The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-17 00:00:00

OF tiLANDIR.

Mr. flerieent Hayes said this was an action for slander
tried at Leicester before Mr. Justice Williams, when a ver-
dict was returned for the plaintiff, with 40s. damages. He
now moved to enter a nonsuit, or to anent judgment, and
he need h►rdly say that the slander was uttered by the two
females. (Laughter.) The words were these. The defend-
ant Sarah said to Matilda, the female plaintiff, "Go in,
you nasty slut—l tell you what—you have been a
from your cradle," meaning thereby that she was an un-
chaste woman, and after marriage had sommitted adultery.
These words were not of themselves actionable, and the
only way to render them so was by alleging some special
damage ; end the alleged special damage in this case was, that
by reason of the words the plaintiff, Matilda, was not only
greatly damaged in credit and reputation, but her husband
had refused to cohabit with her since tho charge was made.
He found no trace of any authority on the subject, except
themes of "Allen v. Allen," in which the plaintiff was
accused of being unchaste, but the action was there brought
to recover the expenses she had been put to in consequence
of au illness arising from the slander. In that case, how-
ever, the judgment for the plaintiff was reversed. The
ground on which he now moved was that the damage nom-
planed of was not shown to have arisen from the slander.
The Lord Chief Baron—if the husband refused to cohabit
with her, could she not compel Min to do so by going to the
Ecclesiastical Court!

Mr. Serjeant Hayes—The dispute arose about washing •
doorwaLaitdmitmtwas proved that the plaintiff had used very
strong e.
The Lord C • Baron—Was there • set-off ? (Laughter.)
Mr. Serisant Hayes—The plaintiff and his wife were at
the time living with big mother-in-law. The husband was
travelling on business, but he came home on Friday, two or
three days afterwards, when the wife told him what had
taken place. He stopped at home on the Saturday and
went to church with her on the Sunday, bat on the Mon-
day, having turned the matter over in his mind, be took
lodgings elsewhere and remained away from his wife until
the trial of the action. Immediately after the occurrence
the wife instructed a solicitor to write fur an apology, but
Lone was given. The question left to the jury was whether
the husband bad left and refused to cohabit with her in
coniequeuce of the slander.
Mr. Baron Wildo—Wu not this question decided by the
House of Lards? _ _

--Mr. tinitii;ni Hayes said that in the case of " Lynch v.
Knight" t • Rome of Lords reversed the judgment, which
was m favour of the plaintiff ; but there was a difference
of opinion amongst their lordships. Lord Wensleydale
thought that no action would he ; Lord Brougham said be
was inclined to agree with him ; the late Lord Campbell
thought it was maintainable, and stigmatised as barbarous a
law which did not give a remedy in such a case ; and Lord
Cranworth took the same view as Lord Campbell, but
thought that the damage did not entirely follow from the
alaer. The imputation in that case feU short of adul-
t%and was made to the husband himself.
Lord Chief Baron— What did the husband say when
he was called'

Yr. SelceiTie Hayes—He maid he turned it over in his
mind, and thought there was something in it —(laughter)—
sad that he determined to have no communication with his
wife until the matter was tried.

The Court grunted a rule plat
MOSSFALL V. 'THOMAS.

Ws was an action upon a bill of exchange for 2331. lOa.,
tried ►t the but eittinp at Guildhall before the Lord Chief
BIWOD. .

Mr. Boyd' now moved to set aside the verdict which was
found for the plaintiff, mad for a new trial, on the ground