The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 25.

The LORD CHIEF JuSTIOE resumed his sittings at Nisi
Prins in London, and tried a considerable number of common
jury causes.
GOLDSHEINR v. IIEwETsON AND ANOTHER.
Mr.'hawEs stated, that this was an action fir a libel, int,
puting to the plaintiff that he 'was a sharper and a swindler, to
Which the defendant had pleaded " not guilty."
Mr. SCARLETT said, that the paper charged as libellous would
not at first seem to convey the malignant insinuation charged
in the pleadings, but would be clearly seen to have that mean-
ing as soon as the circumstances were known. There existed a
society, designating itself as ".The Society for the ProtectiOn
Trade against Swindlers and.. Sharpers;' from which a list of
persons considered Unworthy. of trust annually proceeded. In
the intervals, thiS body was in the habit of issuing circulars to
warn the trade against persons whose unworthiness was detected
subsequent to the publication of the list, in which they stated that
the individuals whom they named " were reported to the Society as
improper: to be ballotted for as members thereof;" and this
cautious mode of expression was perfectly understood by those
to whom it was addressed as a warning .against swindlers. Such
a. circular had been put forth respecting' the plaintiff, and it
would be shevin to proceed from the defendants, who had been
impelled by interested and personal itaotives. Mr. Goldsheiner
bad purchased of them a lot of carpets, for which he had paid
according to agreement, partly by cash, and partly by a bill
, which-he accepted. Having completed his purchase, he sold
the carpets again at an advance of five per cent. on the contract
price ; and though they afterw,:rds found their way into the
hands of persons who, by selling than at a lower rate, excited
a suspicion of their 11Oriesty, no imputation could thence rea-
sonably arise against the plaintiff:The defendants, however,
thought.fit to stop. the goods; and on the plaintiff refusing to
give uP 'his bargain, they resorted to this means _hi order to
compel hint to resign it.

In support of thf.:: statement, it was shewn that the plaintiff's
name was seen in circulars similar to that produced ; that one
'of these had found their way into the shop of Mr. Swears, a
member 'of the society ; but Mr. Foss, the secretary, declined
answering any questions relative to the hand-bill, arid there
was no evidence to connect the individual circular produced
With the defendants, nor any evidence that they supplied the
information, except that one of them Stated if they had put 11is
name in' the list, they had their motives.

The LORD 6HIiF JUSTICE, under these circumstances,
ordered the plaintifF to he,-anti he was accordingly, nonsuited.

WESTRAY V. EGAN

-This was an action by Mr. Westray, a printer, against Mr.'
Pierce Egan, the editor of Life in London, and other works
connected with boxing, to recover V. 7s. 6d., the amount of a
bill for printing several hand-hills and cards.
The placards and bills printed related to a proposed water-
party to the Nore, for the benefit of Mr. James Purcell, and to
the benefits of- Mr. Hares anti Dutch Sam, at the Fives-court;
tickets for which benefits were ,to be purchased of Mr. Egan
among others. The directions for the printing were given by
Mr. Egan, and -some of the bills contained particular injunc-
tions us to the style and manner in which they should be exe-
cuted, but they were sent home to those whose purposes they
were intended-to serve. -

Mr. SCARLETT contended, on this evidence, that Mr. Egan
was clearly liable, as the printer looked to him, and not to the
prize-fighters, on whose responsibility no reliance could be
placed. •
-Mr. BROUGHAM, for the defendant, contended that Mr.
Egan, who, had merely from kindness lent his talents to those
who were more able to strike than to write, had not made him-
self liable. but had given directions on behalf of the.boxers, to
whom' lone the plaintiff was entitled to look. To sustain this,
case, he called the clerk of the defendatu, who proved that the
plaintiff requested . the defendant to recommend him to print
for " those persons,” and afterwards called to inquire the
.directions,
,that he might write to them fnr money. A card
was also put in, containing a note by Mr. Westray. to Mr.
_Egan, making the same inquiry.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
71. 7s. 64. - • •