The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-17 00:00:00

fendant's Printing-office, depsed to the cirOmstance
of Gillett's having received. a higher price for his
printing from Lane, who mite; described 'as the movel
mar, in congidetation of his insuring hii property,
ftorn which it was designed to infei-, that.Gillett
only insured in particular cases. Considerable doubt
was thrown upon this by the statement,, that Lane
had paid an additionalshidiug. upon every seventeen
shillings for 'this_ purpose, which would make the
rate of insurance more than 5 per cent. ; whereas,
in tact, it-was only seven shillings and sixpence in
the tool. Mitchel further spoke to ,the slowness
with which the printing of this work had gone on,
in consequence of the dilatory manner in which
they were furnished.with copy by Mc. Beaumont,
the editor.

One Bird, :a warehouseman of the Defendant,
proved his having, some time before the fire, desired
Herbert, Mawmnn's warehouseman, to rake away
the Plaintitrs-propertyin general.
:Herbert.was called to corroborate this testimony,
but did not alipear.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, for the Plaintlti, and
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN, fur the Defendant, very,
.ably supported the interests of their respettive
Clients. It was pointed out by 'the fprmer,- in his
reply, that the case of the Plaintiff was-maile out by
the three first Witnesses; and, that the Defendant's
evidence, as far as it was material,' went • only to
remove the 'eflea of the festimony of Bunior and
Hamilton, about the book, and supposing they were
mistaken, which he rattle( thought they were-kiot,
still the Plaintiff was not to be in-esented from reco-
vering by the negligence of the Defendant, either
in not insuring, or in not having the item of the
insurance of the trust goods in his memorandum
book.

, . ________
_Sir J. MANSFIELD (Chief Justice) gave a very clear
and distina stituniary: of the ca:e, atter which the
Jury, having consulted together for a few minutes,
found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages 10871.

SHERIFFS' OFFICE, LOLENIAN-STREET.•
LIBEL:
SMITH V. DICIi.ENSON.

lie. C -URViOOD stated, tlyat this was an action r r or•
a Libel against' the Plaintiff, as one of the Elders and'
Parish Es ate Comtuittee of the Parish of St. Saviour,
Southwark.; to which the Defendant had not plead-
: ed, but suffered judgment to. go by default.
, then read the 'libel, which was in the foim of a,
printed letter from the Defendaht,,addressed to the
• •
j parish at large ; in which in most. gross terms he
had ,accused the Committee :of Estates, -and the,
Plaintiff-in particular, with fraud, iMpoSition, ex-
tortion; and misconduCt in their office. For'this the
Plaintiff laid his datriaores at 20001. '
Mr. MARkYATT then detailed the circumstances
of the case as follows :--The Defendant held a '
house of the Parish for 21 years, and his lease ex-
, pired at Mid,:ummer 1.807. Just before it expired,
he made pr.,pcisals foirenewing his lease, and instead-
. of 36i. per aimum, Which was the, old rent, he of-
fer,:d au advanced refit 4:424. Thp Committee re- ,
it-:to their Surveyor, andunder his advice they
. (14,11-landed 521. which the'Defendaht-refused. Upon
4his the Parish advertised. the honse; and posted up
hand-bills, not ilying that it was to be let, as well as
and appointed a day for receiving propOsals.
At the day appointed the CoMmittee met, and only
tWo-- sealed proposals were sent in. 'Upon which
Mr. Smith, the Plaintiff,' went out, and himself sent
in a proposal: They being then all
,Opened, the
Plaintiff-was fnund the highest,bidder, proposing to
give 521. tos. per annum, and today out ,two rUm.;
dred pounds in repairs in ten years. , The Defendant
proposed only 431.46." per,annum, and another per-
son 241.. After the busi-ness was over, the 'Defend-
ant was angry at his being outbid, and desired a
friend to intercede with Smith to let him have the
house. Smith', said he did not want the house,, he
only took it because he was determined what was
intended for a Charitable fund should not be put into
the 'pockets of others by, being improperly under-let ; •
and therefore if- the Defendant would give 201. to
the Charity School, as au atonement for his per-
verseness, he 'wt iird -relinluiSh to him. the bargains,
and he should stand. in his shoes. The Defendant
acceded to thiS, and paid the 201.; afterwards he
retracted, would not ei;.ecute thelease, and distribut-
ed 750 copies of the Libel complained Of; 'in Which
he most grossly abused the- Plaintiff and all the
other Members of the Committee. The several mi-
nutes forming the case were read.
Mr. Bui,Lotx, for the Defendant, addressed the
Jury in a very
.able speech, in mitigation'gfdarnages,
contending that he had acted in a.mornent of irrita-
tion, tiuder_the falSe -impression that he:had been
harshly treated by the Committee, and observed,
that Mr: Smith could have suffered no real injury
from the publication ; and he therefore trusted the
Jury would not 'think it'a case for any serious
Juty,returned, damages 1001.