The Sun.
London, England, 1806-07-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORT,

BENCU, GUILDHAIA, Jut
SITTINGS AT NISI YRILTS, BEFOAN L-oar) GRIEF .AISTiCE.

ELLEN BC)ROU Gli

NOR6fOI4 V. BLACKET.

This was an action for goods sold and- delivered,
arnoupting to 411. _ • _

Ift this cause a 'part of the demand. in question
consisted of goods sold' and„ delivered to the De-.
fondant's wife while she was' a lenzme sale, and un-
married, and as the aellotfiwas brought against the
husband alone,
Lord- ELLENBOROUGH told the Jury, that in order
to recover the whole of lips demand„the Plaintiff
should _hate joined the.wife, along with the husband,
in the a6tion ; but not having done so, he could
only now have a verdiSt for the goods Sold since the
marriagetook place. The Jtiry found their verdict
aecordit,;gly..

PAYNE V. PATRICK.

• This was an a&ion of debt, biuught under the Sta-
tute of, tlhe gth Ann, chap. tB, -which provides, that
any person losing upwards of la at play, at any one
sitting, shall recover the overplus. The Plaintiff
charged the Defendant witri having won .upwards of
101. of him at play at one James's, who kept the
Bussar's 'Head -public-house. But it appearing in
evidence that no more than a guinea was won or.losit
at the time stated in the declaration; oh either side,
the Plaintiff was nonsuited. . .

WYE V. GLOVER.

This was an • a&ion brought to recover 1(311.
being the value of a package lost by the negli-
gence ().1: the Defendant'S servant.
Sir V. GIBBS stated, that the Plaintiff was the
Chief' Mate of the inliner Castle East Indianian,
and the Defendant was "Proprietor of Stage Coaches,
at th 6 Green Drago4 Inn, Bishopsgate-street. The
package in question consisted of a-quantity of milli-
nery and haberdashery; for the ludia Market, and
the Defendant had engaged to convey it in his own
cart to Dartford, and there safely deliver it for the
Plaintiff: The Defendant's servant set out with the
cart and packagein the month of December, 'at six •
o'clock in the morning, while it was yet dark, on
his way to Dartford; and in paSsing through:Kent-
street, he discovered the tail of- his cart `down, and
the package gone. It farther appeared, that, the
Defendant circulated a hand-bill, offering a reward
of 50 guineas to recover it, and made .every other
possible exertion in his power:for that Pt ?pose.
On the the part of the: Defendant, -it was contended,
that this was net the case of a common carrier, -as
the Defendant
.was not in the habit of letting our,
his' cart for hire, it being only .USed-fer his ow a pri-
vate purposes ; and at the- time_ in question,' let out
at the Plaintiff's own particular 'request, and as an
ad of friendship, in which all_ due diligence had
been, used .by the Defendant. But if it _was to be
considered as Coining Within the meaning of the case
of a common carrier, then the Defendant could not
be liable; as the paelageiin question was abbve the
value of 51. and not entered or 'paid for as such,
wrding to the notice -set up.in the Detendaiit's
ce.
Lord ELLENTRottouou explained to the Jury the
nature of the law in such case ; and they, after a
short consultation, found a vcrdiel of tcit 1. i gs, for
the Plaintiff „ '

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS, I 2
. JEKYLL Zl. SIR JOHNMOORE,

This was an aaion. tried before MANS-
mkt), the and decision upon which is of
considerable impo'rtsnce to the discipline, of the
Army. , -
. Mr. Serjeant BEST stated, that the Plaintiff was
formerly a Captain -in the 43d Regiment of Foot,
and that the,aetion was brought against the. Defend-
ant (on whose distinguished -charaacr, both ha his
military and private life, he commented
,at some
length) for a libel against the BaitititF,' and which
libel he considered as having produced injurious
consequences to the Plaintiff, in proportion to the
mieight of authority from which it proceeded:" It
appeared from the statement that Captain Jekyll had
been sent on a recruiting . party from GtiernSey to
Jersey, and had returned‘without _leave, in plume-
qUence of Which be had been put under an. arrest
by his Colonel (Colonel Stewart). That Captain
Jekyll conceiving that he was justified from .whac
had passed, on the subjeel of being 'sent to Jersey,
in returning, exhibited diarges against Colonel.
Stewart, on which Colonel Stewart was brought to
a General Court Martial; whereof Sir John Moore
was President. That Colonel Stewart was honour-
ably acquitted, and at the conclusion of the judgr
mein of the Court Martial, they stated, as part of
the judgment, their opinion of the prosecution,. the
result of which was, that the prosecution against
Col. Stewart was groundless. _

It was contended that the Court Martial could
Only give judgment as to the condud of Cob Stew-
art, and that this opinion, With respect to the con=
duelof Captain Jekyll, was extrajudicial, illegal,_
and therefore a libel.. That it was *doing, in this
case, what in ordinary cases in the Law Courts'could
Only be done by an at.iion for malicious prosecution,
in which the falsehood and. malice were to be
proved, and in..whiclx the Defendant would hai-e the
.opportunity of rebutting-such'proof, which he had
not here. It appeared, to a question asked by Sir
JANES./gANSFIELD, that Captain Jekyll •had been
sworn and given evidence"as a Witness-on the prose.
cution ;, and at the conclusion of the statemeut.of
.Plaintitf's case, the Learned Judge asked what was.
' the publication of this as a libel ? It was stated-to
be the transinissiort of it to ,Sir Charles Morgan, the,
-Judge Advocate, to.be.laid before the King for his
prniate judgment. As soon as-the statement was made,
the Lord Chief Justice Said, '5 Has such an action
ever' been' heard of ? Are the Courts of Law Cburts
of Appeal front sentences of, Courts Martial ? Sir
Charles Morgan might as- well, be' said `to be a .pub-
fisher of tile libel lin laying the proceeding's before
His Majesty, and subject to an ' The Court
Martial heard all the evidence ~Calit..Jekyll. could
produce, and thought, in their judgment, that the
.charges were grOundlesS. Had' they not a right to.
state that to His Majesty ? It would be strange if
this Court Martial were appealed frern, and the re-
port they made to His Majesty were to be examined
befo're a Judge and Jury'; thiS opinion of, the Court
is part of the sentence; And of the proceedings be-