The National Register.
London, England, 1822-08-19 00:00:00

GAY V. WHOLMES AND WISE.

This wu an action for defamatory words. impeaching the
plaintiff's cha*tity, and inapoting to her an improper hair-
course with the male defendant. Tie words were alleged to
have been spoken by the. female defendant. Special damage
was laid in the loss of the plaiutiffs's sitaationu a consequence
of the slander uttered by Mrs. Wbolmes, which was widely
circulated through Lewisham, Deptford. Greenwich, and the
neighbouring district. The plsiutilf bad applied to an adver,
rising ice solicitor, by w►omn the action was brought.
Tbc Jury, ender the direction of the Lord Chief Baron-
found their verdict for the plaintiff— Damages Si. cost* 40s.

LORD TORRINGTON O. DENHAM.

AtCHIST 14 —This was an action of tress pass for nutting
down coppice and eroderwood on a farm, of which the defendant
was tenant to the plaintiff, at Meta:twos th, in this county.
It appeared that the defendant bad been tenant to the plain-
tiff's uncle of the farm in question, consisting of 199 acres of
arable and 11l of wood land, under a lease for years. The
property was settled upon the plaintiff's uncle for life, without
impeachment of waste, under the wall of • Mr. Master, with
an express provision that he should not accept any foregift, or
other money, in the coarse of a fine. When the lease was
granted to the defendant, the plaintiff', uncle took from him a
sent of shout 7001. being the value of the coppice and under-
wood then upon the farm. Upon the death of the plaintiff's
ar le, his father succeeded to the estate, but hoeing survived
hut a short time the plaintiff himself hecame the next tenant in
tail, and took poasessiun. Just before the expiration of the
lease, the defendant gave notice to the pliiintiff, that he should
expect to be paid for the coppice and underwood then growing
upon the firm, atter the rate at which he had originally paid
his uncle. The plaintiff refused to pay the value of than wood,
alleging that his uncle had DO authority to take the 7011. origi-
nally paid by the defendant. inasmueli as be was peottibitA Ly
the settlement from taking any fore;:ift or other sum in the na-
ture of a fine. Upon which the defendant proceeded to Put
down shout 30 acres of wood in order to reinitiate,* himself,
and he sold it for that purpose. For this act the plaintiff
brought the present action. The injury which the plaintitr had
sus ai, eat was estimated at 6211.
The defence set up was, first, that hy the oestorn of ilia
country, when the incoming tenant pays Per the t oppioe and
underwood, he is entitled to the value of it on Biting op his
tarns ; and peened, that at all events the amount of injery'al-
leged to have been sustained Ly the *iota was greatly over-
rated.
Witnesses were railed to prove the ensign' and the T AIM
The surveyors estimated the talus tie the wood out (lowa at
about 4081.
In reply it was aripteil, that the custom of the country (mil:d
ant comicial the nords of the settlement antler which tne
plaintiff derived title to the peoperty ; and with respect to the
question of value, the evidence for the defendant being only
dloose and uncertain, on,6t in over-ride the estimates of the
sd aaa yers examined for the phintitr.
The Juiy, under the teemed Judge's directions, Coupd their
verdict fur the Woust;es 4001.
AK'T

In the retest nl Ef4tv:eni L (,n mug) i,„,
1441 Ltveyers in Esmiatvl, r
tot tht y toteremoeol io i hide osinre In ui 100
2000 lanyers end atuttni..s. L ell C,,ke, its tits
re Latied the i• 4. 10,""a--, #46# *ll.ll Inuit ututtLer la .44
}:netts # Rtww UM.

•

__ _...