The Statesman. — London, England, 1818-01-23 00:00:00

7w".' IN PRE ro❑ , . - c —* I • • .; . ~.~ . .. . . -: _,. .. :' ' • •• ..a• , ~~~.f r , 19 16 "11.11 : 1111.1"71 ;Tillwelke ' , die Width' Itsfg orpstaise.kia &we figti4.ol., hese, that the :'polailege" of ealeiseel • things geld pettliterte to thrtiattif In . ' • Mitled that the 'ettprevolottir mete l' csmetwithlo ibirptivilige. ' Mr. Justice Aneole concurred.: words eeerse of I judicial enquiry, relevant .. ,to the mutter in lUee, are not actionable, tippets, that the Counsel availed himsel f , Ition to gratify personal malice previously entertained tagainst the person slandered. Justice could not be i properly administered, if on every occasion COlll/44 were to be questioned for the strength of an 'spree: 'rico employed hi the Mr condect of a canto!. Here the words were relevant tied peatinent ; and ifs new t trial were granted, the matt would and ought to be the same slit bad been. . . Mr. Justice floutocc observed, that the slans demos words only expressed the opinion of nn bun. vi dual to the Jury, who wets subsequently to de.. tide upon the merits, and whether the Counsel had spoken truly or uotroly. A less latitude plight tot be allowed to Counsel than to parties, on account of their superior knowledge and cooler temperament; but they were not liable to actions, sinless it eleArly appeared that the slander had no relation to the cause. lie referred to I Hawk. e. 73. s 8., 1 Rt.itf, Abr. 87, pi. 4., 1 Sauer'. 132., and to 4 Coke, 14 h., in order to show that parties were not liable foe word, in the course of a judicial proceeding, artless 'sprees malice were established. He thought the })regent action not maintainable, for the reasons stated by the rest of the Court.—Huts for settles aside the Nonstlit discharged. POLIES. FRAUD. MANsiox•Rovn---Joltrt Wrighi, a seaman, wit charged with divers fraudulent practices of the fol. lowing Wore: — Mr. John Noyes, wholesale grocer, stated that the Prisoner, some time since, was a seaman on board the Staff of Life, an Irish trader, and had re peatedly come to the witness's warehouse, in cam: piny with the Captain, to purchase goods for the ' ship's ose. On the 16th inst. he came alone, and ordered goods ,to the amount of 31. teat. in the name of the Captain, and took them away upon ct edit.— On Monday he came again, but the witness hating meanwhile ascertained that he had been discharged from the Staff of Life, procured a constable, and gave him in charge. The Prisoner was ordered to be brought up again on the 31st, when other charges are espected to be exhibited against him. MARLBOROUGH-STAEET.--Joseph Anderson wag charged with being found in the shop of Mr. Davis chymiat, In Itapert.street, with intent to commit le. luny.—The Prisoner was remanded. snow-acct. --Mr. W. Walton was brought before the Ha. g istrates, lit the :windy of the Constable of St. Jolla's, hoath. work. epos a charge preferred by Mr. Wm. Higler. of Mad basset. St. .11thit'.. of assaulting him on Thirst's% isiorairtg. Mr. Higlei said, that the Prisoner had been a lodger in home for a short period' ; towards his wife he had Intel, meted with more than common politeness. and f c octitissinaeis, he strongly sospeched tam her afections had 1a...a :di. o,sted fr.o. him by the Primmer. That morning 714 he woo await to leaver his bons?, he 'Weight of a stratagem a hich might prohably sa tisfy his mind :—he opened the front door, and matte a noise oa the steps. that his wife might hear that he wasp, side the moose, and then wallet' softie into the house, pat she dimr toa, took stash , . shoes, and walked top stairs; It rd his aite'a chamber door open. heard her walk up .1 4 i mien the Psi. lamer . .hiar ; caricoi y drew hter a the keyhole of the chamber derv. Ohre& helium its upon she guilty pair. ;sod ordered them to leave she 111/017, 1111Medill'i . 1 1 . The Prilishee ordereid him to leave his , apartment, and isissultittl atat beat him violent' v. t :stirred to find hail t • a nswer the charge at the 11 . •111114. llenty V. ill au- charged hif li•tnt.itfqa, t place, %Wry-le-homer, with ritilriasi him of aVI Bank ttr l•rig ' l a nd m ole on fo-inality morning. as the Waterloo Bridge-rt..* near the Cishourg Theatre, Mr Homo stated. that he was walking stloi.g the Waterloo. bridge-road, and saw a 'soother of persons collected top tor; the Prisoner was playing at caps anti halts; three • ere ra or right Ines round. whom he learned were aping of horst...and ' the Prisoner was the head of them. The Prtmeer and the per ilous foetid took out lutadtwils of moles. and oirered to bet Nit F. to half.a.c rah n that there was a ball sunder each cnp that tlw Prisoner was playing %%lib. He saw a ball fall. as he sappaird f ro m under one of the imps, and the Prisoner safe. ed to bet that there still rcmai•ted • ball under; he accepted a bet of J. and 11111 0 IL note 011170 IWO 11. mites produced by the Prisoner; the moment the money was oat of his :mods be was hustled by the Prisoner's c om i tanioni, before he could see whether he kid aro or IIM, and the Prisoner took ap.the mosey and raa away wall ' it.—The Primmer was committed. • OkD BAILEE THURSDAY, Jatf. ft Joseph Robinson, aged 67, was indicted for grand larretrits being charged I 4 stonlingasilver spoon. ti.e property of Jo the h, Harris, who keeps the house, $5, Lincoln's Ida-fields, of Verulam Club. The facts of this case have been before our Realms mate than once. The Jury found a Verdict Guilty, hut strongly reesitiairwka - Ilse Prisoner to mercy, on account of his age. One of the City Officers Isere declared, that be knew a Pri• toner well, and had done so, for nearly YU years. Hill fialio was not Robinson, but lirotherton. itnd he bad bees in Sir Joh* Libbock's bank. He was an old thief. He bad been cum cernt d in many robberies, mid particularly tlnstrof strong the clock from the House of Commons. It was hut a very Mat time that he had beets out of jail. The Common Sastrestir told the Prisoner that he would am vainly he tr.uisported fur seven years. The Prisoner %booklet bead and retired. Thomas Fullerand .Tama Turner were convicted of stadia two bushels of coals, the property of Joseph Toplaad. The Verdict having been recorded, -the Prosecutor beg recommend use Prisoners to mercy, giving. as a remora. Oat of believed this to he their first offence. flawing, hao.dver. ses lasialedly suffered through similar depredations. be was dote mined to prosecute the first person be detected. The Keconosit intimated that he had acted with great poi prirty. Tbe Prosecutor then requested that the Court would hrial aatemeni of rather tin extraordinary nature which he bad 18 make. The Court acquiesced. and ate proceeded to the present trial having been expected to have taken place Monday 13.11, he w as attending in the yard opposite the Cola *L i " his witnesses and ‘vbite they were there, two pers om . stated themselves se be constables, came up to his principal tier' nest. nod one of them said. that he had a warrant ogaieal 14. for steeling some bey. mid they Guth immediately dragged away to Mary-le-bolsi - watch-home. , The R accuser* asked whetbet the Proseentor knew die parties ? 1 1Se Prii•ecutor he believed one a( the *tilet f 41111110 e; we. Collins. This was not Collins the city Amt. h e t he-helieved. beluogieg to Mary Ic bonne. The Itacoancts observed, that the Gr.uul Jury had been di! k • charged, toot recismaretrded the Petbectvor to indict Ow ptlicm the shwas:ain't nest• tieswtltw,.or so make is a nt befits* NOmi.tai,:e‘sind to obtititt st warrant against a g! This teroirmicadation' r w4_lrelieve, was vivapiked with. Roue trltara..Marstret Haviephrytt, and Itintisai capitalty convicted of ostaolifew Jet*" Reams* no • ads highway, and forcibly taking fsem his person 164. I. .14110 N : Prinfod twis rntlisbed tiv'u. 6001111.1.. 814 1.4 le iT A I ASV 1 II nwsret;s, NO: .44:11tit See' a 'K, “a 1 ~ .. :5 10w A p c 4; . . Amok b• ile• HE t peal thrisr did I 1 1 11 41 0e1 4.1 .- *V is a Oa *Or I Pante* . / ass ., l .0 - givorocurs .S. :la v. Oksidlive ova •frie 4gdmr , gime & Nan► mobil re: •• LT4I4 NI 4 - „‘, . • ===qt • le Weis4 . l4^gahl i tit, , •=11 6 . 711 i*:'Sit s ll:lB6ksL , 1 " • ' pod initoiodi telt • lio4e. • harsh; but Wit • • • • 'I l'te words 'Ma in** !ant and , pertinent rvs - mod innable, soles, it welt of his shoo.* fiert 'CM i IF. l ° sem J ase - ft.Agagf .oaliepon :40.64040 ' lbw his UMW. *mita swy am ./ Ode tat - mai kr is ltd ett a lei -figistea 3 7 14 ; 1 1 4fraiviM , 4 4r eag c#iM ETP:111 IWO N 1:111 • t • ytit • 111146pin f lar i FretlY !PI Sibeerii iteeteep•4 t rg ro ae . e, .biarties4 A YETI rapt, kiiey Tea iiltltb Wm and ' • 4 •llermla • yeah; 'wi %bras, the as India litte Ailde ;the, aolaitm al pintkV azues-eiree Zo e lilt •111; rum Cisbt • •Pridtlts.- - • Or N *Mit I *A 0 . 1 Ml ► JD MN • qb the 1 Which sly • if M a 6lit • el IWO. "ri e • fat .. • Alistair I • ' e t I! :11t13 . 1 • Zar 6 114 1 :•• 4/I/Aaellig • la be —Vey Za • ti Tbe J 3. •. Tay ift , t . bak 01 • • te • . ••••••• , 4 e4ctvlr • * rj , ebiloefftli Awed by, e i r, id X ia"*l nnet rot ewes Z will Ildni The Re Ay !Mir • . wild .e rr Asp ausg.a k• . • . • • . -• ..• • • .• •., .4AVIT?Ti. r Liar nrnatiGgNce. '`‘ eOUICT OF IMO'S BENCH II , SERJEANTS Jats.l. HOWSON V. lIICARLETTI We mentioned this singular and important ease, on the motion by Mr. Heine early in the last Term, to,fiet aside a nosseit ordere d: by Mr. Heron Wood on the trial at the lest Assizes for Laucashine. The action was for &oder, the Plaintiff being an etterney, and the Defendset the eminent King'. Comma. The words were alleged to have been spoken in theaters' of. ; a. cause of .Norris v. Cormiet, tried et the pre. coding Assizes, and they were thus ;needed in the flail comet of the declaration:—" Some actions are. feeeded in folly, some in knavery, and some in kotit. Some in the folly and kn av e r y of the Attor. imy, endues, in the folly sad knavery of the party. Peter iledpon is the attorney of the plaintiff: I drew the promimory note frodelently, and got Bowmen to pay into his lamb the sum of • L5Ol, for , 40 benefit of,the plaintif f . The was the most -frau dulent thing I ever knew done by a professional imen. Mr. Peter Hodgson is a fraudulent aid wicked 04t^ 1,4 7." 611r.,Jostice li4staower first read the report of Mr. Haien Wood as to what passed on t h e trial, noticittg . lb..opening of Mr. Reim', who led for the Plainti ff at the Assizes; after which his Lordship declared 1111 opinion to he, that the action was not maintainbie. if the Counsel did act wander oat of the cause, and If what he stated were relevant to the matter in issue: to# Slender in a judicial proceeding, his Lordship added, that he apprehended no action would lie ; if ecandalous or impertinent matter were introduced Wins bill in equity, the question was referred to the Master. and if he reported in the affirmative, the vtaihtiff was compelled to pay costs ; but his Lordship Mad never supposed that an action was maintainable upon it. The Counsel fur the Plaintiff had submit ted to be tionsuited, the words being admitted. The report having been concluded, Lord Ects:ceotioucii observed, that it was there stated, as an admission by Mr. Heine for the Plain. tiff Hodgson, that the words spoken by the Defend. out *ere relevant and pertinent. Mr. RAINE. for his own sake, felt called upon to state, that he had made no such admission : he had contended that that was a question for the Jury.— lie had submitted to the nonsuit, in deference to the strong opinion of the Learned Baron, having, at the same time, an undoubted right to go to the Jury, if he bad chosen to do so, that they might decide the Point how far there was any ground for the slander. The relevancy might perhaps have been admitted for the sake of argument, but certainly in no other way. Mr. TOPPING (for the Defendant) said, that the admission of the relevancy had formed a very pfoMi• Mint feature in the proceeding. The observation of Mr. Scartett had referred to a note proved, in the ease of Norris and Cormick, to have been given by Bowman to two persons of the names of Cormick anchSpittsl, and it was connected with the sale of a ship, in which Norris had a share. Mr. R rive observed, that these facts did not ap pear on the report. Mr. TorrING contended that be was regular:— Norris v. Cormick had been fortunately tried before Mr. Justice Bayley, who would recollect the facts. He then proceeded to show cause against the rule, ohsersiii4 that it was quite clear by the report that Mr. Baron Wood was right in directing the uonsuit ; the Learned Judge had, however, fallen into an error where he stated that the Counsel for the De. fetishist admitted that the words had been spoken; sto sui.h admission was made. Mr. RAIN& allowed that the observation was war ranted, and that the Learned Judgi only meant, that for She sake of raising the point on which be non. suited the wordslbeere admitted to have been spoken. Mr. TorrING repelled that he had not been pre vent at the trial on ace f illness, and conse quently rthit he had no ti4We of the opening of Mr. Heine; he had, however, distinctly understood that Mr. Rake had concede d: that the words charged as elendereas were addressed to a Jury in the course of e cams* to the facts of which they were relevant. The Learned Bann had then • If the Plaintiff could prove malice:land the an ing in the negative, be interposed again, and r . ed to be shown a pre cedent for the proceeding, but none was produced : then it was that Mr. Baron Wood observed, that if each actions could be supported it would be most in ierious, not merely to the Bar, but infinitely more to the Public. On the motion for the rule Nisi last Term, the use of Brooke v. Sir 11. Montague had been referred te, in order to show, first, an instance of the kind ; and neat, that the Defendant had put on the record a special plea of justification, from whence it ass to be inferred that he could not have gone into his defence under the general issue; but Mr. Justice Buller (N. P. 10) b • otherwise. " the Defendant may tine, plead thee the words were Counsel in a caste. and that they the matter its question, Ike,: or matters in evidence upon the general 'wove him not guilty of the words , language could be stronger or more if the fact that the words were in the course of, and with reference to, a cause then pending, and without malice, did not afford a pro tection to a Counsel,• what protection bad any Gen _ demon at the Bar ? their r - must be paralized; the Judges Se eseropt fret* actions of of their charges to the Jury animadvert upon the fraudulent of any party brought before Lout ELLeNnottonou the words spoken were issue ; *bey might be relevant but it did not yet appear that to the case. Prima.facie tiff in this case might be , malice is a question 'for the ever tends to prove or to fore them : all the circumstances lug of the words seemed tame forum.. The speal slanderous words *as of did not. require that at them should actually be utterer : if the slander a, silk. us. a - • _f. PI M gams 44 the iiMnissovi l irSe most important part of Sitrearse in Norris v. Cormick, and he urged the dreadietly responsible situation in which Come, would stand, if what his Lordship bed stated were the law : all comment upon evidence or facts must be done away with, .for no rodent men would run the- risk of **posing himself to on action. Mr. Justice Bayley, in theme of Norris v. Cormick, had been clear whist the Pleintiff, for whom Mr. Hodgson wee Attorney . : it was in evidence, that the Plaintiff had already received more than was due WI him, and that his attorney knee it, and a nenegit I was directed accordingly : the promissory note wit; reed, to - which Mr. liodgion• bad been pricy, seat by which his Client's claim was more than saes; fwd. He farther begged to refer the Court to the case) of Wood v. Gunston (Styles, 462: and Ina. Abr. tit. Counsellor, 478); it was in these words:— " Oa a trial at Bar, on an action upon the case for words between W. Plaintiff, and G. Defendant, k was said by Glynn, Chief Justice, that if • Counsel. for speak scandalous words against one, in defending his Client's cause, an action does not lie against him' for so doing of his duty to speak for his Client, settle shall he intended to be spoken according to MC Clieat's instructions." Lord Euxesonotrow.—Withiu the scope of bk duty certainly not. Mr. Tomes added, that Counsel, in the !Tortola discharge of their professional functioni, might have different notions; one might make an observation that another would avoid, or in• stronger language than some might consider prudent, and yet without the least imputation or suspicion of malice: miserable indeed would be the condition of the Bar, if Counsel were liable to have their words, uttered often in the warmth of an honest seal, weighed in such nice scales. It would then be necessary for them merely to open the declaration, and call the witnesses, omit ting all comment, however necessary and justifiable. Advocates hitherto bad been looked up to as a most respectable and useful body ; hut if their rights, pro perty, and even liberty, were thus to be put in jeopar dy, it would be far better that the race should be utterly extinguished. Mr. Serjeant BULLOCK followed on the same side. Two grounds had been stated by Mr. Rains for his Rule to set aside the nonsuit :—lst, that the words were in themselves false; 2d, that as there was no justification on the record, the Plaintiff must neces sarily have been entitled to the verdict. As to the second point, it seemed clear that no special plea was required. Lord Euxtreonoeue.—Certainly every thing that goes to the repulsion of the charge of malice may be given in evidence under the general issue. Mr. Serjeant Refute!' continued—Consequently the first point was the only one of importance. Of course he could not mean to argue, that a Counsel was at perfect liberty to say all he pleased, or to otter all kinds of aspersions upon the parties or their Attornies with impunity ; but in any action for slander against him, it was necessary not merely to show that the words spoken were false, but that they were malicious, and this not by inference of law, bet' by direct proof of a malignant motive. In ordinary cases it was enough to prove the falsehood and the malice was intended, bat here there was a great die tinction, as was shown by the fact of entering into the proof under the general issue, which could not be done in common actions for defamatory words. — He submitted that the principle of law which govern ed actions brought by servants against their masters for false characters, applied to the present, viz. that express malice must lie established in evidence. In support of this position, he cited Westherston v. liawkins (1 T. It. lID); Edmondson v. Stephenson (8011. N. P. 8); Ilargrave v Gretton . (4 Burr. 2425); and Rogers v. Sir J. Clifton (3 Boss. and Pull. 587). Lord ELLENSOROUGII.--Millre, I agree, Is to be proved, but in what way ?—by the absence of any justification for speaking the words, not espress ma. lice by a declaration of ; but if there be no colour or authority for what Is said, the law infers malice. Mr. Justice BAYLEY observed, that the stress of the case was, whether the words spoken were or were not relevant to the cause. Mr. Serjeant Ilet.Locx was ready to allow that when a Counsel went out of his way for the purpose of calumniation, when what he stated bad no refe rence to the matter in issue, but was a mere invention, malice would be inferred ; but here the case was di rectly othirwise: the words that Mr. Hodgson was a fraudulent and wicked attorney, had reference to a bill of eitchange material to the cause and given in evidence in it. The Learned Serjeant then Melly related the leading facts as proved in the case of Dierris and Cormick, in order to show that Mr. Hodgson well knew, before he brought the plaintiff ' that he (the plaintiff) had no claim upon that claim having been satisfied by promissory mile, in the drawing of which bad himselrbetta instremental. At the . the detail, ELLENsonovcst said—lf that be the state of words appear to be very relevant. BAYLEY, who tried the vase of Nor added a few material particulars to those stated by Mr. Serjeant Lord Eu.straoftotron.—lt should seem that Mr. Hodgson knew that his client was bringing an action y paid. He is ought to do In is, whether malice. if the nonsuit Tonld be, that Astizes, sod Mr. Ra)no to representation of memory, bat tried the mate, of Mr. Scarlett the Jury that conduct of Mr. that in the words be some MCC'S ; blame for brieg. Condon that Vr. Runs contendativetrat whether he was or was got consdoos wee a point at issue. Mr. Plaice Batiltr .tazsurved, that io ensulelase op horsther. wished to takeoff the sharper edge of Mr. &unfelt's observations writ Mr. ll•dgialii be thought them too severe. Mr. Rause, in sopped of his rule, still insisted that the malice was a question for the Jury : he had not admitted that there was so malice; on the con trary, he had put it to the Jury, whethee' l lf any man had said •• Mr. Raise is a frataduleet and'wicked Barrister," be should not have an unquestionable right to say that the words were dictated by malice. He had never charged Mr. Scarlett with express ma. lice, with taking advantage of his station to slander an individual against whom he entertained hostility, but he had insisted that malice was a matter of infer ence for the Jury. Lord ELszononovoit.—Certainly the expressions appear to be overcharged ; it may not be prudent or correct generally to mix the Attorney with his Client, bet here it seems that Mr. Hodgson induced a Plain tiff to bring an action in which he could not succeed, and though the words fraudulent and nickel may be stronger than others might have used, yet as applied to the promissory note are they not relevant' and if relevant, are they net within the protection of the law? Mr. RUNE added, that the Attorney might have taken an erroneous view of the rights of his Client. WherLete made the motion for the vole Niel, he had cited the case of Brooke v. Sir 11. Montague merely to show that words spoken by a Counsel were ac tionable, because Mr. Baron Wood had said at the Assizes that no action at• all of the kind could be maintained. The case from Styles seemed a monstrous absurdity : a Counsel was to be excused, becauie it will be contended, that the words are spoken pur suant to his Client's instructions. If the party in jured then proceeded awing the Attorney, he re plied by showing that the words were not in the in structions he had given to Counsel : so that a man might be abased in the most public manner without a remedy. • In opposition to it, he referred their Lord ships again to the case of Brooke v. Sir 11. Mon tague, decided when Popham was Judge, and Yet. verton and Coke Counsel. Lord ELLENBOROUGII.—A certain latitude most be allowed, otherwise it would be impossible for Counsel to discuss matters at Nisi Prizes: as long as he bona fide, fulfils the duty cast upon him, even though he overstep the strict line, he shall not be held to be malicious: it may work some disadvantage to a party now and then, but that is an evil arising out of a greater benefit. Mr. RAINE concluded by observing that the Plain tiff could have given evidence to show that there was no truth in Mr. Scarlett's statement. Mr. RiC*Anosots, on the same side, argued that at least the urns-suit premature : it had heel. con tended on their part that the words were irrelevant, and consequently theadmission spoken of could n u t have been made unless the Counsel were willing to admit themselves out of Court. The facts detailed to-day on the other side ought to have appeared in evidence at the trial, if at all, to rebut the inference of malice. Lord Eu.sttsoaciuon.—The admission amounted to this—that the words applied to the conduct of the Plaintiff in another cause, and the Learned Judge proceeded on an assumed admission of the re levancy, which would have been evident had the facts stated been gone into. Mr. litscnzansou added, that there could be no pretence for saying that the privilege of a Counsel was similar to a Parliamentary privilege. Lord En.venozotn.:ll.--Thr Lwow! Baron was there certainly wrong, but that does not appear upon the report; the one bears not the least analogy to the other. The COVRT consulted for some time, after which Lord ELLENIWEOUGH 'aid, tie law privileges many communications which otherwise might be con sidered calumnious, and the subjects of actions : in those regarding the characters of servants, it is ne cessary, for the convenience of mankind, tl.at there should be a free disclosure; and if it he made bow fide, and sailboat express malace, without a design to state what is untrue and unprovoked, the law protects it from Wog the subject of an action. So in the case of Counsel," who are appointed by the parties as better able to conduct their causes : the Client consigns his interests to a Counsel, who only speaks from information, and he is privileged when commenting upon the evidence or instruments pro. duced in the course of the trial. It appears that the Plaintiff was not only the attorney in the cause,but had been connected with previous transactions, and in the concoction and drawing of a promissory note, so that he must have been cognizant of the merits before he went into Court ; and as it turned out on the trial, as he well knew it most, thit the demand had been satisfied, his Client of course was defeated. In corn elauting upon the circumstances, the Learned Conn who is here the Defendant, said, that the Plain tiff, was a fraudulent and wicked Attorney : be had a right to animadvert upon his conduct, and he could not do so without noticing him as the instrument in the formation of the promissory ante which was the chief ground of the uonsuit : be did not therefore, take him at random, or draw his name in unneces sarily. I should say, that the language is strongly charged, for it accuses Mr. Hodgson of a fraud be tieen man and man, and with wickedness. in ford digits°. This was perhaps, not displaying that for besmear which it might be prudent to adopt; but yet I cannot say that the accusation does not arise out of the subject matter of the case. If the Attor ney knowingly pliced the parties in a situation where they must undoubtedly bosufferers without any bens it, it does seem to sive a colour to the charge of being ray that,there is no i Camillo* to set It mi the acclimation °PP" 'that it Isla a mi on was made at ter •trictly conceding the actual facts now cniitldslon at 'hie' And *Xs equiva lent disclosure of the facts. It appears to me that the words spoken wive tittered in the cause, and relevant to the cause: tristi,•con sequently, that the action is not maintainable. load beld expressly Imo Court, that rby way of jostifica- the defendant, re spoken b ' as means of a prow py were Mr. Hodgson be or he may occlusion of do Isere! issoe Lord ELLEKI malicious! cis, the words ore to the poi Mr. Justice I addressed to a Jury ris v. Gorelick, MI protection uau our vcio. aasnago.. - efforts for their Clients for money which he had been already Fudges themselves might not therefore not conducti she of f 1141 kind, if in the course bringing the action, a lion Jury they found occasion to these female not suffi 1 the Redolent er.wkked condoct Mr. Mont HULL that if 'ore them. were ret aside, the on uenoe tit espremed a doubt who • the parties would go do again to the I relevant to the matter it at length arrive only at the same melt. vatit to the promissory Lord ELLtnatistoua lied upon b that that note was int • . s, state, whether he d' in the reps the argument for lb. facts made by Ser . ock. e thus shaped Mr. [Lung obi ` p ledging his t the Jory ; and 14 • • appealed to the I 'ledge who tri • repel it, properly • Ite• whether he thought e observations of ustances aiteisdingAbe speak. warranted. In summing up he bad told ed properly to beton II lie saw nothing impeopie in the con raking of unaethori lodgson. r itself malicious, and Lord ELLEusoitoneu observed, that t the time they were s. • rfraudukat and wicked there might be walks In the mind of the but certainly Mr. Hodgson deserved ble its uswacsated i it was also. ing a cause into Court, when.he wits his client must be defeated. , g fraudulent andhiCkod : I cannot o reasonable or probable conic for ate in the eserrise of bis del of cni ay be urged, that the relevapcy of 11 mred here, of at _ the trial .ond inner ex Min" ifilliissi• to Assis gb hot sided relevancy, yet ed shit the disclosed, Reins lo warrint the t eh the Learned Baron•arrfved, and In some sort to an actual disclosurt