The National Register.
London, England, 1821-11-18 00:00:00

LAIV IA TELLIGENCE.

COURT OF' CHANCERY.
MONDAY, NO%. 12.
SCALES V. 11111 LOWE,
The Lord Chancellor —" I have read the affidavits in
this case, Mr. Ching, and as it respects Joseph Barlowe,
the person not committed, I do t•ot see that you lirve
given me jurisdiction ; as you have not named hits in the
petition, he was not enjoined by the order of the Master of
the Rolls from conversing with the infant, and his having
done so cannot be considered a contempt of Court. You
must present another petition, mming the actual contempt
committed by him. When lam asked to send a man to
gaol, the actual offence most be expressly stated on the
face of the petition, to give the party accused an oppor-
t itr of answering it."
Mr. Ching said, lie would follow the course pointed out
by the Court.
The Lord Chancellor rose at one o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MONDAY, NOV. IY.
TIIE KING V. RIDGEWAY.
This was an indictment preferred by the Constitutional
Society against the defendant, a shopkeeper at Lancaster,
for the publication or a libel, namely, Oscine's New Yeat's
Address to the Reformers. .

The Counsel for the prosecution called several wit-
nesses, but the principal person examined was a young
man, of the name of Miller, who stated, that seeing a bill
iis the defendant's window, with the words, "'rile Address
11.1 the Hammers sold here," he went in, and asked if lie
could have the New Year's Address to the Reformers?—
The defendant said he hail not got the work, but would
semi to Loudon tier it. l'he defendant was accordingly
requested to get it, and having procured it from London,
he afierwm ifs sold it to the witness. This application
was said to be made in Mardi last,
.and Miller deposed
tha the saw a boat d over the defendant's shop, with the
following sign—" David Ridgeway, dealer in Tea, Coffee,
Tobacco, Snuff, &c." The indictment was tried at the
last Lancaster assizes, and the Jury found the defendant
guilty.
Mr. Brougham now moved for a new trial, chiefly on
the ground that there was no evidence to prove the darn.
dant was the publisher of the libel in question. It only
Appeared that the person who kept the shop in Lancaster
sold the Address to the Reformers, which was not a libel.
The wink which was the subject of prosecution, namely,
the kew Year's Address to the Reformers, had been sent
to identify the defendant as the publiSlier. 'flue witness
who had sworn that lee saw the sign board over the shop,
with David Ridgeway painted ou it, could not have sworn
the ti nth. He had an affidavit that the board was taken
down at Cliiistmas preceding. Independent of that cir-
cumstance, the learned Counsel contended that there was
no proof of identity,and submitted that there was ground
for a mew trial.

$ Court granted a rule to shell cause.
Aoollt two o'clock the Judges rose to attend the Privy
Council.

SWANTON V. FILBY.

This was an action brought by Susan Swanton, ■ aer-
•ant, against the defendant, to recover damages for a
lib I. The came was tried before Baron ('farrow, at Ox-
ford, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, with 501. da-
mages.

The plaintiff had lived nursery-maid in the service of
the defendant, who is a magistrate arid clergyman. On
quitting his service she applied for a character, and the
defendant wrote a letter, stating that her demeanour was
niodesty itself, but in fact she WAS vicious and immodest :
that she had stolen several things iii the family, and had
been in the habit of admitting a man servant to her bed.
'vont night after night. The jury were left to consider
whether the defendant, wsiting the letter, had been in-
fluenced by a malicious and vindictive feeling.
Mr. Cross now moved for a new trial on two grounds.
First, that at the time the defendant wrote this letter. he
haul nut recovered from the effect produced on his mind
by the gross misconduct of the plaintiff; and secondly,
that it was a verdict against evidence. The Learned
Counsel adverted to the evidence, and contended that
there was proof of the immoral conduct of the plaintiff,
sufficient to justify the defendant in the observations lie
haul made. Ilia character, as a clergyman, made it most
essential, that lie should express the greatest censure on
the improper conduct of the plaintiff in his family.—
There was no proof of malice, and under all the circum-
stances, the question ought to be admitted again to a
jury.
The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion there ought not
to be a new trial. It was most obvious, that letters writ-
ten by a former master upon the character of a servant
ought to he a privileged communication ; and unless it be
shrivel that the writer of such a letter proceeded upon a
vindictive motive, be was clearly privileged in what lie
wrote; but he considered this letter to be written tinder
a vindictive feeling. The jury, upon the whole of the
evidence, had found a verdict for the plaintiff, and than
court could not say they had come to a wrong conclusion.
Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Holroyd, and Mr.
Justice Beat concurred, and the court refused a new
trial.