The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-08-06 00:00:00

MUFF D. ADCOCK.

• Mr. CLAIMS stated, that this was an action to re.
cover a comprouration in &cadges for injury dune to
the Plaiistiff by a gross used unfounded redection
oast upon his character. The Defendant lived 6ver
or six tles from Oskharu ; the Plaintiff, who was
now a re►pectable builder its she town, had formerly
been the ►aprriuteudarst of a malt-house of Mr.
Arnold's. On the 16th of Janwary last, Mr. 11141
being in • public-house at Dakliam, Adcock
also went its. and imputed to him that be had
stolen barley of his out of Mr. Arnold's vat. This
he said in a pet fectly cool and deliberate way. wish-
out any quarrel or prnvuc•.stinu ; 'it became Ile.
crimmry therefore for the l'imirlietf to bring site matter
into a Court. that the Defendant might prose Isis
assertion if is was line. or. if it was not true, suffer
far his tnalignuut slander. The opportunity being
accordingly givers, the Defendant bad by his plea
of tI e general issue iu this scion. not ventured to•
justify his words. but had denied Ili. applicatioss of
them. It had been proposal to U fewiout that
if he would sign an apology sin further nonce
should be taken or his calgouss ; this be agreed to.
Irt4 afterwards refused to lisl6l his agreement. mid
it romolord.only for IM.Pl•iutiff to gu on with Ina
actsoes.`. •-•
•Johtn Bailey went te. thrilled Lino. in Oalihnite.
in • the ye gof the 16th id Jah wiry lasi ; found
Fluff- there ; Adcock srtrn after *rid in. oust said
several times that Huff had stolen his barley out of
the vat, and he would bessig u moo out of tire noon
to prove it. Hoff dewed u ; Adcock .aid he w-s

a rogue.
Gruss-examilted—arlitvta that all the parties
were sober; Adcock land, he hail not got hack Ina
proper quatitil of bailey front the malt.liou.e.
Dues no 'know that Dolf was vtiputving at the
flue Nitwit being a goad ineltster; Adcock said
Hair boa siuka the barley.
Mr. ItEaDsa addressed the Jury. mid mid that
tliis notice of r tiot.house squabble had better pare
been spared. Mr. Dull shotiltl have felt a stronger
reliance uu his -character. and not have thought it
so light sr to make it necessary to come here tio
fetid st against a charge of stealing hoary out of a
vat. The Learned Letuusel matotained that what
had hero said were only words of abort. and
not rctiouablit as charging the Plaintiff with a
felony. •I'he with was. that they were the
effect • of something which Iliad been linger•
ing in the mind of the -Defendant ever since
the year 1814. wheu he had sent .even quarter.
of barley to the vat. awl received back f Huff
ouly seven quarters sod two peck.; and a seemed
time he had rent right quarters, and Well/Vl' back
only serest quarters and two This made
Into augry ; sad upon their ualatuaately sassing

at ills R boo' cidies tifis Pkotrate• • ..Was blisOieß
of his limiest,' Defendant said what be did. The
Plaintiff upon this observed, " Do yea meow to
ay that I stole your barley ?"—to which 'Adcock
replied, " No, but your era says lie took the
barley out by your direetioo.—.My harley_was gone.
and your man Barker told me," &c. These. Mr.
Reeder said, were oitt actiouable words.—He then
called
William Goodwin, who was at the Red Ursa on
the 16th of January. Huff said he was an holiest
man : Adcock celled him • rogue. mid said he
could tiod a roan in a few minutes to prove him so.
Thomas Taylor was also present ; Plaintiff was
talking about his honesty; Adcock will, " Don't
talk shout your hoiwsty. you're a roeue."--" C*ll
you say that 1 stole your barley?" sosirl
" " replied Adcock, 66 I don't say dud. but
•I'll Ind a rain that says he stole it by your order."
Crowszoisined by Mr. 114ARRIOTT.—Witisaw
was once in this Court. at the Sessions. fur abuse of
Mrs. Jackson in a drunken frolic. and was impti.
soised a month for it; was drank when he abused
Mrs. Jackson, but was sober on this oecosiou of
Adcock's.
James Goodhy heard the dispute ; Plaintiff was
talkisig of himself, and Defendant said he would
fetch a man that world prove how a rogue.
Mr. C Law in reply, said. that it was admitted
the Defendant. by whom this slanderous charge had
been made, did it from malice which he had her.
boured ever since the year 1814. Ile agreed, that
if the offence charged was not a Mossy. thisoeihro
could not be maintisisied; hut was the stealing of
corn any thing else but a felony ? There was no
evideuce that the Defendant made this charge un-
der the influence of drink; but coolly mid who-fly,
in the presence of mail per•our, he says. " You
are a rogue, and I'll prove you a rogue." 11 he
could do so, why did he out avail himself of this
opportunity given to him, and call a witness here
to prove it,? Why did he not call Barker ? He
did not do so; and yet it was still his wish to lute
minute that what lie had stated was true. Without
some damages were awarded to make him smart for
this slander which he had been hatching for five
years, and that should carry costs agatint lout. the
Defendant would not be properly visited. our the
Ph • If fairly redieward.
The JUDGE said, it was impossible to imagine
that this was not a charge of felony, nod r.e Plain-
tiff had certainly a right to some damages. The
witileaser ou the other side had not disproved a
word of the evidence for the Plaintiff. The only
question war, as to the amount of damages. lithe
amount should be wider 40s. the Plaintiff would
get no more coats than damages ; if the damages
were above 40s. the Defendant would pay costs on
bosh sides.
The Jury, after consulting for some time. retired
from Court, end returned in a quarter of an hour,
with a verdict for Plaintiff—Damage. 40s.