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

LAV INTELLIGENCE.
COURT Or KING'S BE N, Arm 23.
SAGE e. PLETCHER.
This was an action for a libel in the Chester Chron;els. At the
ass Cheshire Arius before the Chief Joetice, the plaintiff had a
y.tdict for one farting damages, with liberty to the defendant to
trove to arrest the judgment.
3lr. H. F. Jones now moved accordingly. The question was,
whether the matter stated on the record was in point of law libel-
lova. The alleged libel was published in October last, during the
titre rt` the election of repre entatives to scree for Chester in Par.
Bartow. The pia:lta held a commission in the East India Caen-
Mtlitare Serriee, and also carried or: the business of a
brewer a. Cheater. The paragraph commenced by observing on
the eseietims of the pertinent' of one Or the candidates. iv canvass.
log for their favourite en a Sundag, ar.d then pomaded to state.
'• that Lienterant Sage, the brewer, who, as we hear, is on the sick
list of the East India Company's Military Setkmentr, took the
mmand, and hobbled and paraded the, igh the streets like an ele-
phant on hot 'nicks. The laurels which the brewer won on the
banks of the Ganges, he hopes also to win on the banks of the
Dee. hut' tope told a flattering tale,' inasmuch as. at ten o'clock.
)!r. Whhtakee was three or four hundred on the other side of the
past." The paragraph then went on to describe the conduct of the
plaintiff as being similar to that of some of the heroes in Chronon-
hetontholestena, arid imputed to him that he had threatened not to
rapid/ en independent brewer, in Hudson-street, with beer, because
he referee to vote for Mr. Whittaker. The Learned Counsel sub-
mitted that there was nothing libellous in this paragraph. it was a
mere election squib, and cast no imputation on the plaintiff 'a moral
sb.ract er.
Mr. Justice BATLEY said, that the paragraph was obviously
calculated to throw the plaintiff into ridicule in the first place;
and, in the second, there was an imputation upon his moral
character, In alleging that he had refused to slimly a publican
with beer, on account of his refusing to give his vote for a par.
teals, esndidate. He therefore thought there was sufficient ground
-for susteining the verdict.
Illy justice Hocaorn was of the same opinion.
The lowd Chief Justice was fttrient from indisposition, and Mr.
Justice Littledale was in the Bail Court.
Hale refused.
}DOLLY V. TERUO.
Thie was an action for maliciously, and without any reasonable
we probable cause, suing out two Commissions of Barkrupt.
At the trial before the Lord Chief Baron at the last Assizes
for Kent. the Jury found their verdict for the plaintilf.-.-Da-
lunges, MN.
Mr. GURNEY now moved for a title to show cause why a new
?vital stmeld not be granted, on four grounds—first, that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence—second, that the Learned Judge
hadns the Jury, in point of law—third, for want of proof
of an 'element in the declaration—and fourth, for misconduct in
one of the Jnty. The ponies both bred at Maidstone, and respec-
tively tarried on the business of coal and earn merchants, and
whaifingers. The Learned Counsel called the attention of the
Court to the evidence adduced on both sides, and submitted, that the
intisece negatived the imputation against the defendant from having
sued out the commission of bankruptcy from malicious motives.
In rimming up the case for the Jury, the Learned .budge told them
that if they believed the plaintiff remained away from Maidstone to
delay his creditors, then, in his opinion, there was probable cause
fur suing out the commissions. Now it was submitted that the
Judge should, without the intervention of the Jury, have decided
the probability of the cause, as a question of law. The declaration
had averred that the first commission was duly sued out. The only
;roof of this averment was the Commissioners' warrant. which was
ietuff.cient to prove the validity of the prior proceedings. partieu.
lady after notice to the plaintiff diet strict proof would be required
to sustain that part of his case. The cause had occupied two days.
At the close of the first, the Learned Judge, in dismissing the Jury,
cautioned them not to communicate with any other persons in the
interval of adjoemment. In violation of this injunction, it now ap-
peared, by affidavit, that one of the Jurymen had discussed the
merits of the case in a public room, in a tavern, at Maidstone, on
tbe very tame evening. On these grounds the Learned Counsel
r:a7ed a rule Nisi far a new trial, on the grounds stated.
The Cott AT granted a rule Nisi.
DOE D. EDWARDS V. THE REV. C. TOWER.
This was an ejectment for certain tithes, houses, and lands, with
sr loch Sir Anthony Browne's school, at Brentwood, was endowed
he the founder, in the reign of Philip and Mary. At the trial be-
tore Mr. Baron Graham, at the last Assizes for the county of Es-
sex, the plaintiff was nonsuited, for want of proof that he had ex-
ercised any act asserting a right of possession in the property in
question during the last twenty years.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDY now moved for a new trial, on the ground
that the Statute of Limitations did not apply to a ease of this de-
scription. The lessor of the plaintiff had been appointed master of
the school by the lineal descendant of the last Sir Anthony
Browne, who was patron of the Corporation of which the school
consisted. It was unnecessary, in such a case as this, to prove
that the patron, or his appointee., had exercised any tight, inas-
much as this was like a donative, which could not be affected by
usurpation PO as to bar the right. It was also analogous to the pro-
t ceding by quare impedit : for, when once it appeared that the
ancestor of the patron had even been in pormesion, mere usurpation
would not bar his right to present, although the church should
have in the mean time been full. Here it was decidedly proved that
the ancestor of the plaintiff's pat •in had been in possession, and
the usurpation by the defendant, and the persons under whom he
derived title, would be no answer to the ejectment, notwithstanding
the Statute of Limitations.
The Court granted a rule Nisi.
DYRNE V. PARKINS.
UP. BROVOITAX announced, that he was instructed on behalf of
the defendant to move for a new trial in this ease ; and also for the
ytaintifirt ,in a wagering caste tried before the Lord Chief
Justice,
but in consequence of the absence of the Lord Chief
ja:tice both cases were ordered to stand over until Tuesday.

THE ZINO v. •MPHLET.
TNil was an indictment against the defendant for publishing a
libel m the Pottery Gazette, of and concerning two persons named
Ri.igway. At the trial, before Mr. Baron Barrow, at the last
olix‘ltes for Staffordshire, the defendant was found guilty.
Mr. LUDLOW now moved for a new trial, on the ground that
t:,ere was not sufficient evidence of the publication of the libel to
warrant a conviction. The only copy of the newspaper containing
the libel, which was produced in evidence, was the copy left at the
htamp-office, pursuant to an Act of Parliament ; and he contended,
that as that wu an involuntary publication, and made wholly for
another purpose, it was not sufficient to support the indictment.
It must appear that the defendant had actually sent forth the
alleged libel into the world. For any thing that appeared to the
contrary, no other copy of the paper had ever been printed, or hav-
ing been printed, the defendant might have repented, and destroyed
the whole impresf inn except the copy sent to the Stamp-office. The
prosectunr, having failed to give the usual proof of publication,
they were obliged to resort to the proof required at common law,
arid the proof given, it was submitted, was insufficient, especially
.n a criminal came.
Mr. Justice BATLEY and Mr. Justice TIOLROYD were both
-clearly of opinion that there was a sufficient publication of the libel
tu support the indictment, and therefore refused the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY, APRIL 23.

ROEBUCK V. DUNDERDALE.

'dr. Sergeant CROSS stated that this was an action for a breech
Or premise of marriage, tried before Mr. Justice Bayley, at the last
A %%fees at York, when the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages .500 L The .application with which the Court was now
about to be troubled, was one of a nature to which they were gene-
rally but little inclined to listen; but perhaps the particular cir-
cumstances upon it lich this motion was founded, might entitle it
to some favour. The parties were in humble titration, of life, the
parents of both plaintiff and defendant being small farmers.. At
the trial of the cause, evidence was called to show the circumstances
of the defen,!ant's father, with whom the defendant was then living,
and there was no complaint that the evidence had been improperly
received by thebeamedJudge, but that the evidence itself was either
false or founded in error, and that the defendant was taken by sur-
prise are rendered unable to answer it. The evidence was. that
the defendant's father was a man of property, and lived upon an
estate which, together with the property upon it, 17..1 cf the value
cf. 4,0001. or 6,0001. The real truth of the matter was this—the
deferdant had purchased the rotate epos which he was living, for
toi sum of more than 3,0001. bt:t he now declared that he had tow-
T.)‘',l the greater part of that sum in order to effect the purchase,
and that he was not in reality worth more than 2,00 W. The de-
:Cadant himself was not worth 1001. Under time circumstances
the defendant prayed, that, upon payment of costs, the verdict
might be set ankle, and a new trial granted.
Mr. Justice Bus Rouon observed, that the circumstances of the
case were the only means by which the Court could be enabled to
form any kind of idea whether the sum given as damages was fair
or proper, slid of these circumstances the Court was left entirely
Ignorant. Perhaps, if there had not been any evidence of the
property of the defendant's father, the same verdict might have
been given. What was the nature of the case, and what the length
of the courtship
Mt. Sergeant CR oss said the defendant lived twelve miles from
the plaintiff 'a residence; that he visited her frequently, and that
the courtship had enntinued for live years. At least such was the
evidence given by the plaintiff The defendant bad offered none.
He submitted that the damages were excessive.
The Cfirte JUSTICR said. this verdict was not as large as awn.
'SW had lately been given. However, the Court would be able to
'peak to Mr. Justih-;layley tO.IDOTTOW, and they would eommu-
nscste the result to 4... Sergeant Cross. At present they did not
fed much inclined to assist him.
CITAUISYSTw. IS_ILL!•311:

Mr. Sergeant Pr 'a
appeared for the defendant in this ease, to
more titnt die verdict which had been given for the plaintiff should
be set aside, and a new trial granted. This was an action brought
against the defendant, to recover from bim the value of a picture,
which had been entniated to the defendant, an autioneer, for the
purpose of W.!. The action was tried Leta* the Chief Justice
of this Court, at the Adjourned Sittings ice London after last
'fem. The Jury had given a verdict fur tine plaintiff; damages 601.
Since the trial, the gentlemen who had purchased the picture had
sent it back to the defendant ; it was now in London, and bad
been examined by several artists, none of whom considend it, even
with its frame, to be worth more than IC!. The Jury had given
their verdict, in the entree of any clear and positive proof, as to
its value, being at the mune time not a little misled by his Learned
Brother Vaughan, who, though not very conversant with the
merits of the Flemish School of Painting, was nevertheless no
inconsiderable artist, and coloured his piCturcs extremely high.
'he object of this application was twofold first, to enable the