The Sun.
London, England, 1830-08-23 00:00:00

ASSIZES-(RECEIVED THIS DAY.)

OXFORD CIRCUIT._MONMOUTH, AUG. 21.
Ltext...—Ta lame V. EVANS.
This was a writ of enquiry before F. M‘DoNNELL, Esq.
Under Sheriff, at the Beaufort Arms Hotel, to assess
damages in an action for libel and defamation. The de-
fendant suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS stated the plaintiff's case to
the Jury at very great length, from which it appeared that
the plaintiff and defendant are both occasional ministers in
the Methodist connection, and live at Chepstow. The
former, in addition to his ministry is also an attorney's
clerk, and the latter a shopkeeper in the general line.
It happened that some time since Mr. Evans, the de-
fendant, indicted a person at the Chepstow Sessions fur
an assault. On the trial of that indictment, the present
plaintiff (Mr. Taylor) was called as a witness on behalf of
the prosecution, and Mr. Evans conceived gave such tes-
timony as on his evidence alone the defendant was ac-
quitted. On the afternoon of that day Mr. Taylor was
walking down the street at Chepstow, when the defendant,
in the presence of several very respectable persons of that
town (to whom the plaintiff was known) called out Look
at that fellow Taylor, he has been swearing through thick and
thin, and 'would not commit so much perjury as he has done
for forty or fifty pounds." This, said the Learned Counsel,
was the defamation complained of, and it was right for
him here to inform the Jury, that not only did the de-
fendant profess the same religious opinions and minister
in the same cause as the plaintiff, but he was also a rela-
tion, having married the aunt of Mr. Taylor's wife. The
second ground of the present action was for a libel con-
tained in a written bill, which the defendant had posted
in his shop-window. That bill stated several vague
charges, which could not be substantiated against the
plaintiff. Nevertheless, they were charges of a na-
ture calculated to injure the feelings and reputation
of Mr. Taylor. At the bottom of the bill were the words,
in large letters, " Abhor perjury."—The Learned Counsel
having read the bill, commented, in very glowing lan-
guage, on the impropriety of the defendant's conduct, who,
by suffering judgment to go by default, had not dared to
come forward, and justify what he had published. He
had not only verbally attacked the plaintiff's character
and reputation, but be had written and published in
his shop-window a moat injurious libel. lie had
charged the plaintiff with being guilty of the grave
offence of perjury—a charge which, if true, was
one of the greatest magnitude, and must render the indi-
vidual an object of general execration. But in the pre-
sent case there was not the least foundation for such a
charge, which the defendant admitted by the course he
had adopted when the action was brought daring him to
the proof. It was a charge but in little accordance with
the doctrines of that Christian religion which the defendant
professed. He (Mr. P.) therefore hoped the Jury would
give the plaintiff such damages as would compensate hits
for the injury lie bad sustained in mind and estate, and
teach the defendant he could not attack with impunity the
character and reputation of respectable individuals.
Evidence having been given as to the defendant uttering
the slanderous words and the publication of the bill,
Mr. MauLE addressed the Jury for the defendant in
mitigation of damages. He said that he was instructed
en the part of the defendant to say, that the words he
uttered were under the impulse of passion and disappoint-
ment, and were not intended to be understood in their full
extent and meaning, He, however (Mr. Mettle), must
admit that the defendant was a foolish old man for ever
having uttered them at all, but the Jury would bear in
mind that they were not sitting there to punish the de.
fendant, but to compensate the plaintiff for the injury
that he had sustained ; and it was not proved that
he had sustained any injury. The witnesses that
had been called admitted that they never thought the
worse of him, in consequence of the publication of
the bill, or for the words that had been spoken. Besides,
the hill was in such general terms, and as it did not men-
tion the plaintiff by name, it might be supposed to apply
to other persons with as much propriety as to him. With
respect to the words "abhor perjury," upon which so
much stress had been laid, he (Mr. M.) thought that no
two words in the English language conveyed better advice
to men in all stations of life. He thought the Jury would
think with him, that' very small damages would satisfy the
justice of the case.
The UNDER SHERIFF having summed up, the Jury re-
tired ; after being absent for a short time they returned
into the room with a verdict fur the plaintiff—Damages
Fifty Pounds.