The Sun.
London, England, 1814-02-17 00:00:00

SPANISH AMERICA.

The following is a communication from the
Mississippi, adverting to the state of affairs in that
part of Spanish America, the fate of which is
likely to determine the future situation of all the
colonies dependent; on the same power,:—

" NEW ORLEANS, Nov. 27

" By the vessel from Vera Cruz which arrived
here on Tuesday, several letters have been received
in this city, and we have been favoured with the
perusal of one, of them, containing the following
particulars :
" The insurrection never had, even in the days
of HIDALGO, assumed a character equal)? formi-
dable and decisive. The insurgents have at length
seized on Acapulco, one of the finest ports of the
Pacific Ocean, and perhaps the only safe harbour
in Mexico. It ►s.eminently situated for commerce
with the East, and was once faMous for its an-
nual galloons to Manilla.
" It appears .that Moantos, after• having se-
cured his* posts the Southern Provinces, and
organized a powerful army, found Euffi-
ciently strong to detach several corps to intercept
the communication.between Vera Cruz .and Mexi-
co. The artny'which blockaded a va!aable con-
voy in the. fortress of Perote, at the departure of
the abOve vessel, was estimated at'7o,oW then.
" perote is 95 miles from Vera Cruz. Appre-
hensions were entertained for the capital, is no
news from thence had been received for some
time at Vera Cruz.

N. B. We have just learnt that San Bras,
port in the Paiific Ocean, near Acapulco, has also
fallen into the hands of the Insurgents:"

LAW INTELIAGENca

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WgDNEsnArj Ftc. le.

LIBEL.t.AWitENCE V..PALNitrip GEIqT.

This, was an action bronght by a, person who
twactises, under ti conveyancer's certificate as a
Member of Grav'S-inn, in the counties of 'Cam-
bridge and i\oriolk,, agalns his 'brother-in-law,
AO attorney at ,Upwell,for. a libel inserted by the
defendant in the Cam-bridge Journal, in '.the'f,orni
of an advertisement, giving notice to the public,
that, whereas the plaintiff had demanded of his
(the defendant's) clients sums of money, under-
kretence of his anthority, by the payment of
which either they or the defendant would be de-
frailded, and had under false pretences called on
his clients, and took their instructions for busi-
ness, he thought it his duty to say that the plain-
tiff had left the service of the defendant more than
12 months; and as it was not generally known,
'ethe defendant cautioned the public that the plaintiff
had been twice a.bankrupt, and had not obtained
Lis certificate. This last allegQ,tion was the only
one which the defendant did not in his pleas justi-
fy ; and 'it appeared that although the plaintiff bad
been twice a bankrupt as a tanner, the last time in
the year 1807,. he had, in point of tact, obtained
Lis certificate in 1813, just before the publication
of the libel. Lord ELLENBOROUGU held these
latter words actionable ; but said, that as no
purposed misrepresentation was intended as to this
fact, the Jury would not give very large damages
on that score. The question for their considera-
tion would be, how nearly the pleas in justifica-
tion were made good ; and whether, from, the
evidence, there did not appear circumstances of
malice, which would warrant them in treating
this as the subject of legal. damages. It appeared
that the defendant had sent the libel to the Edi-
tor of the Cambriclge Journal, 'accompanied ,hy a
letter; and that when he received the newspaper,
which contained it, he read it to seven or eight
people, whO were asSembled.in thc:market-room
at Unwell, and said it was all true. lt, also ,ap-
pe,red, that he was so anxious to get rid of the
plaintiff, who had set himself up as ,his rival in
business, that he ()fired forgive,him a debt of
two hundred pounds, provided :he would quit
the, neighbourhood.. The plaintiff had been four
years in the defendant's Office, and the defendant
had trusted' him with thousands. In his jiisti&
cation of this libel, the defendant pleaded that the
plaintiff, had, In several instances, demanded of,
and been paid by.his clients several sums of mo-
ney, which were, specified ; but the evidence did
not make goad this justification, :it appearing that
the plaintiff had made such demands in no in-
stance, but that, on the contrary, the demands
being made upon him by the defendant's clientS,
he set up counter-demands against them by way
of set-off; in one instance claiming for business
chine as an auctioneer, which the plaintiff was,
and the defendant was not (and it appeared in the
books between the parties themselves, that the
former had charged the latter for buSiness done by
hint in that capacity) ; and in another instance,
claiming tor attendance in the county courts, the
charges for which, it also appeared, the dcfendan
allowed the plaintiff himself to retain. With re
sheetto another instance, under which the defer]:
dant,had justified, viz. that of charging the plain.,
tiff with having, whilst he lived in his service, re
ceived from one Robert Watkinson, another o