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

I•RIIST V. WARRZI.

This was also an action for slander. The decimation
stated that the plaintiff wee an unmarried man, and thrl.
the defendant said of the plaintiff, "tie is • married man,
and that woman (meaning a woman of immoral character)
is his wife, and thews two women (also bad characters) are
his daughters, and he is living in adultery with them."
The declaration also stated that he visited a house of ill
fame with them. The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty."
Mr. Litler was counsel for the plaintiff ; llr. Hawkins,
Q. C., Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Francis were counsel for the
defendant.
The plaintiff is a boot.tree maker, residing in the Wel.
worth-road, and the defendant is a butcher, also residing in
the same neighbourhood. The plaintiff claimed special
demeps.
The bat witness called was William Gillett, a dyer. Be
refand to be sworn unless his two days' expenese were
paid. The plaintiffs solicitor tendered him 54., which he
Indignantly declined to take, saying that dock labourers
were paid more a day than that. The solicitor then was
told that he had • right to 6s. • day. The 10s. were then
given to him, which he pocketed with much satisfaction,
and was then sworn. He deposed that he never heard the
defeadant say anything of the plaintiff. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins (the defeadant's counsel)—Mind, no money
returned. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice—Have you put your best witness
Reward, Mr. Litler?
Mr. Litler-1 am afraid so, my lord, and that the plaintiff
will have to be nonsuited. (Laughter.)
James Jennings, aaother witness, was called, and he
pre a similar answer to the learned counsel's questions.
W. Bush, collector to the Fishmongers' Company, to
whom the plaintiff is a tenant, deposed that on coming out
of the plaintiff's house one day he accidentally met the de-
fendant, who said to him, "Why do you keep that man
in the house with his daughters? they are not women of
moral character." The matter was investigated by • com-
mittee of Us Fishmongers' Company. Defeodaot said to
witness that he bad received • lawyer's letter about it, and
that he @apprised it was with a view to extort money from
him. Defendant afterwards mid that witness had wrongly
represented what he (defendant) had said to him.
Mr. Hawkins submitted that the words sworn to were
not actionable. They were at varies:a with the deolarstioe.
The Lord Chief Justice said the weeds sworn to were not
actionable, and he could not amend the declaration.
Mr. Litler said this action was brought on Bush's Worm-
Mon, end the other witoseses could have given evidesos is
support of the plaintiff's case. The only manner in which
the plaintiff could at all amount for the slander was that he
bad let part of his house to • woman and her danghtees,
who gave satisfactory refs:woes, but who turned out to be
immoral character+, and be got rid of them.
The plaintiff was then alpissitod.

COURT 07 COMMON PLEAB.—MAy lb.

--- - - -
1101 op slarni Prins is Middliessz.—(Balin Mr. Jostkie
Myles and Onuses Jeri.)

1yM0011:•. Toucnrs. -PALOS

The *LOX I thin alai woo a young watatit, 18 yam
OK and at tilt tires It iluteldos wan living with bet
, It ow wept of tb• delentlizit, mitlueso,
L'iMaTd.n.a. drink Chains. HU via glum
itattody by the t•• • cakur et *wain gold
bast reed abort IDe. to ewer tom out et b Non ; bat