The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-13 00:00:00

[BRITISH PRESS.)

The Paris Papers bf Tuesday are filled with
merry jests at one another for credulity or scep-
ticism respecthig the war. The Journal des
D Ards is silent upon that topic. The Quotidienne
reasons from the success of the Allies against
France in 1814, that France must be succesful
against Spain in 1822. What shall we say of
French vanity after this ? A Frenchman holds
out his defeat, his entire subjugation, as a model
to all nations visited by revolution

[MORNING CHRONICLE.]
We understand Ministers look forward with
much anxiety for the arrival of the next dispatches
from Madrid, and that means have been taken to
expedite the communication between that capital
and London.

On the arrival of Lord Liverpool at the City
of. London Tavern, yesterday evening, wheie
he6took the Chair, for the first time, as Pre-
sident of the Society of Ship-owners, he was
introduced to the Vice-Presidents and the Com-
mittee in .their private room, when the list of
toasts, which had been previously arranged,
were submitted to his Lordship. With the ex-
ception of one, they met with his Lordship's ap-
probation. That to which he objected and de-
clined giving was, " An
,open competition in the
'West India Docks, at the expiration of the
Charter." From this various conclusions will
no doubt be drawn. One party will consider it
as indicative of a favourable feeling towards the
monopoly ; while another may think his Lord-
shipmerely wished to avoid prematurely pro-
nouncing an opinion on the subject.—(Mid.)

[NEW TIMES•I
Letters received yesterday from Valparaiso
state that affairs in Peru have taken an unfavour-
able- turn for the Independents. " We expect,"
says the writer, " to hear shortly that General
San Martin has abandoned Lima." Should this
news be confirmed, it still might not be produc-
tive of any benefit to Old Spain. General La
Serna, who commands the Spanish party in
the neighbourhood of Lima, is in all probability
a Royalist, and if so, he will scorn to submit
to the Jacobins of Madrid. If, on the other
hand, he is actuated by a spirit •of political
enterprise, he will probably follow the example
of Iturbide, in Mexico, and assume to him-
self the Dictatorship to which San Martin appears
to have aspired. The population of the whole
Viceroyalty of Peru has been estimated at nearly
five millions of souls, amongst, whom about
300,000 are Spaniards. The large body of inha-
bitants, however, is spread over so vast an extent
of territory, and so widely separated by lofty
monntains and plains, that' a comparatively small
force is sufficient to dispute the sovereignty.—
SanNartiu and La Serna are nearly on a par
in thiS'respect ; but each has his peculiar advan-
tage.-. The sea is open to afford supplies to San
Martin.; white ttie mountains afford strong posi-
tions, to ..La Senn, and enable'him.to cut off .all
the landward resources.:

[MORN' NG POST.]
French Journals to the llth inst. announce the
arrival of the Duke of Wellington in Paris on

the evening of Monday last, and private letteri
add that his Grace would remain some time in
•the French capital to confer with the King and
his Ministers, and endeavour to impress upon
them the injustice and-danger of invading Spain.
It is perhaps the expectation of his Grace's
presence and co-operation that has contributed
to give the victory to the pacific, part of the
French Ministry over the "ivarlike, for of
this little doubt can any longer exist. The
ilioniteur has at last dropped its neutrality. it
has not only copied the article of the Journal
des Debats, as we stated yesterday ; it has re-
jected the angry and sophistical attack made
upon that article by the Dale, not for the pur-
pose of supplying a" more temperate and reason-
able answer himself, but to declare by its con-
tinued silence that it has adopted the views
and principles officially put forth in the Journal
des Debats by the Moderate' Party, if not by
M. de Villele himself. For this conduct it has
been loaded with abuse by. the Ultras, who
now openly avow that a division exists in the Ca-
binet, and call for hostilities on the totally new
ground that " i•f France. does not make war,
Spai❑ will declare it." This ground is not more
tenable than those which they had previously and
successively assumed : for notwithstanding the
gross provocations which they have given Spain,
and the positive injury which their intrigues have
inflicted upon her, that country is too wise to
draw down upon heiself by an act of imprudence,
although it might be ont; of strict justice, the
active•hoStility of those Powers, whom the great-
est moderation• on her part can alone prevent
from joining in the tlsreatened attack upon her.

LAW OF THE PRESS IN FRANCE.

COURT OF CASSATION, SATURDAY.

The appeal of the four Opposition Journals
has been farther heard. This day Messrs. ROGER
and Nicol, having opened the third and fourth
grounds on which they rest their case, the Attor-
ney-General addressed the Court to the follow,
ing effect.:—Among the most pressing wants (he
said) of a civilized society stood the means of
rapid communication, both as to facts and as to
ideas. Among the various engines available, and
employed, for the attainment of that end, the
public press stood admitted as the most potent.
Effective alike for purposes good or evil, a power
so extended of necessity required some check ;
but difficult was the task of that Legislator who
had to devise one. Among the derelictions of
duty which public journals were liable to commit,
a most special one was infidelity in their reports
of legal or legislative proceedings. No act, in-
deed, could be more individually culpable, or
more publicly dangerous, than the act of that
person, who, looked to by the whole nation for
intelligence, became the fabricator of falsehood,
instead of the, impartial relator of fact. The
Attorney-General then entered into an intricate
legal argument, upon the article 16, of the law
of the 15th March, 1822. He contended, that
the only, admissible defence against the fact
proved in the present case, was a plain explana-
tion from the author of the libellous paragraph.
The law bad specialized all cases like that in
question ; and had purposely proportioned the
summary course of legal proceeding to the.

, rapidity -with which the. particular evil spread,
and to the extent to which it operated.
To dispense with the appearances, then, was
impossible. No witnesses were necessary in
the case. All that the Court held relevant was
the explanation of the party accused. He would
admit that the speciality given to the crime, and
to the mode of punishment, did carry with it cer-'
lain deviations from the ordinary forms of law ;
that it gave authority for summary sentence to
the original Court which tried the cause ; that it
did destroy, or take away, the common right of
appeal : but the very essence of the judgment in
these cases was opposed to the possibility of
appeal. The original tribunal took absolute
jurisdiction : it judged of the, offence, as well as
apportioned the punishment. How was it pos-
sible for. Judges in another Court to say to
those who alone had. the right to decide
whether a crime was committed—" You have
said, or you have decided improperly ?" He
was free to confess, the, Attorney. General
continued, that the law of the case, or rather
the course of proceeding, was open to incon-
venience ; but the wisdom of Courts and
Judges would•gradually get rid of all. objection- ,
able points of arrangement. France, with a re-
ligious respect, waited the decision of the tri-
bunal which he had then the honour of addressing,
If that tribunal interpreted the intent of the Le-
gislature as he did, the public journals, without
losing any needful degree of •freedom, would
lose one fruitful mean's of destroying social order.
He should sit down, confidently anticipating the
rejection of the appeal.
After three hours deliberation, the Court pro-
nounced a judgment which occupied the Presi-
dent nearly half an hour in delivery. The mote
material facts were these :

The Court, with respect to M. Faucillon, seeing That he had
not complied with the intent of the law by surrendering himself
prisoner, declared that it could do nothing in his behalf.

With regard to Messrs. Cassano, Guise, and
Legracieux, looking at the appeal which they had
placed upon the pleadings against the judgments
of the 12th, 13th, and 26th of September last,
the Court, adopting three of the objections pre-
sented to it, annuls the judgments pronounced by
the Court of Assize at Paris on the 12th, 13th,
and 26th of September; and sends back the
parties accused to be proceeded against at the
suit of the Procurator-General of the High
Court of Paris, and at any other suit which may
be instituted against them for the same facts be-
fore the Court of Assize of the department of the
Somme.

UpiroN-HALL.—The final examination of Car-
rington, the impostor, took place yesterday, when
the Hon. and Rev. Mr. ARCIIITEL GREY ap-
peared, and stated the facts which we have al-
ready mentioned. The prisoner was committed
for three months to. the House of Correction at
Brixton.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dr c. 12.
DAVIS V. THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH.

Last seal Mr. HART applied to the Court for an order to di-
rect the defendant to pay the costs which had attended the is-
suing of a writ of sequestration against him. The writ of se-
questration had been taken out under the authority of an order
of the Court, which directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff
his taxed bill of costs for having acted as a receiver of the rents
of the,Blenheim estates. The defendant opposed the applica-
tion on the ground that the writ of sequestration had been is-
sued against good faith, inasmuch as there existed an under-
standing between the parties that such a proceeding should not
take place under the then circumstances. The matter stood
over, in order that the parties might furnish the Court with full
information upon this point. •
Mr. HART now stated that affidavits had been filed on both
sides, upon which the Court would form its opinion.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after reading the affidavits, the
filing of which, he said, nuld cost three or four times as much
as the sum in dispute (only about six guineas), directed the
defendant to pay the costs of the issuing and serving of the writ
of sequestration.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEc. 12.
CURIOUS CASE.
SHARP V. THE REV. MR. VIALLS.

Mr. PATTESON stated the substance of the pleadings. The
first count of the declaration chaiged that the defendant mali-
ciously cause the plaintiff to be apprehended and held to bail
before a Magistrate, on a charge of receiving stolen bread and
beef, and afterwards indicted him at the Middlesex Sessions for
stealing bread and beef, of which charge he was duly acquitted.
The second count alleged only that an indictment was mali-
ciously prosecuted, without statingthe arrest or the proceedings
before the Magistrate. The defendant pleaded that he was not
guilty.
Mr. C. PHILLiPs stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff'.
—The defendant was a Clergyman of affluence, residing at
Twickenham, and the plaintiff a poor labouring man, who had
been in his employment as a gardener, and who had sustained
from him that serious injury for which he now sought redress
at the hands of a Jury. He (Mr. Phillips) lamented deeply
that he should be called on to bring forward a case of this kind
against a member of a 'sacred and honourable profession, but
his character only aggravated the conduct of which he had been
guilty. On Sunday, 20th October, in last year, this poor man
went to visit his aunt, who resided at Camberwell, and who
gave him a piece of beef to carry with him home. This he
deposited in the drawer where he used to keep his dinner, and
here, on the following morning, it was found by his master.—
The Clergyman fastened on the beef with uncommon avidity--
hastened to his larder-Lent off a piece from his own round, and
asked the cook if she could not swear that they must have been
part of the same beef ? She replied that they could not be the
same, because the larder was always locked, and they differed
in appearance. He next applied to Wilson, his butler, but he
informed him that the., slices differed, for his beef was of a
coarser grain. After five days, during which he suffered the
plaintiff to continue in his service, he procured him to be ap-
prehended on a warrant ofhis own father-in-law, Mr. Serjeant
Marshal, who heard the case, and who, when the cook, gave
her evidence, coarsely abused her, and ordered her out of the
room with an epithet, which was so far like beef, that it began
with the same letter. Meanwhile this Reverend beef-eater took
the poor man's slice and insisted that his servants should eat it
for breakfast ' • but here dreadful confusion arose—the butler
had a physical scruple, and could not eat it for nausea—the
kitchen-maid had a conscientious scruple, and refused to permit
her stomach to become a-receptacle for stolen goods; and at
last the cook ate it, to prevent it from becoming a subject
whence the Divine might lecture on the mutability of all human
affairs. In spite of the speaking evidence of the man's continuing
in his situation—in spite of the dissimilarity of the articles:--in
spite of the impossibility of access, the worthy Magistrate detain-
ed the plaintiff in custody for five hours, and bound him over
to appear at the Sessions. At these Sessions the Clergyman
appeared, and sworelcethe identity of beef by the complexion:
—The only parallel .to such an attempt was to be found in
a prosecution, on the model of which this was unquestion-
ably framed, and therefore, though it was American, he must
relate it. It was the case of Johnny Hook. This man, born
in the most prudent part of the Highlands, remained there till
he came `to man's estate, when of course he left his country.
He bent his way to America, taking with him-one sturdy little
bullock, which was seized by the revolutionary army at a time
when they were distressed for food. Years rolled on, battles
were lost and won. but Johnny never forgot his bullock; and
when peace came, he commenced a suit against the Commissary
in the highest court of justice, and engaged the Chief Law-officer
of Government as his Counsel. The Commissary employed the
inspired peasant of Pennsylvania, Patrick Henry, who heard
Johnny swearing away like Mr. Vialls ; but when it came
to his turn to speak, he touched that chord which responded
in the bosoms of all who heard him. He painted the triumphs
of the patriot army—lie described their sufferings.—he repre-
sented them half famished before, lifting up their eyes to
Heaven in gratitude for a supply ; and while the picture lived
and breathed before them, he exclaimed, " But who is this
that comes to disturb the harmony of this majestic scene? It is
Johnny Hook, the Highlander crying out " Beef, beef, beef."
—(A laugh.)—The name of Johnny Hook would never die in
America—genius touched it and rendered it immortal ; but here-
after it must yield to that ofVialls. No sooner had this person dis-
covered this unhappy fragment with his keen, unerring, tithe-
discerning eye, than his imagination became bossified—in all'
creation he saw nothing but beef; this great world, with
all its rich varieties, was only a vast round of beef; his roses
and fillies became bullocks, and not a text could he find but
that which related to the flesh pots of Egypt. Beef was to him
what ale was to Boniface—his meat, drink, solace, and study ;
and, sleeping or waking, dreaming or preaching,he could think
of nothing, speak of nothing, see nothing, but " Beef, beef,
beef." He resolved to have vengeance ; if lie relented, his mu-
tilated round swam before his imagination, a feast for an Al-
derman, which might satisfy the appetite of the whole Com-
mon Council after a fast day
The round was a picture for painters to study,
The fat was so white, and lean was so ruddy.
He resolved to prosecute this poor man without mercy—to in-
dict him at the Sessions—to have a city judge for his Counsel,
and the Rec Order for a judge, and to get the case called on
five minutes before dinner.—(A laugh.)—Thus did this Mi-
nister of the Gospel, after taking days to consider, procure
the object of his displeasure to be held to be held to bail by his
father.iii-law, as if anxious that the honour of the exploit should
not go out of the family. At length the expected sessions came ;
the poor man was present to meet his accuser, not only attended
by his bail, but an indignant crowd of friends, eager to testify
to his character, and to witness his triumph ; and there was the
reverend prosecutor, holding the book, whence he ought to teach
universal charity, to fix the brand of ungrateful felony on the
innocent. -The Jury rose when they heard the evidence of the
prosecutor contradicted by his own servants, and without wait-
ing to hear the defence indignantly pronounced a verdict of ac-
quittal. The Learned Coriniel expatiated at- considerable
length on the contrasted situations of the parties, on the clerical
character of the defendant, and on the poverty of the plaintiff,
and concluded by appealing to the jury, if they held honesty in
respect, though it was clothed with rags, and detested oppres-
sion, though clothed in the garb of kanctity, that they would
give exemplary damages.
The• Counsel for the plaintiff having elected to 'proceed on
the second count of the declaration, which omitted the state-
ment of the charge before the Magistrate, put in an examined
'copy of the record of acquittal..
John Butler, a clerk to Mr. Harmer, said he could state the
substance of the defendant's evidence, which was as follow :
"On the 21st October, in last year, he had been walking
into his garden ; he looked into the tool-house, and on looking
into a drawer used to keep seeds, he found a slice of bread and
beef; he was struck with its appearance, and supposed the ser-
vants had been at their old tricks. He took it into the house with
him, and went to the larder, where he cut off a slice of beef
from his own round, which he had dressed the day before;
and on compairing them, he had no doubt that both came off
the same joint, from the complexion. As to the bread he had
not the smallest doubt, from the cut of the bread on his loaf.—
He was asked if he had not said that he should not have sus-

pected Sharp, if he had not challenged him with taking his
dinner ? After a good deal of hesitation, he admitted that he
had said so. He was also asked if the man had not told him

that his aunt, at Camberwell, gave him the beef ? hl. said
Yes :' he had afterwards asked Sharp for his aunt's name, and
he had refused to give it. He had offered to ride over to Cam-
berwell, and see her, and ascertain the truth."
The witness added, that the charge of Mr. Harmer, for con-
ducting the defence, was 171.135. Bd. Mr. Vialls was the only
witness on the back of the indictment. At the trial, Mr. Ara-
bin, the Deputy Recorder appeared for the prosecution, but
he held the thief of Mr. Bolland.

Mrs. Mary Baldwin, the aunt of the plaintiff, proved that she
gave him slices of cold beef and bread for dinner on the day in
question, he being a poor day labourer.
When cross-examined, she said, the slices were such as

are commonly cut for eating. The bread was cut from a half
peck loaf.
Re-examined.—The beef was dry.
The son of the last witness corroborated her evidence.
Charlotte Eden, the late cook of Mr. Vial's, recollected the
round of beef well. On the 22d of October, the defendant
came into the kitchen, and ordered her to follow him to'the
der with a knife. lie cut a slice of beef off the round, but
produced no other meat ; he wrapped it up in a paper, with a
,lice of bread.- He then compared the slice with one he had
brought with him. Next morning she saw the beef and bread.

taken from the larder, and other bread and'beef, in his dress-
ing-room. He unwrapped both parcels and said he had found
a' slice of beef and bread in a drawerof the tool-house ; that the
gardner could not get it unless some of the servants had ,given
it to him. The round had been dressed the, day before, and was
juicy. The piece of beef produced from the tool-house was
dry, and the difference very great and obvious. Het master
asked her if she could swear that both, were alike; she replied
that she could not, for one was well boiled, and the other under
boiled. She told him the beef was always under lock and key;
she never gave beef to Sharp, or any other person, and so in-
formed 11r. Vialls. Next day he brought the two pieces of
beef to the larder, and laid them on the dish for the servants to
eat : she had lived two months in his family ; he kept nine •ser-
vants, a carriage, four horses, and a handsome house ; alto-
gether the establishment of a man of fortune.
On cross-examination, the witness said her father fetched
her home after. The loaves used were half-pecks and quar-
terns. Mr. Vialls examined the bread with the loaf, and the
beef with the round.
On re-examination, she said that her father took her away,
because Mr. Vialls accused her of taking away the bread and
meat.
In examining this witness, Mr. PHILLIPS repeatedlx.called
the defendant " Parson Vialls." The LORD CHIEF Jirs-
TrcE begged him to omit this epithet, as it was unworthy of
his talents and taste. Mr. PHILLIPS, in explanation, said,
that the epithet was not considered as reproachful in the
country from which he came, and that he had intended no
offence by using it.
Richard Andrews, who was a labourer in the garden of
Mr. Vialls at the same time with the plaintiff, said he used to
take his dinner and hang it up in a basket in the tool-house.
There were drawers in the tool-house which were open, and
the door also was open. Sharp usually put his dinner in the
drawers.
Thomas Andrews, who had occasionally worked on the pre-
mises, corroborated the last witness. as to the place in which the
workmen kept their dinners. When he went away he gave up
his drawer to sharp.
This was the case for the prosecution..
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant. He was not surprised at the tone and temper in which
the case was conducted, extraordinary as they were, because he
was led to expect them by all he had beard and seen of this
transaction. Some individals connected with the plaintiff had
some strange influence over the public press, which they had set
in motion in a most singular way against the defendant. He the
more deeply regretted this, because he was personally acquainted
with the man who had been thus assailed ; he had witnessed the
tenour of his life ; he, and several of his Learned Friends who
surrounded him, had known him from his boyhood, had run the
same course of youthful study, and had cherished this intimacy
in the progress of maturer years. After the unmeasured abuse
which had been heaped on this Gentleman—afterr every epi-
thet of reproach which the English language afforded had been
heaped upon him—after he had been designated as a " vermin
of sanctity," and pronounced to be the only parallel to Dives
in the Gospel, it might not be improper for him (the Solicitor-
General) to declare that a man more respectable in every rela-
tion of life, more generous, more charitable, and more humane,
did not exist in his Majestys' dominions. Notwithstanding the
great mass of abuse which had been introduced into this cause,
the simple question for the Jury to decide was, whether Mr.
Vialls had been actuated by malice in prosecuting the plaintiff.
It was not enough to show an acquittal, which might result
from the absence of witnesses, from reasonable doubts, to the
full benefit of which the accused is always entitled, and from
a thousand circumstances not implying guilt in the individual
preferring the charge. Was there any evidence of malice in
this case—any suggestion even of a cause whence such a feeling
could arise ? The prosecutor was a gentleman of easy fortune,
the plaintiff was a day labourer ; there was no proof of any
quarrel, or dissatisfaction on either side, whence resentment
could be excited in the mind of Mr. Vialls towards one in so
'different a sphere. In the conduct of this case, not only had
•
his Learned Friend Mr. Phillips lent himself to the expression
of feelings which every one must deplore, but he had given
reason of complaint in the substantial conduct of his case, in
omitting to call Wilson, to whom he had alluded, and who,
if called, would have thrown no inconsiderable light on the
origin of the proceedings. Another specimen of the manner
in which the case was conducted, would be found in the re-
flections cast on a most respectable Magistrate, which there
bad been no attempt to substantiate by proof. When he re-
probated these things, he did not mean to impute to his
Learned Friend any blame, as he bad no doubt followed the
instructions given by his client, except that he had lent himself
a little too much to feelings which deserved utter reprobation.
When the Jury looked at the evidence, could they say that there
was not probable cause for the Prosecution ? They, would recol-
lect that when Sharp told.- Mr. Vialls that he had received
the beef from his aunt: at Camberwell, the defendant asked
her name, and said he.would ride over to her and ascertain the
truth, but the plaintiff refused to tell her name. Was not this re-
fusal tojustify liimself completely reasonable ground for strong
suspicion of guilt.? .It was not .the smallness of value of the
particular article discovered which should influence a master in
a case of this kind, when he might believe himself as an object
of perpetual plunder, and might fee/ all the misery of doubt
respecting the characters of those beneath hig-roof. Then it had
been urged as an aggravation, that a Judge, the Deputy Re-
corder, was employed to prosecute—as if any man could imagine
that the circumstance of a Counsel appearing for a prosecution
who held an office, might influence a jury to find the man he pro-
secuted 'guilty. But with this mighty piece of oppression, Mr.
Vialls had no concern ; for he had retained. Mr. Bolland, who
was his companion at the University, and, as Mr. Bolland was
accidentally engaged in another place, his brief was held by
Mr. Arable. He could not in such a case waste the time of the
Court by saying a word respecting damages, because he felt
assured that if the Jury lOoked at the evidence, and not at the
inflammatory and unsupported statements of Counsel, they
would feel it their duty, to return a verdict for the defendant.
The. LORD CHIEF JUSTICE informed the Jury, that the
law applicable to the case had been correctly stated by the
Learned Solicitor who last addressed them. In order to sup-
port an action fora malicious prosecution, it was necessary
that two things should concur—a malicious intention, and the
want of all probable cause. Neither of these was sufficient
alone; because a man might maliciously institute a well-
founded prosecution, in which case, though he would not be
innocent, the party accused would have no right to redress ;
or a man might institute a prosecution, bona fide relying on the
information of others fairlrentided to his credence, which after-
wards might turn out to be groundless. But though the Jury
must be convinced that the prosecution was both malicious and
groundless, yet the absence of all probable cause might be so
plain as to furnish a fair inference of improper motive. Before
he recapitulated the evidence, it was right that he should notice
something which had occurred in the conduct of the cause. The
Counsel who had conducted the plaintiff's case with extra-
ordinary talent, had, in his opening, thrown out reflections
against a Magistrate known to many Gentlemen in that Court,
which he did not afterwards attempt to sustain by evidence. It
was due to the Learned Counsel to presume that, when he rose
to address the Jury, he expected that he should be supplied with
proof of those statements, but still it was unfortunate that he
had made them.

The Learned Judge then read over the evidence, and left the
Jury to say whether, in the absence of all direct proof of malice,
the want of probable cause for the prosecution was so complete
as to lead them to infer that the defendant must have been ac-
tuated by unworthy motives.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501.

GAMING.

CLEMENT v. FARROW.

This was an action on the statute of Ann, c. 14, s. 2, which
first gives to the loser of money at play, beyond 101. a right to
recover it back by action of debt; and next provides, that if the
loser do not within three months, prosecute by suit with effect,
any person may sue to recover the money lost, and triple its
amount, for the benefit of himself and of the poor of the parish.
In this case, Burn the pugilist, who keeps the Rising. Sun in
Windmill-street, was the loser of the money. He swore, that
on the 29th of December last, he lost to the defendant at the
Rising Sun, 191. IGs. at Loo, between 5 and 12 in the evening.
His statement was corroborated by two witnesses, who were in
the house at the time, and by two others, who heard the de-
fendant boast of his good fortune on the following day.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. PLATT, for the defence, shewed, by
evidence, that Burn had himself brought an action for this
money, which it seemed had been abandoned, but which was
not abandoned when the present action was brought. It ap-
peared, however, that Burn's action was not on the statute,
but in the common form for money had and received to his use.
The Lord CHIEF-JUSTICE held that this was not such an

action us rendered the commencement of the present premature,
and consequently the objection was unavailing.
Mr. GURNEY then produced a witness, who swore that
Burn had stated his loss at a much lower sum, and expressed
an intention of making Farrow pay for his boastings of larger
success.

Mr. ScanLETT said a few words on this evidence, and
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff for
91. 16s. the treble amount being given up by the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 12.
ASSAULT.—COTSFORD V. GRAFFHAM.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff to recover a compensation for an insult
and an injury, as brutal as they were unprovoked. The plain-
tiff was a person employed to collect debts, and having been
ordered by Mr. Catherwood to demand a debt from the de-
fendant, the latter replied to the demand by most insolent
conduct and abusive language, and subseauently by going to

the house of the plaintiff, dragging ;him out, and violently 0-54
saulting him.
Francis Hewling knew Graff ham; he was at the shop 4
Messrs. Archer and Catherwood, on the 20th August last;
Graffham came there and asked for Archer ; witness told him
Mr. Archer was out; Graffham then said, " do you kw:4
where that matt or that fellow lived who collects debts for Ca.
therwood ?" witness told him in George-street;. Graffham thCf
said he was going further, and should return, which he dia,
and then asked the same question • on being told, he said be
would give the plaintiff a d—d good horsewhipping ; Mr. Ar-
cher' who was then in the shop, begged him not to do so; be
said he would if it cost him from 3001. to 5001. ; he then wenti
away, and in about a quarter of an hour he returned, and said
he had done it; and that he expected an action would be
brought against' him ; but he did not care, as he had 3001- °
defend it.

Mr. Archer corroborated the testimony of the last witness.
Cross-examined.—Gmffham said that on the preceding even.
ing Cotsford had written a most insolent letter to him ; witness
saw the letter.

Mr. Serjeant PELL here put a letter into the hands of the
witness, which the latter declared to be the same which Gtair-
ham had shewn him.

Samuel Whitehead proved, that on the 20th of August last
he saw Graffham come to the plaintiff's house, acaunfained.,
by a man named Bullen, when Graffham chewed the p
a letter, and asked him if that was his ; the plaintiff answered
" yes " on which Graffham attempted to pull the plaintiff 00
of the house ; the plaintiff tried to shut the door, but Graffham
rushed in and severely horsewhipped him ; the whip was 11
riding switch whip. Nothing material was elicited from this
witness on his cross-examination.
Three other witnesses proved the assault in the same planner'
Mr. Catherwood proved that he had given an authority to till
plaintiff to demand a debt from the defendant, and had desired
him to take proceedings if the debt were not paid.
Cross-examined.—Graff ham disputed this debt.
Re-examined—The letter which the plaintiff had sent was
occasioned by having been grossly abused by the defendant.
Mr. Serjeant PELL, for the defendant, acknowledged, that
if this assault had been really of the nature which the Jury had
heard described, brutal and unprovoked," the plaintiff would
be entitled to considerable damages. There had been no 04'
Bence of injury, though he did not mean to contend that be-
cause a man was not seriously injured he was entitled to
damages, and even to heavy damages. But he should prole
a provocation so gross, that he could not expect any one tamely
to bear it. When he said this he did not mean to defend every
man who replied to an insult by a blow, but still it was to be
taken into consideration in respect to the damages claimed by
the plaintiff.
John Lewis was shopman to Mr. Graffham in August last--
the plaintiff called twice about a debt alleged to be due to Or-
Catherwood ; the defendant was not at home on either of these
occasions. When he called a third time, the defendant was at
home, and the plaintiff demanded the debt, and threatened in
a very loud manner to sue the defendant. On being thus threat;
ened the • defendant ordered the plaintiff out of the shop, an
said if he did.notp, defendant would turn him out. Plaintiff
left the shop, saying.defendant was drunk, and not fit for buss'
ness ; this was in the morning, and defendant was not in the
least intoxicated.

Cross-examined.—When the defendant came down into the
shop, he said " Are you not the fellow who threatened to issue
a writ against me ?" On the plaintiff's answering in the affir-
mative, the defendant might have uttered an oath, and threat'
ened to kick him out. Witness was hbwever by no means poi'
tive as to the last words.
Re-examined.—ln the evening of the same day, a person In
into the defendant's shop, threw the letter on the counter, Ow
immediatejy left the shop.
Mr. Serjearit VAU G HAM replied, and contended that the ort"
ginal provocation was in the defendant's conduct at his 01113.
shop.
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS summed up the evidence, and.
observed that the assault, unconnected with othercircurnstanoest
would have called for considerable damages ; but it was. for
them to consider whether the conduct of the plaintiff had 11,1
been of such a nature as to reduce the damages to a very sinv''.
amount.

The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.

OLD BAILEY, DEC. 12.

Yesterday Thomas Gibbon* was indicted for having, in Naf
last, feloniously intermarried with Mary Ann Parsons, his law'
ful wife Elizabeth, to whom he was married in 1817, being then
alive.—Both marriages, and the life of the lawful wife, wer'''
proved.—The prisoner pleaded in his defence, that his wit°
Elizabeth ran away from bins, and he had no way of appeasil
his grief but by taking another—He was found Guilty, all
sentenced to seven years transportation.
After owe or two trifling cases of larceny the Sessions closed,
and the whole of the prisoners convicted were brought up for
judgment.
The following prisoners received sentence of death :—John
Wait, aged 52, for forgery ; Alexander Robinson, for forging
hall mark ; Jorgan Jorgerson, for returning from transporta-
tion ; Patrick Goulding, John Harris, James Gilchrist, Eliza-
beth Physick, and John Willis, for stealing in the dwelline-
house ; George William Henry, William Fry, Martin Bell'
William Parkins, Mark Herd, William Watts, James Brown'
and Thomas Fuller, for burglary.
Seven were sentenced to be transported for life ; four for is_
years; 29 for seven years ; and a number of others to various
erms of imprisonment, whipping, &c.
Respecting two convicts judgment was respited, viz.—Philip
Williams and John Payne.

TREAD-MILL WIT.—A brace of incorrigible-,
having the supreme felicity; after many years' separation, to
meet at the modern round-about, at Lewes, one of them ob'
served, " It was singular that their first interview should be
in such a peculiar place." " Not at all," replied the otbert
pointing to the mill, " you see how things turn round."
DESTRUCTIVE FIRE.--About half-past two
o'clock yesterday morning, a very alarming fire
broke out in Fore-street, Limehou 0, just on
the verge•of the river Thames. It originated ill,
a provision warehouse, which, together with the'
%Thole of the stock in trade, was reduced to
heap of smoking ruins.' The flamte communi'
cated to the house of Mr. SEABURN, CheeSeillol"
ger, which was also, together with the furniture:.
and stock in trade, destroyed. The houses 0"
Mr. BROWNE and Mr. JONES were much damage'
by the devouring element ; and several other
houses were partially injured before the fire
was got under.
The old bridge at Windsor has received greet
damage, in consequence of the water being so
high; it has knocked away some of the piles 01'
supported it.