The Sun.
London, England, 1825-12-17 00:00:00

SLANDER.-MASON KINSEY.

This action was brought by the plaintiff and his wife against
John Kinsey, a police officer belonging to the parish of St:
Olayc, Southwark, for slanderous words alleged to have been
-spoken by the defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff's wife.
The words were :—You area w—.; you keep a b— 11—;
you have five husbands.
Mr. SCARLETT, in stating this case, described it to be one
of considerable importance to the public, inasmuch as it would
disclose gross misconduct on the.part of a police officer, who,
in the situation he held, should have acted otherwise. The
plaintiff was foreman of the works going on at London:bridge.
In order to be near his business, he took a house at the corner
of Joiner-street, in Tooley-street. His wife kept a green-gro-
cer's shop, and the upper .part of the house was let occasionally
to honest industrious persons. Mr. Mason had the misfortuoe
however, to live within a-few doors.of a disorderly house, kept
by a woman named Fenton. It had often been the subject of
complaint among the neighbours, and the wife of the plaintiff,
among others, opposed it. A • woman named Swenny, who
was supposed to be in the interest of Fenton, souse time in
August last, brought her stall and placed it before time door of
Mrs. Mason, for the purpose of selling the goods which. Mrs.
Mason sold. This was considered a great annoyance, and Mrs.
Mason, in anger, kicked it down: 'The next day she received
a visit from the defendant, who thought proper to use the words
which became the foundation of the action. He had an order
for her appearance before the Sitting Alderman. She accord-
ingly went to the Police-office, and as it appeared to be nothing
more than a charge of knocking down an apple-stall, the Ma-
gistrate was disposed to dismiss the ,complaint. The defen-
dant then said he could prove an assault, and he added—She is
a had woman ; she keeps a bad house. That she keeps a bad
house is notorious. The Magistrate said if that is so, she shall
find bail. She was accordingly locked up with common pros-
titutes. A person who was present would have been bail for
her, but the defendant advised him not to be hail. He said
she was under a charge of exposing herself indecently in a
barber's shop, and that the Alderman would not like so see
him (the man was a watchman) bail for such a person. In con
sequence of that representation the man declined becoming
bad.' She was taken to the Clink Prison, where the defendant
told the gaoler she was a notorious bad woman, and kept a bad
• house. She passed the night in company of persons of the
worst description. Mr. Scarlett asked the Jury whether such
misconduct on the part of the constable could be endured for a
single moment. if ever there was a malicious endeavour to
injure another it was this. Could they conceive a case more
horrible. A person was charged with knocking down an apple •
stall, and when the Magistrate would have nothing to do with
it, he was toldeshe was a bad woman, and the keeper of a bad
house. She was sent to prison, and the same story was told
again to the gaoler to make her situation the more deplorable.
If ever there was a case which required damages it was this :
Mr. Kinsey, having neglected to take into custody the woman
who really .did answer the description given of the plaintiff's
wife, turned the tables, and insulted an honest woman. He
should prove that the defendant took part in the quarrel be-
tween Mr. Mason and the woman named Fenton, and that his
unfortunate client, unable to stand against a constable and, his
party, had been obliged to quit her house. The plaintiff bad
left the shop, and was then carrying on the business of a pub.
bean. The charge against Kinsey was for calumnious
rnali-
emits words, and after he had proved his case, ,the Jury would
visit such atrocious conduct with damages which might in
future protect the public.
Mr• ScanararT called a witness of the name of Steward,
who proved the words.
Mr. Aitcheson, a gentleman residing in thellalgeware-road,
who was passing by accident at the time the defendant was dis-
puting with 3les. Mason, also proved that the defendant said
time words laid in the declaration.
Other witnesses proved Mr. Scarlett's statement.
Mr. GI; RNEY addressed time Jury for the defendant, and un-
dertook to show that the plaintiff's wife had assumed several
names, and that she was not the respectable honest woman his
Learned Friend had described. .
Several witnesses were called for the defendant.. It did not
appear that they could charge Mrs. Mason with immodesty.
There was no proof whatever that she had ever kept a disorderly
house. Indeed there was no justification on the record.
The Jury, under all time circumstances, found a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages .1001. • •

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. IG.
STOLEN BANK NOTES.
SNOW AND CO V• PEACOCK AND CO.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated that this was an action of
trover, to recover the sure of 5001. being the amount of a bank
note, which had, with other property, been stolen from the ser-
vant of the plaintiffs, who are hankers in London, and
changed by the defendants, who are bankers in Lincolnshire.
The question at issue involved a principle of paramount interest
to the commercial world, It was whether the defendants were
liable to the plaintiffs for changing a note of such amount as
hOO/. to a stranger, without having taken the due and ordinary
precaution to have the person's name inserted on the note, in
order, if it should afterwards prove to have been forged or
stolen, that a clew might be bad to trace out the party offend-
ing. The. Learned Serjeant then stated the circumstances of
the case, which were briefly, that a dividend warrant had been
paid into the Bank of the plaintiff's for 1,300/. which they sent
with their porter to the Bank of England, where he got dm

money, and was robbed on his return. One of the notes for
5001. was changed by a stranger at one of the banking houses
of the defendants in the country without having asked any of
the ordinary question. The plaintiffs had used- every thing in
the power to circulate the account of the robbery, and were
clear?, entitled to a verdict.
:17l.Ifghtfoot.71. ain employed kthe kee"for Auditing
Public Accauntl., I had a dividend "Wvrrint for one thousand
pounds macTe ounfE theoffice antlita.table tti Mr. Luke. This
is the warrant.

James Allen—l am employed in the house of Messrs. Snow
and Co. The dividend warrant was paid into our house on the
7th of September, 1824. John James was the porter to our
house at that time. He is now dead. This note was delivered
to him on the Bth of September for the purpose of taking it to
the Bank of England to receive the amount of it. 'He did not
bring back the produce. He came back and said that he had
been robbed of it. It is the invariable practice to examine notes
before they are exehanged.
A Clerk from the Bank of England here proved the pay-
ment of a dividend warant. He paid the dividend in two 5004.
notes, dated 22d of July.
Cross-examined—lf a person comes with a 5001. note to have
it changed, all that the Bank does is to require the name and ad-
dress of the person who presents it.
Henry Boustield—l am a clerk at the Bank at Bourne. The
same partners have a Bank at Sleaford. I have been a clerk
there about eleven years. On the 13th of April, about-eleven
o'clock, a person came there to change a note. The mail ar-
rives about nine o'clock. The person who came and asked me
to change a note was about 60 years of age, and of a middle sta-
ture. He did not appear to have the use of one of his hands.—
He produced the note and asked for patt of the change in Bank
of England notes. I told him it was not the practice to do that.
He then said he would take it in forty-live ten pound notes,and
ten five pound Sleaford notes, which I gave him, and he folded
them up and went away. I sent the note to London, at six
o'clock the same evening. Messrs. Hoare, Barnett, and Co.,
are our correspondents in London. They gave our account
credit for th<note.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE.—T had no pre-
vious intimation about the note, either directly or indirectly.—
There wete a number of fairs about that time; I gave the notes
in the ordinary course of business; there was nothing about his
hand or 'person to excite the least suspicion • a 5001. note is a
convenient remittance. The man told me Lis name was Ed-
wards; lie w a respectable looking person.
By a Juror—l do not recollect that I have, in the course of
the time I have lived there, exchanged a 5001., a 400/., a 300/.,
or a 2001. note. I may have exchanged a 100. note.
Warnford Taylor—l stuck up about 300 bills offering a re-
ward for the lost notes.

A lad proved the distribution of handbills, on the Bth and 9th
September, in the city, at all the lottery-offices, bankers, &c.
James MalliSon, the Registrar .of the newspapers at Somer-
set-house, produced the Morning- Advertiser and the line and
Cry of the 9th September, containing an advertisement offering
a reward of 5001.

The Banker's Clerk recalled by the LORD CHIEF JUSTCE
—We do not take in the frac and Cry ; I don't know that it
circulates in Lincolnshire.

Mrs. Downe—My husband prints the Hue and Cry; we send
about fifty of them into Lincolnshire.
Cross-examined.—We send diem to magistrates and gaolers.
They are not sold. We get the names of the persons to whom
they are to be sent from Govenment, through the Police.;
office.

The Banker's Clerk again called.—Mr. Hanley is a Ma.
gistrate of part of Lincolnshire.
..Lincolnshire is divided into
parts.
Mrs. Downe's cross-examination resumed.—l think I can
safely swear that I sent one to Mr. lianley. I have addressed
them for three years.
A Clerk from the Bank of England 'produced a book con-
taining a list of lost notes, which lied been stopped. No. 243,
dated 22d July, 1324, for 5001. was stopped. The note pro-
duced is the note; it has been cancelled.

By a Jurer--V‘Then a note is stopped, the Clerk of the Se-
cretary's Office enters it into a beck, which is sent round to
the various clerks. The number of the note stolped is gene-
rally first entered on the Cashier's card.
Abigail Nicholls—l was at the Bull Inn, at Bouvre, on the
13th of April. I think it was the 13th Of kpril ; it was about
the middle of the month. I recollect some persons corning in
there.

This was the plaintiff's case.
- 11ir. Serjeant SPANKIE then addressed The Jury for the de-
fendants. He eontended, at some length, that there was no
evidence of the plaintiffs having any property in the note at
the 'tinteeof its presentation to the defendants, and that no
action could be maintained. He also said that there was no
collusion or fraud exercised on the part of the defendants, and
therefore they could not be liable for the property. The
.plaintiffs had not shown that they ever had the lost. notes in
their poSession, and could not reasonably make the defendants
liable for what they never possessed ; neither had they shown
that any felony had been committed. The note had been
lost in the month of Alarch, 11i24, and-had not come into the
.defendant's- possession for seven months afterwards, during
which time it might have passed through above one hundred •
hands, and, in fact, the note bore testimony on its face that it
had passed through many hands. It was incumbent on the
plaintiffs to prove their actual or constructive possession of the
note, which they had failed to do.- They should also prove the
.conversion by the defendants to their own use, which could
not have been done at that distance of time. He contended
that it was not necessary for people to put their names upon
.notes. lle bad himself never done so, and would never sub-
mit to such an imposition. What right had the Bank ofEng-
land to have his name circulated all over town and country
upon .their notes ? .After several observations to the Same
effect, he concluded by saying that the defendants had taken
• all the necessary cantien, and were not liable.
The Loup UmEr JUSTICE, in summing up, observed that
there were two questions for the consideration of the Jury :
the first was, whether the plaintiffs had done all they might for
the recovery of the notes after they had been 'stolen, for if they
had not done that they could not obtain a verdict ; the next
question was, whether the defendants had used due caution in
changing a note of such amount. It appeared that the plain_
tiffs had sent about fifty copies of the Hue and Cry into Lin-
colnshire; they had also stuck up bills in town, and advertised
the loss of the property. It was obvious that the defendants
should have taken due caution in having the name of a person
presenting a 500/. note. Their caution should increase with
the sum. But it appeared that they had not been in the habit
of char ping notes of 5001., or even of 2001., and their caution
should have been proportionate. The only evidence was, that
the defendants were most respectable persons. He felt exceed-
ingly happy that the Jury were better judges of the case than
himself; but it had been decided by the Court of icing's
Beach, that unless a person had used dots caution, he could
not recover, anti it was tbr them to say whether the plaintiffs
had used due diligence 6r the defendants due caution, and to
find their verdict accordingly. The case was most important
to the commercial interests of the public.
The Jury fotind a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages 5007.,
adding, that they had not the leait idea of any thing fraudulent
or improper in the conduct of the defendants.

Th.e LORD CillEF .TusTicE said, that observation must be
very acceptable to the defendanti, than whom none could be
more respectable.

WALKER. v. REST, JI3

. , .
This was an action against the defendant, who is a proprie-
tor of hackney-coacbes,.for compensation for an injury sustained
by plaintiff, by having been thrown from his gig by the negli-
gent driving of one of defendant's servants.
Several witnesses proved that the defendant's coach, when it
had full room to pass by plaintiff, who was driving in his gig, in
Holborn, was driven by the negligence of the coachman again
die gig, which was upset, the shafts broken, and the plaintiff
thrown out, and much hurt.

Plaintiff's Counsel stated, that- his client did not want
damages.
For the defendant several witnesses were called, who'attri-
buted the accident to the quick driving of the plaintiff.
The Jury, after about halt' an hour's consideration out of:
Court, returned, giving a verdict for the plaintiff Damages—_
81. 17s. Gd. (the sum which plaintiff had paid for repairing
his gig.)

SECONDARIES OFFICE, DEC. 1&

CASE OF SLINDER.

SARAH PENN V. WILLIAM BULL STAPLETON%

The plaintiff in this case was an unmarried lady keeping a
reputable seminary at Margate, and the defendant the son of
General Stapleton, of Thorpe Hill, near Staines, and brother-
in-law of' the plaintiff. The defendant having allowed judg-
ment to go by default in the Higher Courts, a .lury was as-
sembled here to assess the damages sustained by the plaintiff,
in consequence of the slanderous words spoken by the defendant.
Mr. BiloUGHAil addressed the jury in support of damages,
though he stated that the sole object of his client was to vindi-
cate her character. He then entered into a history of the last
twelve years of her life to prove that it was irreproachable.—
The defendant and his wife placed one of their children, a hey,
at her school and were so satisfied with the manner in which he
was treated, that they also requested her to take charge of their
little girl. Yet on the 13th of June Mr. Stapleton after meet-
ing her walking with a most respectable gentleman to whom
she expected to be married, and speaking civilly to her, went
to her house, and in her absence demanded in the most per-
emptory manner from her assistant the restoration of his chil-
dren, whom he forcibly carried away. He then sent to demand
the children's clothes, and as some of them were at the wash, ,
and could not be delivered at once, a Constable was ordered to
get forcible possession of them, to whom they were delivered
in the state in which they were. On the next day, seeing her I

at a window at the house of Mrs. Nott, a married sister of
her's, he held up his fist at her, charged her with having stolen
his children's clothes, in these terms—" You, Sarah Penn, you
I mean, (shaking his fist at her); you are a liar and a thief,
and you have stolen my children;s clothes." On being re-
minded by Mrs. Nott of the weak state of her sister's health
—" D—n her weak state, she is a-- and a prOstitute,” ins
the only reply. Not content with the outrage he had already',
committed, a considerable ti rnwd having collecred about the
door, he pointed Miss Penn out to them with alltheiggravated
expressions he had used. These were the words and acts for
which relief was sought, and for which the Jury, he was as-
sured, would award proper damages.
Witnesses having been examined in support of these charges, ,
111 r. ADOLPHUS addressed the Jury in mitigation. .
Mr. COLLENRIDGE, the Chairman, summed, up the evi-
dence, and after a short consultation the Jury found a verdict
of 1501. damages.