The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-15 00:00:00

SLANDER.

LEONARD IeNALLY, ESQ. 77. JosErn HUBAND,•ESQ.
The parties in this case are Barristers. The de-
claration stated, that the Plaintiff- was appointed
Deputy Seneschal of the Archbishop of Dublin's"
Manor of St. Sepulchre,
_and discharged his duty
with 'great integrity, receiving considerable emolu-
ment, until the Defendant, in a' conversatioiL with
the. Archbishop, uttered the slanderous Words
charged, in consequence of whicill the Plaintiff
was deprived of his of-Ike, to his damage in the
sum of 50001.
The words were—" there will be no peace in
" the Manor while this man is Seneschal ;-,-he is
" attempting to lessen your Grace's revenues, and
`f depriving individuals of 'their property."
Mr. HOARE stated the Plaintiff's case,; and Mr.
BURRO-WES that of the Defendant.—:The sum of the
evidence, which was by no means equal in interest
to the expectation the trial had_eicited, was nearly
as followS . -
The Plaintiff, who is an inhabitant of the Ma-.
nor, had been ,a . member of a. Grand Jury of St.
Sepulchre's, which had presented, as a nuisance, in
piece of ground in which the Defendant had some
interest ; the Defendant, who was an old acquaint-
ance of the Plaintiff, wrote him. a letter, setting,
forth the absurdity of presenting as' a nuisance a
piece of grouted (which_ "it-was ir)pOssibleto re-
move) ; and stating various other objettions in
pOint of l'aw to the proceeding, and to some of the
Grand Jurors, as being interested in the present-
ment they had made. The Grand Jury, however,
proceeded, and' requested the Plaintiff to draw a,
proper
.presentment, which was done, and the ab-
, surdity pointed out by the Defendant was correa-
ed, by making the walls and ditches bounding the
ground in question the object of the presentinenr.—
During these transaCtions, about 'Dociernber, 1807,
the Plaintiff was appointed Deptity Seneschal, and
his son, who is an Attorney of the Manor Court,
was employed to carry forward, the proceedings on
the presentment. In about a month after the tip-
, pointment of the Plaintiff, the principal Seneschal
(Dr. Diti,Y'enan) resigned, with whose resignation
fell the Deputy's appointment ; and
.the Gentleman
who was appointed Seneschal in his room detertuin-
ing to ata without a Deputy, Mr. 'Nally Ceased to
fill that situation.

To prove the slan'erous words, Mr. Thomas
Wildridge deposed, that, on the 23d of linuary,
1808, he met the Defendant in the street, and said
he was sorry to hear that he (Mr. Huband) had
been instrumental in removing the Plaintiff horn his
situation ;—to which the Defendant answered,—
" I was nut only instrumental, hut the c,:ulie of it ;
fOr I told the
.Archbishop that there would- he
" no peace in the parish while he continued De-
" pu:'y ;_ that he was lessening his revenues, and,
attemphng to, deprive individuals of their pro.-
" perry." These words Mr. NV. said he had co-
mitred to paper by the desire of Mr. 111‘Nally ; but
he was not able to state positively whether he had
heard before that time that the Plaintiff intended to.
bring an aftiou. The witness was then shown- an
address to the Plaintiff, dated on the 27th ofJanuary,
I 808, expressive of•regret that the resignation of
*Dr. Duigenan should have deprived him of the oftlee
of Deputy ; which address the witness admitted he
had signed with the other Grand Jurors of the Ma-
nor Court.
Evidence was then given to spew, that the whole
of the Deputy's office was from one to two hun-
dred pounds per annum during the- time of Dr.
Duigenan's continuance as Seneschal--; the Doctor
taking none of the profits, but giving all- to the
Deputy.
Iticharl Guinness, Esq. one of the Police Magi-
strates, deposed to the proper demeanour of.. the
Plaintiff the discharge of the_ office of Deputy.-
Seneschal.

On the part of the Defendant it was insisted,
that the Plaintiff should be non-suited ; that he had
failed in proving any conversation with the Afch-
bishop, witotu he might have called upon to give
testimony ; that he had not produced Dr. Duigenan,
who was actually in Court, to. she x• that tie had
re,iigned in consequence- of any such. conversation ;
and that he had given no evidence whatever of- his

(the Plaintiff's) having: been depti; ei
,of the. office

of Deputy.
The Learned Judge thoug:,t there was'evidence
for the Jury to cons!dTr in the teSiimony given by
Mr. Wildridge ; what weight they should give it

was not fur him to appreciate.
• • The only evidence offered by the Defendant
Wept to prove, that in the transa6tion of the Piecd6
of ground presented by the Grand Jury, he ha
no private interest, nor any objea but public inv.
provewent. •
Jotttl aBA R RINGTON spoke to evidence for illy
The Learned'Judge recapitulated the evidence Icl
the Jury. He obseryed strongly upon the PlaintifFi:
not offering the best evidence in his power in sup
port of his anion : the evidence of the Archbishotp;
to whom the words were charged to have bee
spoken, or the evidence of Dr. Duigenan, beet
could have distin`clly stated the motives which 11/..
duced him to execute the resignation by which ,th 6
Plaintiff's office had been extinguished: the .I°3f
had, however, the testimony of Mr. Wildridge 34
to the Defendant's admission ; it was for thoul
,
consider the credit due to that evidence, and to 0
their verdi& accordingly.
'The Jury and a vcrdi& for the Defendant, `Ni
1 costs.