The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAT I.
ROWLANDS V. GARGRAVE.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this case, on
the part of the defendant, for a rule to show cause
why the verdict for the plaintiff should not be set
aside, and a new trial had. The action was brought
by Mr. Rowlands, u jeweller, residing in Coventry-
street, Haymarket, against Mr. Gargrave, an attor-
ney, to recover a balance of 168/. 2s. for jewellery,
plate, &c., supplied upon the order of the de-
fendant's wife, and the question of the trial on the
22d of lust month was, whether the wife had an
implied authority from her husband to purchase
the articles which formed the subject of the de-
mand, or whether they had been furnished without
his knowledge or consent. It was argued at the
trial, on the part of the defendant, that the implied
credit which the wife had from her husband was ap-
plicable only to articles which were suitable to her
station, and did not extend to articles which neither
she nor her husband had occasion for; and it was
pressed very strongly upon the Jury, that the
articles which formed the subject of the plaintiff's
demand came within this description, and that there-
fore, and as they were furnished without the know-
ledge or authority of the defendant, he was not
liable to pay for them. The observations made by
Lord Tenterden in the course of his summing'up
were in favour of this view of the case, but the
Jury, nevertheless, found for the plaintiff for the
full amount of his demand. The Learned Counsel
having now submitted the facts to the Court, their
Lordships without hesitation granted a rule nisi for
a new trial.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 1.
WARD V. WEEKS.

This was an action of slander, which was tried be-
fore Mr. Justice Bosanquet at the last Taunton
Assizes. The words complained of were—that the
plaintiff was a swindler. They were uttered by the
defendant to a third person, by whom they were re-
peated to another person, who in consequence re-
fused to trust the plaintiff. This refusal was al
leged by way of special:damage, the words not being
actionable of themselves. The Learned Judge was
of opinion, that as the special damage was not the
immediate consequence of the act of the defendant,
but that of an intermediate party, the action was
not sustainable against him, and therefore he non-
suited the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant BOMPAS now moved to set aside that
nonsuit, and contended, upon the authority of Lord
Northampton's case, as reported by Lord Coke, that
the intermediate party having mentioned the name
of the original author of the slander, when he re-
peated it, the action was properly brought against
the defendant, who was the original author.
The COURT thought the question well deserving
of consideration, and granted a rule to show cause.

CONSISTORY COUR I', MAY 1
GLOVER V. BILTON.

Dr. LUSHINGTON gave sentence in this eise,
which was reported last term. It was a suit pro-
moted by a parishioner of Bow against Mr. Thomas
Bilton, for smiting Mr. Michael Scales in the vestry-
room, in the church-yard, and adjoining the chinch,
whence it was constituted an ecclesiastical offence,
punishable by excommunication or the penalties
substituted by a recent statute. The affray has al-
ready been the subject of a suit in this Court, and
an action in the Court of Common Pleas, in both
which Mr. Scales was the defendant; in the former,
he was pronounced guilty JA smiting; and in the