The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-25 00:00:00

defendant to return the picture to the plaintiff; and, secor.dly, to
clear his character front an imputation which had gone abroad re-
specting his conduct.
The Cults Just.ten said. the plaintiff's case was, if f; re-
Membered rightly, diet the picture tod been entrusted to the de-
fer.dar.t to the purpcse of beirg sold, but on condition that it should
not be sold without notite b. lug first given to the plaintiff ; and
that this condition hail been broken.
Mr. Sergeant Pt t t answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff
had pretended at the trial that the picture was very valuable, and
hail succeeded in obtaining a verdict for 50!., when the picture,
frame and all, were not worth more than 101.
The Cairn JUSTICE said, there was every thing in the con-
duct of the defendant to provoke a verdict, with large damages. It
was through his own fault that the Jury had been prevented from
judging of the real vatne of the picture, since the defendant had
taken no re.eane to obtain it before the trial, or to give to any scien-
tific men employed by himself or the plaintiff the opportunity of
seeing it, so as to describe it accurately to the Jury. Besides. the
defendant had given a false account of the person to whom the
picture hail been sold, and bad himself described it as a very va-
luable 'picture. alleging that as a reason why he did not put it up
to sale on a previous occasion. The defendant had done nothing to
entitle himself to relief.
The other Judges conenrred with his Lordship, and observed in
addition, that it was better for the defendant that his application
should be rejected, than that it should be granted, for a new trial
would cost him more that 401.
Jlule refused.
In the course of a cause of no public interest, in which a motion
was made to the Court, founded on an objection said to exist be-
tween the pleadings and the evidence,
The CHIEF JUSTICE, alluding to the circumstance, said, he
should always concur with the opinion once delivered by Lord
Kenyon in the House of Lords, that these applications, founded
on technical variances, ought not to be encouraged where substan-
tial justice bad been done. Ile thought the doctrine of variances
was entitled to no favour; it had created more confusion and
evil than it had produced benefit ; and hc trusted the day was not
far distant when the practice of setting aide verdicts on the ground
of technical variances would be put on a different footing to what
it was at present.

CONSISTORY COURT, SATURDAY, Aram 23.

THE OFTICE 07 TIIE SYDGE rtlacorzo BY WILLIAMS V.

OCODGCM.
This was a suit commenced by the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector
of Hendon, against Mr. Goodger, one of the parishioners, for scur-
rilous Isngusge used towards hies at a vestry meeting.
Doctors ADAMS and Jew wEn. on the part of the defendant,
relied on the vestry having been holden in the hall-room of the
Greyhound tavern, and that it was a private quarrel between the
parties.
Doctor Lusrmstur ow and ADAMS argued that the room in
question was built over the church-yard, and was consequently
consecrated, the effect of which could only be removed by Act of
Parliament and that parties brawling in that room were liable to
the censure of the Court, as if the offence had been committed in
the church.
Sir CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON observed, that it might be diffi-
cult for the Reverend Plaintiff to prove the consecration of the room
in question, and recommended an amicable settlement between the
parties.
Dr. ADAMS, on the part of the defendant, declared bis sorrow for
what had occurred ; ■nd
Dr. LUSUINGTON, on behalf of his client, expressed his perfect
satisfaction with that declaration.