The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-30 00:00:00

ALLEN V. ROBINSON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was
the widow and administratrix of John Allen, deceased,
late a baker in the Edgeware-road, to recover the amount
of two bills of exchange of 20/. 17s. 11d., and 21/. ss. 7d.,
and a subsequent debt of 12/. Os. ld., the whole of which
was for bread supplied to the family of the defendant, a
builder at Paddington, during the years 1824, 1825, and
1826.

Mr. GURNEY and Mr. COMYN appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. STEERS for the defendant.

The bills having been put in, Mr. Steers objected to
their being read, as they were drawn upon wrong stamps.
Upon inquiry the objection was held to be a good
one, and
Mr. GURNEY said he would then waive the bills, and
prove the debt to the same amount.
A journeymaa to the late Mr. Allen proved the deli-
very at the defendant's house of four or five loaves a day,
from October, 1824 to September, 1825.
Another witness proved similar deliveries of bread from
September, 1825, to the same period in 1826.
A third witness proved deliveries from April, 1827,
until March, 1828, a few days after the death of Mr. Allen.
Mary Allen, the daughter of the testator, proved a pro-
mise to pay by the defendant, and that from the accounts
in her father's books it appeared there was due from de-
fendant a total sum of 541. 3s. 7d. _ _

Cross-examined by Mr. STEERS-The bills produced
were in witness's writing.
Mr. STEERS addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
said he hoped to be able to prove that his client did not
owe the plaintiff one farthing, for the whole of the present
demand had been discharged.
Robinson, son of the defendant, stated that he
held a situatio❑ in the Board of Works. In July, 1825,
his father became so ill as to be unable to manage
his affairs, and he was obliged to be removed from
his family, and be absent for nearly twelve months.
In that interim witness conducted his affairs. On
the 25th of January, 1826, witness paid 111 r. Allen
the whole of the bill of 211. 55. 7d. all at once. Hs
now produced his cash-book, wherein be made the entry,
stating the bill was due on that day. He gave a cheque
for it on his bankers, and now produced the cheque, with
a corresponding entry, in his bankers' book. (The bill
of 211. ss. 7d. was produced, and it appeared it was not
due at that titre.) He forgot why he paid it a month be-
fore it was due, because lie bad all his father's accounts,
which were very voluminous, to attend to, and that was
of so small an amount that the circumstances attending it
escaped his memory. He produced his bill-book, wherein
that bill was crossed out as paid.
Cross-examined by Mr. GURNEY—He could not re-
collect why be did not get the bill when he paid it.
Mr. GURNEY said as the witness was a person of re-
spectability, he would not dispute that bill—fur, probably,
it was paid. He then addressed the Jury on behalf of the
plaintiff.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 32/. 18s.

LIBEL.-HILDER V. RICHARDS AND ANOTHER.

Mr. THESSIGER opened the case.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT stated that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff, Mr. James Hilder, to recover
damages of the defendants, Messrs. Richards and Harwood,
for a false and scandalous libel. The defendants were edi-
, tors or proprietors of a newspaper called the British
Traveller,—a Paper which had not much fallen
under his (Sir James Scarlett's) observation, but he
understood it was one of some circulation. The
plaintiff was a person who felt that he had reason
to complain of having been injured by an attack upon him
in that newspaper, and who was one of those persons who
thought that what was written in a newspaper might be
taken to be true. He (Sir J. Scarlett) was aware that
that happy time had not yet arrived when no person
would believe in what was contained in a newspaper,
and until it did arrive, and while attacks upon characters
were believed to be injurious to individuals, the parties
had a right to appeal to the laws for prutection.
The plaintiff was a picture-dealer, and had carried on
that business in Gray's-Inn-lane, for a period of thirty
years, with credit and honour to himself. Some time be-
fore the publication its.question, a gentleman of fortune,
who had been a brewer, residing in Portland-place, and
having another residence at Hastings, and who had been
in the habit of dealing with the plaintiff, purchased a pic-
ture of Venus of him for ROO/. There was no haste used
in the purchase, as Mr. Wyatt had seen the picture for
twelve months previously, and was therefore enabled to
form a good judgment of its qualities ; SOW. being the
price fixed upon, it was agreed that Mr. Wyatt should
convey over to the plaintiff three leasehold houses in St.
John's Wood, which were of the same value, and in that
manner the bargain was concluded. This was the subject
which was the foundation of the libel, which, to the plain-
tiff's astonishment appeared in the defendants' journal, and
which was as follows :