The Sun.
London, England, 1807-05-22 00:00:00

• LOS Wiry,
Ile tau occasion toV. to :I )TOlll3, to attend
various meetings of 'arbitrators, 'and to go through
involved and intricate' accounts. For all this business,
the whole charge was only 1301. -Roberts cikild not,
or would not, pay the bill he endeavoured, there-
fore,' to fight off, as the phrase. was, and for this
purpose hesrequired tic the Bin; should be taxed by
the
,Prothonotary; but, in the- sequel, it wak not
tamed at all. On this short and .Wain story _was
founded the calumny, misrepresenting every fgt.—
The Defendant propagated, through all Hollowell,
and, its vicinity,, that the Plaintiff had promiSed to,
Mrs., Roberts, tlie.,wife of the Person.. forwhom he
acted, to-charge nothing for all this, laborious exer-
tion, and yet that -he had raised, an extravagant bill
of 101, which, however, being examined, was re-
. dticed,to.s,ol....thhaving been taxed by the Chief:Sus-
tic-e and another Judge,, who reprinianded'the At,
torney publiely, in Court.,
Mills are not taxed, by the Judges,, but by certain
Offieers of the 'Court appointed for that purpose.];
There could not be a more impudent slander, and
invented against a person ‘v Mdse livelihood depended
upon the pur4'and integrity_ of his, chara6ler. Fn
this situation,, the. Vlaintitf could not continue his
employment wit cut taking steps, to restore his in-
jured reputation.. For this purpose he wrote, a tette;
to the Defendant,, strongly insisting that there was
gik,und -.for the "caluinny,, and 'desiring that it
might be contradided 'the application produced a,
dry and; insolent answer: The Plaintiff' again ex-
postulated,. defying - the Defendant :• to. pres,e his
charges ;, aud demanding, that if he could not prove
theM,„ he would retraa' them.. 'Me Learned Coun-
sel would. read the reply,'hecause:N excess of ore-'
dulity in. the Minds of the Jury could lead them , tt
suppose: that he stated from, baemor,3s corre&ly the
contents.

, .
". S —ll,l)on:the receipt of your tenet, it was my inter,
tion to have had satisfaCtion of you for the opprobrious lan,_
gliage. and epithets you have used of me. But wishful first,
for rny own gratifieatiou,: to investigate further the anecdote.
which I had in the 'course of conversation related, I called
again upon Gry ffli Is- Williams, who csnsrrned. again the •
whole;- and farther informed me, that he had direetions from..
the Attorney-General 0 prosecute -you for perjury. Until
you have cleared.yoku-self of this hitpuzalion, cannot, look
upon you as a Gentle Man ; and must disrniss'you -With'', the-
zpithet of a scoundrel, which your conduCt tome merits.
" 3d July, i 806.". four's," 3c.

The Plaintiff (continued the Learned, Couqsely
has complied with. that requisition of the Defendant,(
and he came to an English Jury to. relieve himself
from a charge so.unjust and oppressive to his feelings.
The words would be proved, and the letter would.
be produced, and, no
,doubt„ ample damages., would:
be given-. nothing could. exceed the hardship upon
the Plaintiff, excepting, indeed,' the hard, Male.vo,'
lence' Of the Defendant,

Mr. James Ewer being examinedby Mr. GAAR
said,: that IVlr.,William Williams, Colonel Hughes,,
and the Defendant, having dined at his house, soon
after the ladies had withdrawn,' the Defendant ob-
serVed, that " Roberts's conduel. was• not hetter• than
that of other Attornies, fOr that he _had offered to..
Mrs. Roberts to transaet her law business for no-
thing.; but after this, notwithstanding his professions.
of friendship, he bad brought in a'. exorbitant
charge of I 501. Which bill was after Wards taxed, and.
reduced to 5•01. hilt not without a severe reprimand
from the Court." The witness further said, that the.
'same language was repeated by the Defendant at the
public Billiard
.Room, who. added, that G.r;flith••
Williams confirmed the whole, producinc, at the
same time a copy of the letter which had b%an.read
by the Learned Counsel. On his crossexatnination,
he said, that the conversation was held on •the 24)th.
of Junei he did not recollea that it was introduced
by some talk about a little French milliner, but the
name of Madam. Coberge was mentioned, with
whom it was 'said that Mr. Gryffith-Williams had
some flirtation. firs. William Williams, in the
presence of the witness, told the Plaintiff of the c 4...
lumnious- expressions used by the Defendant.
William Williams being called, confirmed the
leading particulars first stated. The Defendant said,
the more the Plaintiff stirred in the business the
worse it should.be for him. On his cross--e:Carnina, •
Con " the witness said, that Mr. Gryffith Williams
being in the next room _with Matiaroe
tvhen Roberts, the Plaintiff, made the offer to Mrs;
RObetts, he, Gryffith Williams, slipped behind the
curtain, and heard the conversation. The inn began
with the little French milliner. •

Mr. TOPPIN4, for the Defendant, complained that.
the Plainti'ff had made himself an Attorney s
Court on 'purpose to bring the action here pri.
vilege in that charaaer. The conseence was, that
' if the Plaintiff obtaince-t-rrtti of only one shilling,
the Defendant would have also to defray the costs,
including tbti-attendance of witnesses, which would
amount to between 3001. and 4001. ' This calumny,
which had been magnified into importance by the
elocizttnae of the ATTO RN EY,G-BN ERAL, •
was connected with a frivilous dialogue about a little
French milliner, and a ridiculous trick of Mr.. Gryf,
fiat Williams, in playing at hide and seek behind the
curtain. Was it consistent with truth and justice to
aggravate to such an etstent a dispute between a
couple of fiery Weldithen, who knew nothing of
the phlegmatic habits of their Eastern neighbours
The Learned counsel hoped that the Jury would
consider the smallest damages more. than a suffi-
cient reparation under such circumstances.

Lord ELLENAOROI/Gli, after stating the nature of
the action, commented at some length hoth on the
conduCi of the Plaintiff and of his witnesses. He did
pot hlame the former for being careful of his reputa-
tion, but he ought rather to have
.sought redress in
damaged. from Mr. qutfith Williams, if the scandal.
originated with him. His Lordship said, he should
not - have thought it necessary, in a confidential or
Careless communication of this kind from the De-
fendant, to have immediately -informed the Plaintiff
of the subjea of it, as the witness bad done; he
would rather have cautioned the Defendant, and
would have suspended imparting the slander to
the /Plaintiff •until it was seen that the Defendant
Persevered in propagating the calumny with obstina,.
cy.and malevolence.—Verdia fbr the Plaintiff 10,

HACKNEY COACHES.

NACANN 11, poLLowAy:

This was an adion to recover compensation in da-
mages for a serious injury sustained by the Plaintiff,
in overturning his carriage, by the negligence of De,
fendant's servant.

• The Plaint ifi was a respeelable apothecary and map