The National Register.
London, England, 1814-02-27 00:00:00

sATuRn \y, FE lIRUARY

Cr! V. 30,:V1A
This was an act'on broneht by the ) hintiff, who is a ro,:•cr i i Ox-
f ,rd-street, to re( over '251. du:-: to him by the defti.dam, whrst! t r; de or
profi:ssion did rot Appear. The dc:timdant, it appearcl, hirt
owed the sum (IA aril for this se-4 w is, at 'A suit,
res!cd. It, ho ever, afterwards appeared, that he had paid 11. on
Rec omit. The Attorney- General read a letter from defendant to plain-
tilt; in which he threatened him with a prosecution for a v:.:ratiou•
wrest, and stated that plointilfwould not only lose his debt, bi.• would
have 601. to pay. He also adverted to his having '..ecr, arrested by Oki
Goddard, the King's milkman, iind to his not having 1)7341 him ft single
farthing, and expressed his deterniinati,n not to pay one halfpenny
of the plaintig 's demand, and reminded the plaintitrof the passing of
the late Insolvency Act, by which he cc.uld piy his creditors by three
months imprison:lu nt.
The delivery of the goods having been proved, a verdict was found
for plaintiff—Damage,
Lord Ellenborough then desired that the defend int's letter might he
preserved by Mr. Jones, the officer of the court, obterving, if the le-
lendant applied to t.tke the henetit of the act to which he had alluded,
his release might not be so speedy as he anticipated.

COURT OR COMMON PLEAS, Fk7B. 26.
SLANDER.
DAY V. NFALE AND WIFE.
This WM an action to recover damages for islanderons words,
Jedged to have been spoken by the wife of the defendant to the
prejudice and ijury of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, it appeared, had married a Miss Hardaere, who,
previous to her matriagy, and subsequently thereto, hasi kept a
boarding-.school. At this school a person named Marsh, resident
at Tilbury, in Essex, had daughters there. In the month of No•
vember last, the wife of the det'endant went to Mr. Marsh's house,
and said " I saw Miss llardaere knock down Elizabeth, your
daughter, and heard her say—curse you, he revenged of you, it
1 can't on your father." In consequence of this representation, 11r.
ltiatsh, after Christmas. took away his children from the school ;
and Miss Hardacre. having been married to the plaintiff subsequent
to the utterance of the words, he brought the present action fur the
injury, which, as her lin,band, he alledecti lie had sustained.
Mr. Marsh proved the utterance of the writs in question, and
declared that he bad taken two of his danubter's flout Mrs. Day's
• school in consequence of the statement which had been mule to
him. He bad had it in contemplation to take his eldest daughter
away from the school previous to the communication with the wite
of defendant, in consequence of his having learnt that she had been
sent to spend an evening at time hon=e of a fakir! of Mrs. Day's
ine-
tote her marriage, where she was put to sleep in a room in which
were two grown hop:, •

FEB. 27.

Sir V. Gibbs slimmed. up the evidence, and left it for the Jury
to con.ifier whether the c:aise of the removal of the children from
the school of Mis. flay arose from the imprOper circumstance al-
it!led to by Mr. MaiM'. ri•specting his eldeAt daughter, the marriage
of Tics liardaere, or the word. imputed to Mrs. Neale.
The Jury Wind a vri-diet for deCendailt, on the ground that the
plaintiff had sustained nu loss frcam the eireumstahce imputed to the
iteichdaut. •