The National Register.
London, England, 1822-01-13 00:00:00

14

LAU' NTE,LiIGENCE!

COURT OF KINGS BENCH.
WEDSESDtY,
Sittings at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice.
LEWIS V. WALT! I.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, nn attorney,
Against the pi oprietors of The Times nen spuper, to ierover a
compensation in daolvet s for the poolication of a libel,
reflectiug on the character of the plitiotitT, aad injurious to
bun as an attorney.
The Solicitor General stated the case. The plaintiff was a
solicitor residing iu I ~,,, don, and coroner for the 1./uctly of
Lancaster. The libel of which he complained arose out of
the following IrtillsaCtitai. It happt ued that Mr. Leo is was
c...icerned professionally for a gentleman named Bingham,
is lune property the Skye id' hail se;zed. The parties na lilt.
gatimi atierwortts tl.otiOil proper to t Mr. Bingham,
Tile. Lewis, and another, for couspiracy, and the hula:uncut
was tiled at the Kingston Assizes. After the pruceeditiss
had been opened, saute irregulnrity in point of law wits dis-
t ll*erf d, tool the learned Judge instwitly directed the Jury
In acquit the defendants. The case was stated by Mr. Ser.
grunt Onslow, who made same :illusions to Mr. Lewis which
Shoal(' it base been repeated, because they were ex-parth
end v. holly posit pplit il by evidence. It the statements
made by coons. lat the °petting. of a Cause were not made out,
but, on the contrary, the cause ended without calling w it-
nerscs it was the duty of a reporter to abstain f publish-
ing passages detrimental to ills character. In this instance
the writer of the libel had not only given the strong obstr.
vat•ons made by M r. Sergeant t)oslow, hut made comment-
upon the proceeding. After the acquittal lie thought pro-
ver to -fate that the Jury were ((mint lied to acquit the de-
fendants to the great regret of a crowded court, to whom the
statement, and evidence, as far as it went, had made a cons
toderahle impression. The libel, o Melt nits iujlltiottS to
the Ilillitatr and professional chaitt. ter of the plaintiff,
was published in the l'invs of the 12tli of April, IS:2I. He
stiottlil prove the 110)14 atom, and the Jury would no doubt
ronsidt r it to case in which some damages *night to be given
as as vindication of charm ter.--fic understood the defendant

intruded to prove the libel w :I, copied Irian a COIIIIIII paper.
It was true it did not appear origioially in the Times ; but in
case the Times luttl not copied it, the slander might hare
beau seen by few readers. The publication in the Times
made it getter Ally known. Several evening papers also
copied it from the limes, and gave the article publtcity.
Mr. Altilition, from 'lie stamp-office, produced the Times
of the IV' of April, 1519.
The plaintiti 'a solicitor proved the admission of Mr.
Lewis,l24l3, as an attorney.—On his cross-examination,
lie was not able to say the plaintiff had been a regular prac-
titioner since 1516.
The libel 41 Us then rend.
Mr. Scarlett adverted to the counts in the declaration,
and called the attention of the Lord Chief Justice to the
fourth and first, which set forth that the defend:outs had pub-
lished a libel to injure the plaintiff in his profession at an
attorney. lle submitted that there was no proof that Mr.
Lewis wits regularly prartisiug Ws au attorney at the time of
the publication. This being an alleged [Obi lon the plaintiff
a, tin attorney, and injuo Moo to hit practice and profession,
it who at cessary to spew he ‘k a, an attorney.
After a few word, 111 answer to the objection, from the
Sola 'dor General,
The Lord Chief Jo•tire held, that the proof of the plain-
tiff having practised as an attorney womb' be sufficient.
me. Srarlett then contended, tivit time was no proof the
plaint•lT had acted as an attorney.
The Lord Chief ui-rice was a opinion, the last oilier lion
takom by Mr. Scarlet' was fatal, and the plaiiitilf was
numuiteds

SOAVES V. irore.oN.
Title was nn action to recover 6801. the amount of loss
sustained by the wile of a qoantity of whale oil, which the
defendants had refused to take according to contract.
It appeared that the plaintiirs broker cmcred into a eon-
tract with the defendants to sell them at a slated price, a
portion of She oil in the ship NI-nide, Southern o
The defendants refused to take the oil. A sale the(' took
place. and Messrs. Hodson tad Co. were called upon in this
Matinee to make good their loss.
The Solicitor General contended that the plaintiff's
could not recover, because the contract was not in writing.
'1 he learned,' like was of opinion, under all the circuits.
stances. that the plaintiffs might give a subsequent assent to
the contract made by the broker, and if the Jury were of
opinion they did give a suhsequetit assent, tory U11;111 to And
a verdict for the pli.intitll,.
The Jury found a verdict for 6811. damages.
THURSDAY, JAN. tit.
This (lay the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges sat in
Banco, at the Sessions Mouse, Westminster, for the 'im-
pose of hearing Special Arguments.
The order in which the Cum t propose to take the Canscs
is this :-
1-irst.—The Country CMIRCS moved previous to Michael-
nias Tern', I S'?l.
Secondly,—The Middlesex and London Causes.
Thirdly,—T lie remainder of the London Grilses.

GAME LAWS—HAYWOOD V. HORNER.
This was a penal ;lesion, on the sth of Anne, against the
defendant, who resides iu Essex, for keeping dogs to kill
game, lie being unqualified. The calm was tried before
Mr. Justice llurreugh, at the Assizes for Essex. It was
proved in evidence that the det;•udant kept two young
dogs, half-bred setter:: but these was no proof the dogs
had ever been used for kang game.
The Learned Judge was of opinion, that the action
being against an unqualified person for keeping dogs to
I.;11 game, it was sufficient to prove the keeping of dogs,
without evidence that the dogs were used for killing
game. Ile considered setter dogs of a description which
brought the defendant within the Act. The Jury reluct-
antly, upon that exposition of the law, found a verdict for
the plaintiff.
Sir. Gurney some time ago moved to set aside the ver-
dict, and enter a nonsuit. On that occasion he obtained
a conditional rule, and this day Mrs Marryat chewed cause
against it.
The Lord Chief Justice asked how the declaration was
ex pre ?
Mr. Gurney said, it charged the defendant with keep-
ing togs to kill and destroy game,
Mr. Justice Bayley.—lf a man keeps a greyhound for
the purpose of killing game, yea would have nu difficulty
its skewing he kept ailing dto tiratiey game. On the other
Land, if a new keeps a veyhonnd of fierce nature chained
up i 3 hi, yard, and his hum loose at Hight, a Jury would
env he iA as kept for the pi oteetion of his house.
,s, Lord Chief Justice.—lt is suilitient to allege in

•