The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-11 00:00:00

UN.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 10.

( Sittings after Michaelmas Term before the Lord Chief
Justice and a Common Jury. )
SLANDER.-LAMB V. BROUGHTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a sales-
man in Smithfield Market, to reco►er from the defendant, who
is a farmer in Norfolk, compensation in damages for an injury
done to his character, in consequence of certain slanderous
words spoken by the defendant.
From the evidence for the plaintiff it appeared that, on the
Bth of February lost, the defendant's drover delivered to the
plaintiff nine beasts, which he on the next day exposed for sale
in Smithfield-market. In the course of the day the plaintiff,
having met the defendant in the market, told him that he had
sold six of his beasts, two to a person named Miller for 511.,
two to Jenner for 501., and two to another person for 46/. ; but
in point of fact he had only sold five, of which one was sold to
Jenner for 251. The plaintiff discovered the mistake in the
course of the day, but he did not think it necessary to mention
it to the defendant, as the defendant had seen four of his beasts
leave the market unsold. On the Monday following the
plaintiff sold the other four, and he tendered the defendant
an account of the proceeds, together with a checque for
the amount. The defendant being dissatisfied with the
account rendered to him, met the plaintiff on the 23d
of February, and asked him why he had not given credit for the
proceeds of six beasts sold on the first day. The plaintiff men-
tioned the mistake which he had made, and referred the defend-
ant to the different persons who had purchased the beasts. The
defendant was dissatisfied with the explanation given by the
plaintiff; and he then said he had been robbed and cheated,
and that he should arrest the plaintiff immediately. On the 15th
of April following the defendant met the plaint►flat a cattle
fair at Norwich, and said to him, in the presence of several per-
sons, " When do you mean to pay me the money you owe me ?"
The plaintiff replied, " What money ?" Upon which the de-
fendant said, " You are a thief, you are a rogue, and the money
which I ought to have had you have put into your pocket."
Upon the cross-examination of one of the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, it appeared that after the slanderous words were spoken
by the defendant, the plaintifi' asked him if he would be satis-
fied if he (plaintiff) would make an affidavit about the sale of
the beasts, and the defendant replied that he would.
Mr. SCARLET,' addressed the Jury for the defendant. The
Learned Counsel contended that the plaintiff was not entitled
to a verdict, inasmuch as the offer of the defendant to be satis-
fied with the plaintiff's affidavit respecting the sale of the beasts
clearly shewed that the defendant's intent►on was not to impute
fraud or felony to the plaintiff. The words were spoken by the
defendant at a time when he conceived that a sum of money
which he ought to have in his pocket was in the pocket of the
plaintiff; but admitting that the words bore the meaning at-
tributed to them in the declaration, the smallest damages would
be sufficient, because the plaintiff had not proved that lie had
sustained the slightest injury.
His LosinsHir summed up, and the Jury immediately found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Si. costs 40s.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

IMPORTANT RULE FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF AT TORNIES.

The CHIEF CO MMISSIONEU observed, that the Court had
frequent cause to complain of the defective manner in which
the schedules were framed. When the party employed by the
insolvent was appealed to for explanation, the principal was
seldom in Court; or if they were, the answer was, that this
or that clerk read and settled the schedule. It appeared that
some persons contented themselves with being on the Rolls of
the Court, and left the entire management of the business
to their clerks ; and hence arose those blunders and omissions
which were alike injurious to the insolvent and disreputable to
the Profession. The Court had from time to time adopted cer-
tain regulations which however appeared to be inefficient.
Hence the Court felt itself called upon to publish the following
Rule, which he (the Chief Commissioner) was sorry to say
would impose some additional trouble upon those Attorneys
who had as well as those who had not attended to their duty
with regularity and punctuality.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER then read the following Rule :
" Whereas by the rules and orders of this Court, it is among
other things ordered, that every schedule and balance sheet
shall be attested by the attorney ; and that the schedule shall
be signed by the prisoner on every side of every sheet thereof,
and attested by his attorney, such signature and attestation to
be verified by affidavit of the attorney, to be filed with the
schedule : It is further ordered, that from and after the Ist day
of February next, every schedule and balance sheet, and all
amendments thereto, be not only so signed and attested by the
attorney, but also read over to the prisoner before his signing
the same, or by or in the presence of his attorney ; such reading
over of the same to be verified by the affidavit of such attorney,
to be prepared, swore, and filed with the schedule according to
the rule of Court of 26th of January,•lB22.
" By the COURT."