The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-01 00:00:00

she was quite deranted ; at intervals she was calm ;
and at one time, when she was in apprehension of
dying, she exclaimed,. " That villain, Neale-.--I a-m
in this sit nation and near death, through him." She
said also, that he had managed her concerns; but never
said that he had been either bail or security for her.
She took her to her friends. She drank Soule wine
by the advice of the Doetor ; but was never given
to into:tication, 'floral° drinking spirits.- In going to
Wales, in very cold weather, she took a small quan-
tity of spirits two or three times.
Petherkk, an officer, Stated: that he took Neale
upon the warr4ot, and.tOldlim that he had a warrant;
He said he word be damned if he came. He had
a pistol in.his hand ; big the:witness rushed in upon.
him and seized him,. and took him away.
The books of Marlborough-street office were then,
produced; and-Gregory's information, whereOn the
'warrant was issued, was read. The warrant was
then put in evidence and read.. The examination of,
Gregory, sworn in the presence of Neale, was then
read, and also the minute of Neale's answer, in Mr..
Conant's hand-writing.
Neale stated in this exansination that Miss Davis
came willingly to hiS house. He said, " what is the:
end of all this ? I will answer no questions." He
further stated, that he did not deny that she was
found in that state. He left- her so at ten o'clock-.
. She came to Ms-house with her crwn consent.

but was immediately. seized with a strong shivering,
and in two minutes fell down and expired. They
also deposed that the Plaintiff's horses were'not in
so good condition as those of the Defendant's, and
consequently could not be expe6ted to pull so well.
The LOUD CHI BARON staled, that.th was a
n. h contradiEtion i e evidence which was given in at-
most every case which came before hint, where
horses were the subjeti of action ; but he thought
the Defendant's-Niritnesses in the present case enti-
tled to more credit than those -of the• Plaintiff, be-
cause the former were passengers, and the latter were.
the Plaintiff's servant, and others, who were not so
likely to know the, truth of the accident.
The Jury
.deliberated upwards of two hours, and
retprned a verdict for the Defe:idant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, iuNF. io.

DEFAMA'T'ION.

Mr.. PARK here ipterposed, and said he could now
' yield to the feelings pt his friends around him,,be-
cause the Defendant had made out a strict legal de;
fence. He should, therefore, be non Suited ; but if
there had been no warrant, or-no examination, .he
should have addrest ed the Jury, although he knew
he could •not,dernand heavy damages where a 'Ma- •
`gistrate acted bonafule, although he might' att erro.-
neously: . .

. .
Lord ELLENBOROUGII said, it could never have
been a case for more than nominal daniacs. It,
however, through. motives of feeling the nigistrare
had, acted without a warrant, he should Live direct-
ed a verclia against him to carry cust4. He was
happy to find Mr. Conant had_ acted with io much
caution. The Plaintitfagreeing to be non:anted, he
should not make any observations upoh_the case.
The Plaintiff was therefure tionsutted.

JU.N.B 29.

In the first Special Jury, cause that stood for the
day, the list of the nami.•s of 24 tutors, ,rt-turnt-d by
the Sheriff; wa% called Over, and not one Juryman ;
appeared, so that if tte pai ties had kiSheci to try their
cause by a Common Jury, it could not be done ; for
as not one of the Jury returned by the;Sheriff ap-
peared, there was' nothing to which they could pray
a Tales.

In another cause, in which a Special Jury was
summoned, the parties were not ready, and it went
otT of course.

THL: KING V. THE DUKE OF GOBDON.

The names of the July were called, over, and
such of tnetn that appeared had the usual fee, and
were told that the trial stands over until the next

Term.

BERTHOIVIIER V. BOND.
This was an action for -scandalous words, and the
damages were laid at 20001.
Mr. Serjeant .SnEritarto stated the 'case to the
Jury, and said that this action was riot brought for'
the sake of putting, damages into the pocket of his
Client, inasmuch as the Defendant was-the son of a
needy barbe=, and unable to pay even the costs of
- the action ; but it was brought for the purpose of
vindicating the character of the Plaintiff front the
foul-bversion that had been cast upon it by the De-
fendant. The facts of this case were shortly as
follows Berthomier was a-clergyman by pro-
fession, and by birth a Frenchman ; he had resided
for upwards of to. years at Eton,:' where he employed
lit,lhelt as teacher of 7 the French language to the
Eton boys; and during the whole of his:. residence
there-, as wel, as hefoie he wetitte live at Eton, he had
maintained a he must it reproachable and amiable. cha-
rade) , so much so, that_ front;thj!,Yeer down to the
poorest man its acquaintance; he.Seetneckto have,
been univer,altyrei,,,cted and beloved; and this (the
Learned Seri: ant=ohserve.•) Woold be evinced most
satistactorily vas. toe niintivr of all descriptioos of
eel-setts weo,..in a cause like had volunteered
to cow iorward and dta tare totir knowledge aftd
opinion of his ceafaeter and conduit. Netwith-
staiming, however, the un,ullied reputation which
the Plaintitt.had so
_long maintained,.yei in one 'no:.
meta Os prospects in life had been destroyed—his
very the,:ni of existence taken from him, and his
char:l6ler blasted by the breath of the, Defendant.
The Defendant wi:s about twtquy. years of age,
an apprentice to Mr.. Egglestone, 'a hatter at Wind-
sor, and a Magistrate of that town, .with whom the
Plaintiff was in the habit of dealing for hats.
On the 20th. of April last, Mr. Berthoinier hav-
ing met time Defendant, as he was going through
Eton' College, stopped him for. the. purpose of giving
direetioes-respeeting. the repair of an old hat, for
winch 'he was to call at the Plaintiff's ledgiug to ob-
ttahien.timle'lhi 'The
aDefendantpponied ;accordinglysocantileedc,olbi
vuet
rsnaotti
oalt,
respeiting the alteration of 'the hat, the lad. went
away and promised to return with it the next ,even-
'hag by, six o'clock. On Ft iday evening, about. ten
o'clock, Mr. Berthomier received intimation in- a
letter Prow Dr. Geodall; the head Mester of Eton
College, the purport of which was, that Dr. Goodall
was very
.aorry to inform the Plaintiff, that he had
the day preceding received a complain; Oa very
serious nature from Mr:EL;glestofie of Windsor, re-
speEting M. Berthomier's behaviour to his man. (the
Defendant); that. Dr. Goodall , would be obliged. to
piehibit all intercourse between the boys tinder his
care and-Mr. Berthomier,. unless he could viadicate
himself from the charge, recommending
at
the same time most earuestly to, adopt the best
pos-
sible mode of totally disproving the imputation laid
to hiS charge. 'Mr. Berthomier, shocked inekhe
-greatest extreme at such a coMmenication, imme-
diately took the necessary steps for learning what
the representations made by the Defendant were.—
Arid having ascertained that the substance of the
Defendant's accusation '.as that the Plaintiff, in ad-
dressing himwith respect to the hat,touched his thighs,
and acted in other respects in a tnannet too- indeli-
cate to describe ; he was advised to commence this •
action es the best mode of seeking that reparation
his injured character bad sustained. Thetearped
Gentle Man then resumed his statement with respect
to the high honour and character 'of his Client, the
unblenusned reputation of whosecOndott would. at
once- give the lie to so foul an accusation. He con-
,i eluded by stating,
,that he should,• if it were neces-
'sary, call not only the Rev, .Dr. liooddll, the Head
Master of Eton College and several of the pri-
vate tutors of that seminary,- as Well as several re-.
•speCtable Gentlemen of the neighbourhood, but also
the following distinguished peisonages ,vlio had been
pupils of the Plaintiff, .Lord Milton, Lord Lovame,
Lord Mal Pas, Lord Clive, Marquis of Downshire,
the Honourable Mr. Pelham, the two Mr. (liven-.
Mr.,Tennant, Mr. -Hooker, Mr. Broderip.o
Pm! Mr. -Stedman ; as also Sir Nicholas Cokhurst,
Rolestun, Mr. Hipp'esley, Mr: Beaumont, Mr.
Steward, and Mr: Ogle, ‘vito were at resent un-
der the tuition of the Plaintiff. Dr. Goodall was
then called to prove the words spoken by the De-
- fendant, whom he stated he conceived to hatie been
under a complete mistake respecting this transaction.
The Learned Doaor said, that he had ki10.% n the
Plaintiff for litteen-years, and could speak of him in
the highest terms of approbation.
• ,• Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD having proposed to call
other witnesses to the Plaintiff's character,
COURT OEXCHEQUER, JUNE 30.: SirJamcs: MANSFIELD observed, that' lie might
BRA-NSCOMB v . WHITE.
as well attempt to call 'witnesses to the charatter of
•
•i the ArChbishop of Canterbury. The -very circutn-
Tile Plaintiff and Defendant in this cause are pro- stance of the Plaintiff holding the high situation lie
prietors'of stage coaches on the Deptford road, 'and did, was itself evidence, of his good conduct.
the action was brought for the value of a horst.which
wasalleged to have been killed, When the coaches Mr. Webb, Mr. Reilley, and Miss Webb, were
called for the purpose of corroborating the statement
got entangled upon the road, by the Defendant's tie- of Dr. Goodall 'as to the Words spoken by the De-
gligence in driving,' Several' witnesses swore that Pendant.
the Defendant was the.cause of the coaches Coining • Mr. Serjeant LENS then addressed the Jury in an
in Corned, and that tlib Plaintiff's horse was 'struck eloquent speech, in mitigation of damages, on the
by the pole of his coach. On•the other s:de, five part of the Defendant. He stated it was not his in:
passengers.. who were in and-upon the defendant's j tendon -by any ineans-to impeach the'charader of
coach, swore that his coach, which the Defeudant
drove the Plaintiff, of to impute to him that he had been
himself, was before the other upon the road
guilty Of what the, Defendant had through mistake
'all the way. from Deptford, and that ati6-Plaintiff's attributed to him. But as it was evident that there
driver waS-, whipping his horses furiously to get be-
fore it, and drove the fore-wheetof his coach. within was no' malicious motive in the conduCt•of the De-
fore
time hind-wheel' of the Defendant's ; that his off Pendant, and as the Plaintiff 's charaEler would again
horse was never touched by the Defendant's coach, stand fair in public estimation, he hoped time Jury,
under such circumstances, and considering the po-