The Sun.
London, England, 1809-12-19 00:00:00

This was an action brought by the e'ilaintiff, a re•
tail haberdasher and linen draper on Ludgate7hill, to
recover compensation in darnages against thtdeteu-
dant,,a respettable whOleSale linen and cotton fatior
in the city, for words said to be maliciously spoken
to a Mr. irancis Pulleyn, with an intent to injure •
the credit and reputation of the plaintiff'. The da-!
triages were laid at 2,9001., and the defendant pleadedyy
the general issue. •Ile qUestion was, whether the
words Were spoken in confidence to Mr. Pulleyn or
not. The Attorney-General stated the case on the
part of the plaintiff to the Jury in 'a very impressive.
manner, and said defendant had exerted himself to
ruin the 'plaintiff; who was a man of considerable
credit and some property, having dealt very largely
-with the house of Clark and Boyd, as well as others,
and also- with the defendant, and liad always kept
goOd his -payments. The witnesses ralied en the part
9f the plaintiff were Mr. Francis Pulleyn, to wheat
the communication was made, who is a warehouse- -
man in Friday-street, Mr. Morley.htte partner with
the defendant, Mr. Boyd, of the house 01 Clark and
Boyd, in Kolborn, and Mr. Joseph Whitridge, clerk
in defendant's house. From.kr. Pulleyn'S testimony
..it was clearly made out the words said to be spoken
were confidential, to; the abuse of entiduCt
was considered as highly reprehensible. Mt. Maley,
though called, was not permitted to give any teiti-
_mony, anu Mr.W liitridge proved that at the time the
1Nor(1,:-v,t•t:e alleged to have peen spoken,
plaintiff
owe (Ltendant upwards of 1,4001. .
-Mr. PARK, in a t ery able .speech,. addressed the
.Jurynn the part of t:;e defendant by lie 6i-
ration- of the Learned Judge, immediately without
retirio,2, h nd a verditt . for the clekti.taht. .

Mr.Gitunow stated this to be an a&ion to recover
from the :Defendant; the Plaintiff's third part of a
ship, ,p4chased with a sum of money which bad
crime into his hands' onaceount• of the Plaintiff, of
the 'Defendant himself, and of a third person of the
name 01 poitgill. With this money, arising from
the sale of goods belonging to these parties, a pur-
chase had been made by Corsan of a ship called the
Thames, on account of Alessrs. 'Philgill, Burke and
Corsan. But the Defendant refused to make over
to Plaintiff hiS share of it. •
NII-.PAnK, for the•Defendant,contended, a 3 he after-
wards stewed in evidence, that the three persons who
had been named, Phifgitl, Burke, and Corsan, were
. general partners in trade, and that, on a fair count-
ing„the Plaintiff was a considerable debtor toithe•
Defendant., also argued, that the purchase of theship in •
question "had been included in the French
• captors who were alien enemies to this country',
with whOm, therefore- any transaction that might
have taken place was illegal, and in consequence 01
which the Plaintiff could not be -entitled to recover
So tnuch.wete tbe Commissioners bri the Defend-
ant's Bankrupt Estate sarigfied- of this, _that they
had rctused to allow the Plaintiff to prove h'i" debt
uncle' the Commission, in consequence of which he
bioti.„ht thwresetit.action.
.•
Mr. Gatirit"),.% , in reply, .contended that it was
sutheieht to c, title the Plaintiff to recover, that Mu-
sty had bee': lectiveti by the Defendatit on aCc•,uht

tri
--•

LONDON rimed b) 14.1 CHARD HARRIS,,o2 No. 4, Mattlett.cort, liow-str..ct rand rublished by W „ i` ~,Initon.street, osArenc atql•Wc..,
At the SuN.Oplacs, No. i 12, Strand where 4dvertideve6ls, ()ram for tiae. Let:,..3 3 :or u.sa {punt-paia), must be addr'essad