The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-30 00:00:00

from school of my son's want of ability was that he was slow ils
acquiring classical knowledge. In rnathematik's be was report
ed to excel.

Mr. Serjeant PELT., who, with Mr. Serjeant Vt. is.r.te, ap-
peared for the defendant, said that the addresa which had been'
delivered by his Learned Friend on the other aide Oak not war-
ranted by the evidence which he had subsequently adduced:—
It was said, in the outset, that in the course of a fortr4keht-tive
defendant had expressed " a premature and an illiberal oinsiews"
relative to the want of capacity which was manifeseesl- by the
prosecutor's son. So far was this from being the fact„ that the
young man remained in the defendant's house for the space of
a whole year ; and the first complaint made to the prosecutor
was not until three months after the apprenticeship had takers
place. It was next asserted that the intimation was not cyan-
, ailed to the prosecutor in a decorous manner. The Jury
were assembled to pursue a painful and delicate -investigation,
The defendant was admitted to be a man in high practice, and
he was charged with having grossly and waronnly insulted
the feelings of a clergyman of the Church of England, and of
the father of a family, by the manner in which he had men-
timed the prosecutor's son. In order to ascertain whether
that charge was or was not justified, it was necessary to
examine the entire correspondence between the parties. But
the jury could not do this. And why ? Because, while the
prosecutor admitted that many letters had passed between
eiders and the defendant, on the subject of his son, botls
before and after the writing of those letters which were se•
lected as the ground of this indictment, yet none a them
had Seen produced. This proved, he thought, that the
whole case was not brought before the Jury for their consider.
ation. This had been rendered a peculiarly painfut investi-
gation by the prosecutor, because he had chosen to place
himself and his son in a situation, as if to offer the defendant •
the opportunity of proving that in fact the young now was
wholly unfit for the business ,to which he had been siren •
ticed. The defendant disdained to availhitrixelf of sunn an,
opportunity ; though, even it' he had been inclined to use ir,
he could not, since that was not the issue to be tried, under
the course of proceeding adopted by the prosecutor. _Suppos-
ing that the defendant had used the word "fool" in conver-
sation with the prosecutor's brother, there was no proof that
he had given that brother any authority to repeat the word
to the prosecutor. Was this prosecution instituted to get the"
young man away front the defendant and to article him to
another surgeon ? That could not be the object, for that had
been effected already. Was this proceeding resorted to, in
order to get back the premium which had beetie.puid to the
defendant ? Certainly not ; for that premium the defend-
ant had scorned to retain. Let the Jury look a little at the
conduct of the prosecutor. Ile had actually compelled the
defendant to retain the young man in his employment
'luring twelve months, and when that period had expired,
and the defendant, thinking he had a right to he relieved front
what he deemed to he an incumbrance, insisted on his being re-
moved, how dill the prosecutor meet him ? IVhy, with an
indictment for libel. The defendant had been justly described
as a medical practitioner in high and extensive business ; and
it was necessary for his interest that his apprentice slonad pos-
sess an active an intelligent mind, not a slow and sluggish one.
He had, therefore, as he honestly might do, declined the her_
vice of a young man whom he believed to he unfit for the busing's-4'
of a surgeon. The Jury would have to decide whether the de
fendant really entertained the opinion expressed in his !enters
and if he did entertain it, no matter whether it was or was not
a correct opinion, he was justified in stating it to the father.—
This was one of those privileged cases in which such communi-
cations were protected in law. Much stress bad been laid on
the grossness of the defendant's language ; but, if he had used
any gross language, the Jury might safely conclude that it had
been produced by the letters of the plaintiff, which had pre-
ceded the alleged libels. But, even if those letters bad not been:
the cause of the language complained of, still grossness of
phrase would not warrent them in delaring that the letters were
libellous. It' the prosecutor were firmly convinced of the justice
of his cause, if submitted in the fullest manner to a Jury, shy
had he withheld a number of the letters ? Why did he not bring
them all forward ? The alleged libel was deficient in that evi-
dence of a malicious intent which was generally furnished by
the mode of publication. The indictment did not pretend to
state the publication, neither did it set forth that the libel had
been written to provoke a breach of the peace. A fter commenr—
ing at considerable length on the expressions used by the,pre,
secutor in his letters (on the epigrammatic severity of which he
dwelt with great force), the Learned Sergeant concluded, by
again impressing the Jury with the idea, that the language used
by the defendant had been called forth by the letters which had
previously passed between the parties, and which the prosecu-
tor, for what reasons he best knew, did tint appear to think it
prudent or proper to disclose.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDA LE summed up, and the .lure. after
a minute's consideration, returned a verdict of--Not

CHOW); S 1 DE.—(Refire Jwtice atelr.t.t s.)
HORSE STEALING.

Henry Percival was indicted for having, on the Mb of
April last, in the parish and borough of Totness, in this comity.
feloniously stolen one mare, the property of Samuel Heath. )t
appeared that the mare was hired out to ho ridden to Bury Po-
meroy, and ought to have returned within a reasonable time.—
Instead, however, of being returned, it was found elsewhere :
and notice having been given to the prosecutor, he rcelait ned.
his property. As the case now stood, there was not the slightest
evidence of the guilty intention of the prisoner at the time be
borrowed the horse, and the Jury acquitted him.
A few other cases were gone through ; and Henry Percival
was then again put to the bar, charged on another indictment
with having feloniously stolen a hone, the property of Wilbarn
11lugford, on the 29th of April last. It appeared that the pri-
soner directed the hostler of the White Hart Inn, r,!:eter, loge:
him a good looking horse to go eight miles and a quarter on
the Honiton road ; the hone was procured from the prosecuter,
but the prisoner, instead of driving him along the Honiton
road, took him in a contrary direction, and sold him at Stratti
Alolton for seven guineas.
The prisoner, in his defence, said, that if he had wished to
have availed himself of the many opportunities afforded him
for his escape, he might safely have done so. fie declared
that young Aftigford had repeatedly told him that he did ncst
mean to prosecute, and indeed, said he would not prosecute,
and he advised prisoner to write to his friends for assistance.
Itlugford and the constable staid behind him drinking on the
road several times while he was proceeding to Exeter; they get
nearly intoxicated, and he might easily have eseaped, had .he
thought proper to attempt it ; hut he relied on the promises of
Alugford, and he had not, therefore, taken any advantare of
the many opportunities of escape which had been afforded bin/-
Mr. Justice (iazr errs, in summing up the case to the Jury.
said that they must dismiss from their minds any circumstance's
connected with the prisoner, which might have oceurral
this morning, Dot which had no reference whatever to the yee-
sent inquiry. They were to try the present ease on the vi-
deuce adduced, and on that alone. The prisoner was cbargtil
with having feloniously stolen a horse, and to find him gun; :e
of that offence, the Jury must be fully satisfied that at then...
rnent when the prisoner hired and rode away with the hOrme,
contemplated committing the crime with which he was wow
charged. If when the horse was delivered to him he did not har-
bour in his mind the guilty intention of stealing the animal,
although he might have afterwards forgotten the trust that butt
been reposed in him, and have absconded with the horse and
sold it, still his doing so under such circumstances, wosid
amount only to a breach of contract. His Lordship thee pro-
ceeded to recapitulate the evidence, making his observations
upon it as he went on. He afterwards added, that the Jury
looking at all the circumstances of the cane, were. to
consider whether the prisoner hired the horse with the fair
intention of proceeding on a journey which he really meant ta
take, or whether. he only obtained possession sf the horse
order to carry into effect a felonious design to steal it. Iry the
former case, the offence would only amount too breach of con-
tract, while in the latter it would clearly be a capital felony.—
The prisoner had spoken of some promises held out nithini ter
young litugford; those promises, if they had been given,
amounted to nothing. The horse was the property of the father,
and the son had no right of his own flee will, and it. did not ap-
peaehe had authority from his father to make the pronniacw,
independently of which, even had such promises been made, it
would have been extremely illegal to carry them into execution.
The Jury after a short deliberation returned a verdict of Cui/k.
His LORDSHIP then proceeded to pass sentence upeis the
prisoner. He observed that the evidence which had been.givert
in this case could leave no doubt as to the guilt of thenori-
sorer, who had been convicted of an offence which unhar-
pily had of late increased to such an extent as to render
absolutely necessary that the sentence of the law that .had
for so. long remained without being. carried into effeet
should now again be put in force. :It grieved hini mulla
:0 see a purses of the prisoner's education and eta:lonia