The Sun.
London, England, 1824-08-26 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDFORD, TUESDAY, AUG. 24.
WOODS, GENT., V. HOLLOWAY.
This was an action for slander, concerning the plaintiff, in his
character of an attorney of the Court of King's Bench, import-
ing that he had forged a will for the defendant's father, and had
thereby defrauded the defendant of property. The defendant
pleaded the general issue, " not guilty.'
The following witnesses were called in support of the plain-
tiff's case :
Mr. Abbott, an attorney of New-inn, proved the admission of
the plaintiff as an attorney of the King's Bench.
George Price produced a will of the late Mr. Holloway, from
Doctors'-Commons.
Mr. John Leach proved that he knew the plaintiff and his late
partner, Mr. Streeter, who now resided in America, and was ac-
quainted with the hand-writing of both. The had-writings, as
witnesses to the will now produced, of the 12th of October 1808,
were those of the plaintiff and his partner.
Mr. D. Sharpe, formerly articled clerk to the plaintiff, proved
the signature of the testator to the will in question.
Mr. John Cox, formerly clerk to the plaintiff, proved that
the will now produced was prepared by witness in the
_plain-
tiff's office. .1i e produced the original draught. Witness
received his instructions from the plaintiff. Defendant's
father was a client of .the plaintiff's. Has seen draughts of
other wills in the plaintiff's office, of prior dates to the one now
produced.
The will was then put in and read. The testator described
himself as yeoman, and appointed John Woods and John Bax-
ter his executors upon certain trusts therein mentioned. He
divided all his property among all his children, share and share
alike. He had two sons and two daughters.
The Rev. W. H. Cole, vicar and surrogate of the parish in
which the testator died, proved that in June,ll3l6, the executors
produced the will to him with a view to probate. In August
of last year, the defendant came to witness and requested him
to procure a copy of his father's will for him, from Doctors'-
Commons. Witness, in pursuance of this request, wrote to
Mr. Moore, of Doctors'-Coninions, from whom he received an
answer. Defendant afterwards called upon him. Witness
stated that Mr. Moore had replied that he could send a copy of
the will, which had been proved before witness, but he should
wait for further instructions, thinking there was some mistake.
The defendant said he did not want a copy of that will, but of
another, which he supposed to exist. The defendant said that
Mr. Woods, the plaintiff', had defrauded him (or used words to
that effect), by preventing the right will from being sworn to.
Four or five years previously, in 1817, the defendant called
upon him (a few months after the executors had appeared
before witness, and had sworn to the will), and complained of
the executors. On the 21st of February last, witness met the
defendant and the plaintiff by appointment, at the house of Mr.
Piggott, in Guildford ; on that occasion the conversation began
by the plaintiff mentioning the libelous reports which had been
circulated by the defendant. He said to the defendant, " I
understand that you have reported that I was instrumental in
forging a will, and that I have thereby defrauded you," or
words to that effect. He immediately requested him to make
an apology, or he must otherwise vindicate his character by
law, but lie was willing to forgive him, and take no farther
notice of the slander, if the defendant would make a proper
apology. The defendant said " What I have said, I will stand
to." He afterwards said " There were.two wills made by my
father, and the wrorg will has been sworn to." He then said
that the plaintiff and the executors had kept back the right one,
and that they had defrauded him. Witness remonstrated with
the defendant very strongly, and requested him more than once
to make an apology to the plaintiff, pointing out the conse-
quences if he did not, but he refused to do so. He refused as
if he was obstinate in his determination.
Cross-examined.—The defendant seemed on all occasions
when witness saw him, to be under a strong delusion that there
was another will. From his pertinacity upon this subject, the
defendant appeared always, in witness's opinion, to he of weak
mind. The defendant never stated any ground for the assertion
lie had made respecting his father's will, except that his father
had told him that he might expect more money. The defend-
ant is a jobbing tailor in a small way.
Mr. Thomas Piggott, an auctioneer or Guildford, deposed,
that on the 7th of February last, he saw the defendant near the
Court-house, in the town, about eleven or twelve o'clock. 'lt
was a market day. Witness was going to speak to the plaintiff,
who was then on the other side of the street. After speaking
to the plaintiff on his own business, the plaintiff said, " Do
you know who that little fellow is on the other aide of the way?"
pointing to the defendant. Witness said, " Yes; it is John
Holloway." The plaintiff then said, " I wish you would walk
across the road with me, to him, for he is always abusing"( me
whenever we come together." Witness went across with the
plaintiff, and the latter said to the defendant, " John, you
are continually abusing me whenever I pass up and down the
town; I wish you would explain what you mean to Mr.
Piggott." They then adjourned to the Red Lion Inn, in
order to discuss the matter. Witness said to the defendant,
" Now, John, what have you to say respecting Mr. Woods ?"
The defendant said, " Mr. Woods has made two wills for my
father ; the last will for 1316 my father never aimed, and he
has defrauded me out of my property." The 'plaintiff then re-
quested witness that he might have the use of his house fur that
day fortnight, the 21st, for the purpose of going into this busi-
ness again, in order that Mr. Cole and Mr. Baxter might be
present. The language above. mentioned was repeated more than
twice. The defendant addressed both plaintiff and witness
at different times. Witness understood the will of 11116 to mean
the last will proved. On the 21st of February, the plaintiff,
defendant, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Baxter met at witness's house
pursuant to appointment. The plaintiff then said to the de-
fendant, " Now these gentlemen are met, explain yourself'
what you mean by abusing me in the town whenever you meet
me." The defendant then addressed himself to the plaintiff,
and said, " Why, you have made two wills.thr my father, and
the will for 181 b my father never signed, and you have de-
frauded me out of my property." Witness remonstrated with
him, and the defendant got very warm. Witness said to him,
" John, you have received your legacy, and you have signed
a legacy stamp." Ile denied it. The legacy receipt was shown
to him with his own signature, and witness said, " Is that your
hand-writing, Holloway ?" Ile said it was. After that, the
plaintiff proposed to give die defendant that afternoon to come
forward and apologize for the abuse, and said if lie did so, he
should think no more of it. The defendant took his hat in
his hand, and going out of doors, said, " He would rot in gaol
first." The expressions above-mentioned were used twice—once
to witness, and again to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined—The defendant is sensible enough. Wit-
ness has paid, since the Assizes eontmenced, that he should net
be surprised to hear that the defendant was found in the bot-
tom of the river. The defendant is a tailor, and has a little
property. Does not know where he is now.
Mr. Keene, keeper of the House of Correction at Guildford,
said lie has frequently, heard the defendant say, " Mr. Woods
made a forged will of my father's, and has robbed me of my
property." Has heard him say this many times, within the
last four or five years.
Cross-examined—Witness has represented the defendant to
be a weak and obstinate man. Never heard the plaintif say
that the defendant was a madman. •
Mr. John Stun, son-in-law of the testator, proved that he
attended the them' of the latter, at which the defendant was
present. The will was rend that day in the presence of the de-
fendant, and then he said he thought it was not his father's
will. Witness asked him why he thought so. He replied,
that he thought it was not his father's will, because the seal of
the envelope, in which the will was, was broken. The de-
fendant had said he thought he should have had 5001. The
property was divided, share and share alike, amongst the tes-
tator's children.
Before the case for the plaintiff was closed, Mr. Baron
G Italiaat suggested, that possibly the plaintiff would, under
all the circumstances, be satisfied with an apology.
Mr. Serjeant TannY said, on behalf of his client, that he
was quite willing to make a public atonement for the injury
done to the plaintiff's character, he (Mr. Sergeant Teddy)
being quite satisfied that there was not the slightest pretence for
the imputation cast upon the plaintiff:
Mr. GURNEY (counsel for the plaintiff) said he doubted the
sincerity of the defendant's contrition, because abundant op-
portunity had been afforded him, without avail, of retractation.
The apology of his learnede tie
r nietnudi ;ItiieeStehrej erten:nit
tweofultchl
eb
de
eifnesnudf:
ficient, unless it was mad
ant's own sense of his misconduct.
It was stated that the defendant was not in the town, and
that no access could then be had to him.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, on behalf of defendant, submitted to
them, that the discussion which this ease had undergone must
have fully answered the purpose for which the action was
brought—namely, the complete vindication of Mr. Woods'

character. Indeed, the action was unnecessary for that pur-
pose, because no man who knew that gentleman could have
thought the worse of him from any thingthat could be said by
the defendant. Heavy damages a'ainst this infatuated de-
fendant could avail the plaintiffs nothing, and would have the
effect of casting the defendant into a gaol for life.
11r. Baron Guanast told the Jury, that the plaintiff was
clearly entitled to their verdict, because it was quite obvious
that the defendant had_ been actuated by the most malignant
motives towards a gentleman of respectability and character.
The circumstances of the defendant ought certainly to be taken
into consideration in estimating the damages, lest a verdict to
an intemperate amount might have the effect of punishing him
beyond the scope of justice.
The Jury, after deliberating a few minutes, found their ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 101.

WEDNESDAY, Auch 9.5.
Before Mr. Justice Buftßou
Mr. Justice 13unnouutt having cleared the gaol, sat this
morning to dispose of the following case in aid of Mr. Baron
Graham.

THE KING V. THOMAS HUGHES.
This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and
corrupt perjury, assigned upon evidence given by him in sup-
port of an indictment tried at the Michaelmas Surrey Sessions,
1822, charging two respectable tradiamen of Epsom (named
James Chandler and Timothy. Barnard) With stealing a turret-
clock hell, two leaden weights, anclother maw-Ws, the property
of the defendant.

It appeared that the defendant had been an auctioneer at
Cheltenham, and in the month of July, 1822, was in possession
of a house at Epsom, which was undergoing repairs, and had
for sale a considerable quantity of old building materials. The
defendant had been indebted lo Mr. Chandler and Mr. Bar-
nard, respectively, for some articles which they had sold him In
the way of their trade. The property which they were charged
with having stolen formed part of the building materials alluded
to. At the Surrey Summer Assizes in that year, the defendant
had indicted these individuals for the robbery, but the Grand
Jury ignored the bill. At the Kingston Sessions following, he
preferred the indictment above mentioned, upon which Messrs.
Barnard and Chandler were tried and acquitted, before the case
for the defence was closed. On that occasion the defendant, Mr.
H ughes, was examined as a witness, and, on his cross-examina-
tion by Al r. Adolphus, denied, among other matters, that he had
ever said to any body, after the bill was thrown out at the Guild-
ford Assizes," that if Barnard and Chandler were in any way
troublesome, he would bring on the case again in March follow-
ing, if it cost him 5001., and that they had better be quiet." He
also said that a watchman named Sugar bad informed him of
the robbery the next morning after it took place, and that Chan-
dler and Barnard had gone together about two o'clock on the
1 I th July into a stable, and that he (the defendant) went into a
loft, where he could see them both, and heard one of them
say, " There is that d—d Sugar with Hughes, telling or split-
ting upon us," or words to that effect. Upon these statements
the perjury was sow assigned. It was alleged that the defen-
dant had in the first place falsely denied the expression of ma-
, lice imputed to him ; and in the second, that the statement last
mentioned was false from beginning. to end. Several witnesses
were examined in support of the inthetment. It was positively
sworn by Mr. Barnard, and by two persons named Scott and
Jeffry, that the defendant, after the Grand Jury had ignored
the bill at the Guildford Summer Assizes, 1822, had stated,
" That it' Barnard and Chandler were in any way troublesome,
he would bring on the cause again next
arch, if it cost him
6001., and that they had better be quiet." M
Alr. Chandler and
Mr. Barnard swore solemnly that they were never together on
the defendant's premises on the 11th of July, as sworn to by
him, and -consequently that the defendant's assertion in that
respect was utterly false. Evidence watt also given to show,
that although Chandler had been on the premises at eight
o'clock in the morning, yet that after that hour he was far away
from the premises, and had never been near them the rest of
ground
the day. '
111 r. BIIODERICX addressed the Jury at considerable length,
a
tdefenceat there
etarekwenalwanso,
justthat agltrhoouungahioirneipikoringtinogi
fact,c turned
ou
ft
Chandler and Barnard with the robbery, yet the defendant, in
.giving the evidence which he did, was not actuated by malicious
motives, but "well- 'from the information. of others, that which
Was the thandati on of his • belief in the guilt of thesopertons.
The Jug deliberated for. some time, and found the defen-
dant.
GN Jug
The judgment will be reserved for the consi.
deration oft ile Court above.

NEWenetifSeTreLli-rU.
BPaOrNon-Tigro,
cAx.OO. 23.
}TEPPER v. MARSHALL AND OTHERS.
Mr.
the P °i
defendantsLoe x, n
wstating r
three
isca
persons ae ootti
lethJeury, namestolodf
itthlaem
that r.
shall, Fell, and Jones, of whom the first was a glover in Lon-
don, the second an auctioneer at Newcastle, and the last a
sheriff's officer in the same place. The plaintiff' was originally
a hosier at Newcastle. linfortunately he had fallen into em-
barrassments, and had been under the necessity of seeking to
be relieved from them by the Insolent Act. Having been
thrown into prison in the early part of the year 1022 he had
obtained his discharge under that Act
the 20th of Xugust,
in the same year. After
his discharge
ie returned to New-
castle, took the Half Moon Inn, and furnished it with wine
and spirits. Marshall, the first of the defendants, was LT_
pointed assignee to his estate, on his liberation from pri-
son. This gentleman, in consequence of some circum-
stances which he discovered in that capacity in the May
following, moved the Court for a re-hearing of the case, and
upon such rehearing, got him remanded to prison for twelve
months from the date of it. During his imprison.
ment, his wife, who was left with four young chil-
dren, was protected by his relations, and was, icy their
liberality, enabled to keep the Half Moon Inn, after her
husband had been• torn from her. The defendant Marshall,
upon hearing of these circumstances, wrote down to the two de.
fendants in December last, and authorised them, as assignee,
to break into the plaintiff's house, and to sell up every thing
they should find. Fell and Jones did, in consequence of such
authority, break into the house, and disposed of every thing
found upon the premises by auction, even to the bedding of
Mrs. Hepper and her family. For this forcible entry and sale,
his client was entitled to their verdict, as well as for the inter.
ruption which they had given to his business by shutting up
his house for more than a fortnight. Out of 85/. which the
plaintiff's goods had sold for, how much did they think had
been carried to the credit of the unfortunate insolvent? • Not a
single farthing ; on the contrary, the defendant Fell had brought
in the estate debtor to him, in a balance of 21. 12s. 2d. He ad-
mitted, that out of the 851., which he had just mentioned to
them, a quarter's rent had been paid to the landlord, anti some
taxes, amounting in all to but the residue had been swal-
lowed up in the charges of the defendants. There was one
charge of 10/. for the man in possession ; there was another of
251. for }wastages, letters answering, journeys, and incidental
expenccs ; there was another of 61: for the information afforded
by Mr. Glover; there was a fourth of 41.45., for the auctioneer;
and of 11. is. for his two clerks. There were likewise other
charges, inferior in amount, but all partaking of the same cha-
racier.
The Learned Counsel then called witnesses to prove his case;
anti after they had been examined,
Mr. PAR xr, for the defendant, complained of the very ex-
aggerated statement which his Learned Friend had made of this
case. What his client, Mr. Marshall, had done, he had done
in his capacity of assignee to the insolvent Hepper's estate, in
which capacity he felt himself entitled to seize all these goods in
execution. One point which he should submit to their con-
sideration would be this—Was not Marshall entitled to make
such seizure ? He contended that he was, and that all he had
done, according to the evidence, was to give a simple order to
Fell and Jones, that it should be made.
Mr. Baron IlueLoex told the Jury that the questions which
they had to decide were, first---was the property sold under this
execution acquired subsequently to the plaintiff's discharge
under the Insolvent Act? and then, if it were, what amount
of damages ought they to give to the plaintiff? If they were of
opinion that the property was acquired subsequently to his dis-
charge, they would say what the amount of it was, and then
they would consider what damages ought to be given for the
trespass which had been committed.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1251.

(Before Mr. Justice BAYLtY. )
yikk• LAIDLAW L. imit.lolT.
NI:. SCATILXTT stated the case. The plaintiff was a flamer
residing in the northern part of that county, and the defendant
was a gentleman practising as an attorney in the town of Der.
ulion-Tweed. The plaintiff had employed Ow defendant
in. an action which he had been obliged to bring against a man
of the name of Hall, on a promissory note for Wt. In the
August Assizes for 1822 the plaintiff had obtained a verdict in

that Court for that amount. in the subsequent Term, Hall
obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why that
verdict should not be set aside. The rule was, however, dis-
charged, and the plaintiff' became entitled to judgment in Hi-
lary Term, 1823, for his debt and costs, which amounted to-
gether to 272/. Hall, who had been at large upon-bail, sur-
rendered in discharge of it on the 12th day of April, 1822,
and was immediately committed to the custody of the Mar-
shal of the King's Bench. At that time he meditated a frau-
dulent transfer of his goods to defeat the execution of the
plaintiff; but, finding that he could not obtain the benefit
of the Insolvent Act without swearing that he had given up
all his property to his creditors, and having some compunc-
tion which prevented him from taking a false oath, lie wrote
to his brother at Horsham, desiring him to see whether
he could not get his discharge from the plaintiff for a less
sum than that for which he had been committed. Ile also
wrote to the plaintiff, offering him 201. for his debt and costs.
The plaintiff took the proposition to the defqndant in the pre-
sent action, who had been his attorney in the action of " Laid.
law v. Hall." The defendant immediately advised him to re-
ject it, as by so doing he would be enabled to recover a much
larger portion of his property. The plaintiff rejected it accord-
ingly. Shortly afterwards; Hall's father offered to the plaintiff'
1001. in -discharge of his debt, in the presence of the defendant
Elliott. The offer was again refusal.- His friends were then
preparing to pa 7501. to the plaintiff, and to give him security
for the.costs, when the event happened which gave rise to the
present action. Two terms had elapsed from the time of judg-
ment, having been signed against Hall, without his having been
charged in execution i • and the consequence was that by the
practice of the. Court he became entitled to his discharge by
supersrdeas. As soon as he had obtained it, which was on
the 18th of May 1023, he forwarded a letter to his father
by the same mail; In which lie himself started from London,
desiring him to break offall negociations with Laitilawl as his
person was now free from all future arrests at the suit of Laid-
law, and his goods were already removed into Scotland, where
no English execution could follow them. When Laidlaw heard
of Hall's being liberated from prison, he wrote to the defendants
to know how that had happened. The defendant, without giving
any direct answer to that question, replied in a letter dated 28th
pf May, 1823, that Hall's liberation was an event that he had
no reason to expect, as he had never heard of his inten-
tion to come out of prison. This was a very curious reason
for an attorney to give; he had got the defendant Hall
into prison, and he ought to have kept him there till lie
had paid the debt due to his client, or had been discharged
by the consent of the plaintiff' or by some process of law.—
Had the defendant taken the proper measures, nobody
could doubt but that the plaintiff would have recovered
the whole amount of his debt from Hall; but now, owing
to the negligence or ignorance of the defendant, Hall had escap-
ed from prison without satisfying the slightest iota of the
plaintiff's demand, though he had previously made two dis.
tinct offers at compromise, both of which had been rejected by
the defendant's advice. Laidlaw, on finding that the libera-
tion of llall was attributable to the negligence of the defendant,
wrote to him a letter, stating that he looked upon him as re-
sponsible for the loss which lie had sustained. The defendant
returned him an answer, which he (Mr. Scarlett) could not
help describing as a very extraordinary document. In that
letter he admitted the receipt of a very unfriendly note from
the plaintiff, but said that lie must repel the insinuation
which it contained, that it was his inattention ,that had en-
abled Hall to go at large. He reminded the plaintiff that
Hall's person had never been his onject—that he had never
intended to put him in prison, but that he had been sur-
rendered in discharge of his bail. He likewise mentioned
that the last time he had seen the plaintiff' he had told him
that he had ordered At writ of execution against Hall, to
be sent down to the Sheriff of Northumberland, in order
that a " non est inventus" might be returned, and he
might be enabled to proceed against the hail. lie likewise
informed the plaintiff, among several other things, that the
Judge who had discharged the prisoner had acted under a
mistake, and that the Court of King's Bench would be
moved to rectify it. The Learned Counsel proceeded to state,
that the defendant did mire the Court of King's Bench for a
new writ of execution against Hall, but that he gained nothing
by his motion. In the meanwhile he requested the plaintiff tu
pay his bill for the costs which he had incurred in suing Hall,
costs which had been incurred for that very object, which the
defendant had defeated by his ignorance, or his negligence.—.
The plaintiff, fearing that an action would be brought against
him for the amount, paid them accordingly, and thus was sad-
dled with an expence of more than 100/. in addition to the money
which he lost by the escape of the prisoner Hall. The defendant,
without asking for any authority from the plaintiff, then pro-
ceeded against Hall's goods in Scotland. After the suit had ad-
vanced to a certain stage, it was found necessary that a written
authority should be produced from the plaintiff to enable it to
be continued. The defendant then informed the plaintiff' of
what lie had been doing in Scotland, and requested him
to send to him the necessary authority. The plaintiff however,
not choosing to commit his interests any farther to the care of
a man who had already mismanaged them, refused to do it,
unless the defendant would Indemnify him against all further
expences. The defendant would not consent to give such in-
demnity, and the consequence was, that the action in the Scotch
Court had been discontinued, and what had become of it he did
not know. Laidlaw had since offered to assign over to the de-
fendant the judgment which he had obtained against Hall, if
the defendant would pay him his demand. But 51r. Elliot had
constantly refused all such offers, and the plaintiff wits now
compelled to come before a Jury of his countrymen to obtain
that compensation for the loss he had sustained, which he could
not prevail upon the defendant to afford hint willingly.
Mr. Alexander M'Crevy produced the original recognizances
ot bail in Laidlaw v. Hall, the notice of Hall's render, on the
1.101 April, 1023, together with the affidavit of service, which
he had. received from the necessary officers of the Court of
King's Bench ; he also put in the eoniniittitnr, together with
the supersedeas granted to Hall for want of the plaintiff's pro-
ceeding to charge him in execution in due time in the came
cause.
Mr. Hogg was called, and proved that he had paid 851. on
behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant for his bill in Laidlaw v.
Hall,
Mr. T. Gilchrist deposed as follows :—I was attorney' for
Hall in this suit. 1 recollect Hall being in prison. I received
a letter from him written partly while in prison and partly when
discharged. I received no verbal instructions from him to
settle with the plaintiff:
J. Laidlaw.--1 am son of the plaintiff: I remember the
action my fattier had against Hall. Elliott was my farlier's
attorney in it. I often consulted with him about it. 1 went
in search of the witnesses by desire of Mr. Elliott and my
father. I paid him money for the expences of the suit. I re-
collect a letter being received from Hall after he was in prison ;
that is the letter. I did not take that letter to Mr. Elliott; it
was another letter. 1 left it in the defendant's hand. I showed
that letter to Mr. Elliott. I told him that my father wished
him to stop Hall from taking the benefit of the Insolvent Act.
He said lie could do it very well, as Hall had property in Scot-
land, and an away-going crop of corn in England. He -pro-
mised to keep him in prison till all the money was paid. He
said he could do it, as a man had been contined six or seven
years under similar circumstances.
James Laidlaw-1 attended the Assizes when the case of
" Laidlaw v. Ilall" was tried. Mr. Elliott acted as our attorney.
We obtained a verdict for 1501. 1 met George Hall, the bro-
ther of' the defendant in that action, on the 111th of May last.—
He offered us 1001. to settle the action against his brother. I
refused it. I proposed that he should defer any further propo-
sition he had to snake till the Wednesday following. In the
mean time, I mentioned the proposition to Mr. Elliott. Mr.
Elliott said, if we were inclined to take 1001., he would give
Hall nine or ten months time to pay the costs. He told us that
Hall was coming into our terms now, and that he would manage
him, if he did not pay up the costs.
Hall-1 am the father of James Hall, the defendant in the
case of " Laidlaw v. Hall." lily son had 1001. in his pocket in
May last, to pay Laidlaw, if they could have come to a cora-
-1 promise ; but they could not.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. BROW:111Ais submitted, that upon the merits, as they
then stood, the case could not go to the Jury. The rule he
thought was, that the defendant should be charged is execu-
don within two terms from the judgment, taking the term in
which judgment was actually signed, as one.
Mr. Justice BATLEY thought that no person who looked at
the rule of' Court could entertain a doubt regarding its con,
struction.
Mr. BROUOMAII then proceeded to address the Jury, con-
tending that this case wits one of very peculiar hardship on the
defendant. As an attorney belied to conduct his client along_ it
path of extreme difficulty, which was very slippery to walk
under the best circumstances; that was beset with dangers on
every side, and in which one false step either to the right or to

the left, was certain to be attended with defeat and confusion.
Now if a single error, not proceeding from gross negligence,
but from the doubts as to the correctness of practice, the attorney
was to be rendered liable to his client for the debt he was eat-
ployed to recover, then for the small sum which WAS paid
to him for his labour anti his expenditure, every attorney be-
came the insurer of .a debt to has client. The Learned Gen-
tleman then proceeded to comment at some length upon the
evidence given by plaintiff's witnesses, and contended that if
they should be of opinion that the plaintiff was intitled to a
verdict, they must not estimate his damages by the statements
which those witnesses had given to them.
After the examination of the defendants' witnesses,
Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up the evidence.' The Brat
point which the Jury would have to consider was this—ought
the defendant to have charged Hall in execution, or ought
he not? And the next wits, if he ought to have done so,
and had failed to do it, what damages had the plaintiff *use
tabled in consequence of his negligence ? If they thought
that the plaintiff' would have consented to accept
,the
which had been offered him in lieu of debt and coats, then
they would confine their verdict to that sum 1 but it they
thought that he would nut have been contented with it then
they would find such damages as they thought would meet the
justice of the case. Ile must say that this was rather a harcl ease
upon the defendant, for it was very probable that he had Men into
the trap which Hall appeared to have set for him., Halitin one
of his letters, had declared his intention of taking the henailtof
the Insolvent Act. Now, though that letter did not contain
a legal notice of his intention to claim the benefit of that Act,
it certainly was such a notice as was calculated to throw the de-
fendant off his guard, and to prevent him from using that dili-
gence with respect to charging him in execution which heought
to have used under any circumstances. He mentioned that cir-
cumstance to them, in order that they might not deem it neces-
sary to give extravagant damages. After several other obser-
vations, he left them to consider of their verdict.
The Jury retired for half an hour, and then returned a ver-
dict fir the plaintiff—Damages, 1501:

DOWNPATRICK, A uo. 18.
RIOT AT DONAOHADEE ON THE 12TH OF JULY.

Matthew Hutchinson, John Robinson, Hector Ifisifiso,
Thomas MeNarry, and John Gates,. were indicted fora riot es
Donagbadee, on the 12th of July last; and also for an assault
on Edward Hull, Esq. a Magistrate of the county, in the me'
cution of his duty ; and also for assaulting the constable, pad
rescuing a prisoner.
After a trial which occupied a considerable time, and a very
impressive churge from the Learned Judge, the Jury returned
a verdict of guilty of the riot against all the prisoners; and
finding Hutchinson guilty of the assault against Mr. Hull
and Hutchinson, M`Lean, anti Gates, guilty of the rescue.
AUGUsT 19.

The prisoners found guilty of the riots at Newry and Do.
naghadee were brought up to receive judgment. His Lord-
ship, previously to passing sentence, again took theopportsafty
of declaring his abhorrence of that party-spirit whid-i-bad been
the cause of placing- them in that situation. He' concluded
by beseeching them to give up their party prejudices, and,
when they again returned to their homes, to live in harmony
one with another.