The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-14 00:00:00

PATTISON V. MORNAP, ESQ.

CAMPBELL moved fora rule to show cause why the
verdict obtained by the plaintiff in this case should not be
set aside and a new trial granted ; or, in the alternative,
why the judgment should not be arrested. The grounds
of the first part of the motion were, that the verdict was
against evidence, and the damages were excessive. The
action, it will be recollected, was brought by Wm. Patti-
s,m, the late butler of Mr. Jones, the Marshal of the
King's Bench, against Mr. Mornay, a gentleman residing
at Putney, to recover a compensation in damages for an
alleged loss sustained by the plaintiff by the non-attendance
of the defendant as a witness, duly subpoenaed on the part
of the plaintiff Pattison, in an action which behind brought
against his former master, Mr. Jones. The foundation of
that action was a libellous letter written by Mr. Jones to
Mr. Mornay, on the occasion of the plaintiff's applying
to the latter gentleman for a situation in his service. Mr.
Mornay declined, in consequence of that letter, to engage
the plaintiff, who alleged, therefore, in his declaration
against Mr. Jones, that he had sustained special damage.
Mr. Mornay was subpoenaed to prove the special damage,
and attended in Court for several days before the cause
came on, but did not attend on the day of the trial.
The plaintiff, without his testimony to prove the
special damage, recovered a verdict for 701. The pre-
sent action was brought on the ground that the damages
recovered were less than they would or might have been,
had the special damage been proved. At the• trial be-
fore Mr. Justice James Parke, on the 3d inst., evidence
was given on the part of the defendant, Mr. Mornay, to
show that he was preVented by illness from attending on
the day that the cause was called on; and the case went to
the jury upon the question whether or not that fact had
been satisfactorily established. The jury, considering that
it had not, found a verdict for the plaintiff for 501. The
learned counsel, Mr. Campbell, now adverted to the evi-
dence of Mr. Shillito, a medical man residing at Putney,
who was the principal witness to prove the defendant's in-
ability to attend on the day of the trial, and observed, that
he (Mr. Sbillito), a respectable man, whose credit was
unimpeached, and whose testitneny was uncontradicted,
had completely established that fact. Mr. Shillito, it was
true, bad made use of an unlucky expression in his exami•
nation in chief. He said it was "physically impossible"
for Mr. Mornay to attend in Court on the day in question ;
and Mr. Denman interpreted that expression to mean that
it bad been rendered impossible by physic I
Lord TENTERDEN...-It was medically impossible, I sup-
pose.—(A laugh.)
Mr. CAMPBELL-After this jest had passed, Mr. Den-
man, in his reply, took advantage of the expression, and
in a most eloquent and inflamed speech, put it seriously to
the jury whether Mr. Shillito had not himself intentionally
endeavoured to prevent Mr. Mornay from attending by
administering to him strong doses of medicine ; and the
jury, to reward the jest, gave a verdict against Mr. Mornay.
Lord TENTERDEN-Take a rule nisi for a new trial.