid the money to the out- gi•ing tenant, but lie should prove the defendant acknowledged the debt, stud the Jury would have no difficulty in finding their verdict fur the The Common Serg,edit thee addressed the Jury for the de fendant, and observed, that the) could not In 1p seeing Ili, client had been sued in a way muse oppressive. for, iii fuel, he had paid the moot.), fur which this ucliou was brought. The taut•Aiiiii ""' nut whether he w 4. to 1. , .v Messes. Ist , holsou Ii Si loootrid 171 nod forty-five pounds, but whether ha was to g o to gaol, and rennin storing life. These goods were sold to Coventry,. who could not be divested of them without some act of his own.— There was no evidence to chew Coventry sold them to any person; Coventry was, however, paid by Smith. and the fair jam's:nee was, that the goods woe sold by Coventry to Smith. The !mid Chief Jubilee left the Jury to sty, who thee it wa s made out that the defendant acknowledged he was debtor to the plaintiffs. If he did, they nu4lst to give their verdict for the plaintille. The Jury found fur the pinintin—Damages 2091. FRIDAY, MAT 31. CHAPMAN AND ANOTHER V, STURM'S*. This was an action by the treasurers of a Benefit Society, called the Society of Ancient Britons, to recover the suns of 111/. which they alleged the defendant had withheld from a sum which he was bound to ply over to the ()Ricers. Mr. Chitty having opened the plcadingt, Mr. Gurney stated the case on behalf of the plaimilis. He did ant wish to :as pute intentional fraud to the defendant, whom be understood to be a respectable man. but would rather believe he hail made some mistake as to the sum w hich he produced, and that he afterwards was ashamed to acknowledge Isis error. Mr. Smith, the secretary of the society, stated, that nn the 7111 of September, 1820, the defendant had to pay the suns of 110/. I Is. 10.1. to the treasurers. He came accordingly to the 1.031 k-house where the meeting was held, in South Audley street, laid down a number of notes on the. table, and demand ed 2d in change, which Mr. Constance, an acting member of the committee gave him. In twenty minutes or half as hour eller, a suns was paid to the landlord, and it was now disco vered that the money on the table was 101. less than that which the defendant ought to have paid. On being addressed on the subject, he said that he had laid down two oases of 201. each, two of 15/. and six notes of 101. lie was reminded that llsi• would leave ten pounds abort, when he said be had made a mis take, as he had brought seven notes of 101. each, and not six only. Ile said one of the notes was marked wills the name " Brewer," which name was to be fouull on one of those paid ; others of them be had taken at Esdailes mid Co. inquiry was made at Esdailes, the nest day, where it was found that he had received sic notes then, ill of whirls were paid in at the club except one, which was No. 18,002, and which, being stopped at the Bank of England, was found in a very tattered condition, wills a large blot of ink at the back, which might conceal any name which had been ws Slims on it. When the deficiency was discovered, a search was proposed, to which all present sub mitted, but two persons loot left the muse hefore the proposal was made. Ou the defendaut were found three notes of 51. each. Mr. Scurlett addressed the jury for the defendant. contend. ing (hat the condition of the note proved it had passed throve' the bands of a party who had improperly substrarted it, rather thanlnit it was withheld by Mr. S 1 tiding, to whom no fraud was impoli.d. Mr. Gurney replied o the whole case. . . . The lord Chief Justice summed up the evidence. He oh served that the case was a ilistresAing one, liaising, as it did. among 'milks who ware admitted to be hitherto of respectable character. The Jury deliberated for a few minutes, and found a verdict tar the plaintills—Dsma , tes 101. ATARSD AND ANDTDER n. FDASF.R, CENT. This was an action against the defendant, a clerk in the Ceurt of Chancery, for a false reprcsentalion respecting the interest of Colonel Ilippisley in eertlin 11101111e5 which had been the sub ject of a suit in that court, io consequence of which the plain tin were induced to wake advances to Colonel . . It appeared in evidence that the defendant had, since 1141 7, managed the suit of Colonel Ilippialey, as clerk in noun. In August 1820, Mr. Cooper called on him from the plaintiffs, to inquire into the truth of a representation made by Colonel /lipidsley, that lie was mitided to 1,1001. 3 per cent. consols, Mantling to the credit or a taint! " Hippisley n. Western," an 'inter for the payment of wide!' would be obtained an soon as the folliCeS were open after the long vacation. Mr. Frazer re plied, that be had no doubt such assertion was perfectly true.--. In cow,, e i venee of this answer, the plaintiffs advanced 2901. to eidtoltel Ilippisley, and took Ida order for the payment nu the defendant out of the proreeds of the cause. These, however, were not forthcoming at the appointed time, mid, after various delays, it win discovered by a reference to the hill and answer, that Colonel Hippisley had riot, at most, any right to more than the interest of the money for lite, and that lie had becu discliar4ed in 1`!O9 fioni prison, as an insolvent debtor. Mr. Taunton, for the defendant. resiiiii.led the Jury, that this action could be sustained only oil the ground of Freud, and that therefore they luso he persuaded that Mr. Frazer knew that the assertion lie was making was false. Now lie was not the confidential solicitor of Colonel Hippisley, hut merely the clerk in court; who was, no doubt, better employed than in readine, all the hills and answers in every suit, the mete for mal part of which he conducted. There was no imaginable midis e for the fraud imputed to hint ; indeed, all his interest Nah against all advance to be repaid nut of a fund, to which he must look for his own charges ; and if a mere casual conver sation like this could charge a disinterested party with a debt, the lips of every Englishman must remain hermetically sealed, teat lie should lied an attorney's • krk in a casual inquirer, and snake himself liable to s debt by a few loose words. The Lord Chief Justice assented to the law as stated by Mr. Taunton, and left it to the Jury to say, on the whole evidence, w briber the defenticuit was aware that be was giving his sanc tion to a falsehood. The Jul) found • verdict for 11w plaintifs—damages 2001. SPICEIt V. BROM LUIS A. 0 A• 0 1111. R. Thin was an action against the defendants, atm are army agents, for a penalty of 501. incurred under 51 Geo. 111. '1.28, by their default to sender, on oath, an account of all monies received by them under powers of attorney, %tibias two calendar months lifter a precept from Ilse commissioners of the army. 'flue pi crept produced required an aeronaut generally ..f all numb s ever received to be en to the mob r-treasurer. Service ass proved on our of the defendants, Blunter', °raj.— No account haul ever been gigolo. Mr. Marry ati submitted to the Court, that the act never in tended to require an account of all monies treri% ed during • man's life, but dint some indis bloat transaction must be opeei lied ; and also that, under the Net, th conimissioners Lad no power to direct an account to he rendered to the undts•treasu rer, or to any but themselves. The Lord Chief Justice over-rnled both ot,jections ; and the jury, under his directions, found a verdict against Brothers fur .301., and a verdict for the other defendant, who was out abown to Lase prsonally received the 'stereo. 4 , The Marquis of Londonderry and Col. Wood wished the Lill should he allowed to go to a c ono uittee. Mr. SCAKLbI'I said a few words in trplv. . . • The galltr) %los theh eltored for • 46*ision.- For the weond reittliolz 66 -- for 116, amendlues.l, b3--Mjority, Agitiuit th• hill. 16. TL,ntb«r ordot. et the J wtre thku divoltd of, and the 11uu.•..,,1j,uu,.J.