The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-16 00:00:00

Rata inttlligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Mai 15.
Sitting at Niel Prins after Term at Westmioster.—(Before
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Common Juice.)
NADU v. 7111.D.-81ANDES.
This wu an action for slander. The defendant pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Byron were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Addle= wee counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is an auctioneer at Sandsate, and the defen-
dant is • builder of the same place. Both are members of
the local board of health, and the slander arose out of certain
local matters. The plaintiff, in 1856, was appointed cork,
sad collector of rates to the board, which ces
surveyor
till 1857, and after that be had been an
member of the board. In October, 1861, there was a meet-
ink of the board, when a squabble took place between the
plaintiff and Dr. Clidley, another member of the board, re-
lative to the latter erecting some stables, which the plaintiff
called livery stables, and asserted that the doctor was a Ivey
stable keeper. The defendant, it appeared, interfered, and
addressing Dr. ClWky,. said, "Never mind, you are not a
thief, as be (the Ountiff) is. You are not a robber."
Application win afterwaida made to the defendant to apolo-
gise and retract, bat he declined, and on a subsequent aces.
non the defendant said to plaintiff's attorney at the Folke-
stone Railway station, "I am not going to apologies toa man
that you end! know to be • thief, and has stolen money
beloogieg to the board, for which he ought to hare been
punished long ago." The defendant had brought the action
for the vindication of his character, and not for the purpose
of obtaining vindictive ewes.
The plaintiff was called and deposed to the above facts.
He added that shortly after be resigned his offices a sum-
mons was taken out by the defendant, charging the plaintiff
with not having rendered proper accounts to the local board
of health.
The defendant's counsel interposed and said it was a
mistake. The defendant never took out a summons against
the plaintiff.
The original summons and information in the defendant's
name was put in and read.
Plaintiff further deposed that he appeared before the
magistrates at Hythe, in obedience to the summons. It
was dismimed with costa. Defendant had frequently called
him a thief 11000 1857.
Several witness were called on behalf of the plaintiff.
They said that party politics ran high at Sandgate, ape-
chilly with regard to the water question.
The defendant called no witnesses.
Mr. Addison, for the defendant, asked why, if this action
bed been brought for the vindication of character only. it i
had not been tried in Kent instead of in Middlesex. The
words complained of were mere vituperation and idle
abase—that they did not refer to the plaintiff, but to the
question before the board relative to water to be supplied
free of expense to the Weeleyan Independent chapel, and
the water to be used in the erection of Dr. Oidley's stables.
He admitted the word " thief " was laud, but not the
words " as be is," meaning the plaintiff. He denied that the
defendant meant to impute dishonesty to the plaintiff in re-
ference to money matters connected with the local board of
health.
The Lord Chief Justice said there could not be • doubt
that the words complained of bad been spoken, and if they
were not intended to convey the imputation alleged by the
plsintiff, the defendant ought to have gone into the witness-
box and have explained the matter.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaiutilf—damager,
2001.