The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-16 00:00:00

UTE HARBOUR.-,JUDGMENT.

- -
His Imansittr. decided in this case, that the sluice on the
river Bother was clearly a public nuisance; that the finding of
the .lury was quite correct. He should of course dismiss the
motion for a new trial ; but would draw up such an order rela-
tively to the degree of alterations necessary to be made, as
would, he trusted, meet the justice of the case, without injur-
ing the interests of either partles.--3lotion dismissed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JVLY 15.
CHANDLER V. HATCHES.
This was an action of trespass brought by the plaktiff; who
is the landlord of the White Mart public-house, in %%ate Hart-
row,'Gray's Inn-lane, against the deferdant, who was a parish
officer of St. Marv, Islington, for having put an illegal distress
into his-house. The defendant pleaded that lie put in the dia.
tress for poor-rates due to the parish of St. Mary. Islington,
from the plaintifras occupier of the said house. The plaintiff
by his replication denied that his house was in the parish of St.
Mary, Islington, and Upon that replication issue was joined
On the part of the plaintiff much parole and documentary evi.
dence was offered to prove that the plaintiff's house was in the
parish of St. Pancras, and similar evidence was produced by
the defendant to prove that the house was in the parish of St.
Mary, Islington.
hits Lottpstrir summed up and left if to the Jury to say
which evidence was the more consistent with probability. The
Jut 7 immediately found
.a verdict for the plaintiff; thereby
establishing. that the White part, public-house was in Saint
Pancras parish: 'and the datiutges were awartla by the mutual
consent of the plaintiff and defendant to be 54

TtEL.
WARBURTON V. VIITFORD AND lltyliow.
IINDALI in opening the Pleading* stated this was an
action brought by the plaintiff to recover horn the defendants
compensation in damages for a libel published by them upon
his character. The defendant 3litford suffered
o by default, and the defendant B
enbowjudgment to
pled the general
issue. _ _

.Alr. Mgt/GUAM stated the case for the plaintiff. The Jury
hail heard generally from his Learned Friend, that this was an
action which the plaintiff was under dip necessity of bringing for
the vindication of his character. The libel purporting to be
written by Antrimd was published by the other defendant, and
he would venture to say . that in the whole history of human
malignity there could not be found one libel which could at all
be compared with this libel, for wickedness, for slander, for
recklessness of the feelings of others. Ile knew that he set opt
with making a very com prehensive assertion, but he was satisfied
that the Jury, when they should have heard one or two of the
libellous passages, would be of opinion he had not overstated in
the slightest degree the nature of the libel. The gentleman
whom lie had the honour to represent was a gentleman of great
experience, and of the highest respectability in the medical world,
a gentleman who had devoted himself for years to the study and
the management of persons afflicted with that last of all human
calamities, insanity. The plaintiff was brought up under a
'gentleman named -, who had for nearly 110 years practised
in that department of his profession, and when that gentleman
retired from the profession in the year 1700, the plaintiff'took up
his business, and carried it on since that period on his own ac-
counti and WAS now the proprietor of many establishments for
receiving patients afilicicil.with diet melancholy disease. The
plaintiff was not 'Only well known to medical men generally,
but. early in life he had obtained
,the confidence, and, as a
result of that contidence, the friendship of
gentleman of
the greatest skill 4110`cIptrierICe 14 thelnvdreal'prtifession-‘,lO

meant the late Dr. SWillis, who entertained for the plaintiff the
most uninterrupted friendship and respect, from a knowledge of
his great skill, his great humanity, and the success which attend.
eel his efforts—a success which that gentleman well knew mild
only be attained by a uniform system of care, and a unicorn)
system of kindness. The Jury would naturally ask what could
tempt a man who had a knowledge of the interior of a mad-
house, as one of the defendants, 111itford, unhappily had, to in-
vent those calumnies which formed the groundless fabric of this
libel? And
the two pamphlets published by the defendants,
there was not, with the exception of the *tames of the patients,
a single passage which was not the dream of either a distein-
pered mind, or the result of the snort malignant malice. He
would read the libellous passages, and he would then lean the
Jury to divine what but the most base and sordid hope of lucre
could induce the defendent Benbow to publish such base and
malignant libels Learned Counsel here read the libels,
which purported to be written by Mitford, charging the plain-
tiff with having encouraged his servants to use his patients
in the most brutal and cruel maaner.l—The plaintiff regretted
more than any man that either of the defendant% had not put a
justification upon the record, and thus enabled him by evi-
dence to rebut the foul imputatiens cast upon him and his see.
%ratite; and theexanduet of the defendants in this respect clearly
proved that their object in publishing those libels was to In-
dulge in slandering the character of the plaintiff. The plaintiff
was, when this pamphlet was first publi:h d, placed in a most
painful situation in consequence of the names of his patients,
some of whom were connected with families of the first re-
spectability, having been given at full length ; and he knew
that by. bringing the question .into a Court of Justice, he
must give greater publicity to their unfortunate situation, and
he was therefore obliged to try and obtain the consent at' the
relatives of his patients—the consent of those to whom he was
holl'afesrewt htfaleilsisept plaintiff
most anxious to prove that the charges were groundless.—
tenettits,l(iiwlr
e:ltinewgrcoeneel:nlwiiao.goinittr:sltbdr disinclined to give, their consent,
egitecor obliged ttcori
eioiflnogwar
olbtte
eturi
publications,
question
ceatttii
oot
unpardonable,
se
n consequence
nt o
ai
ol eaar(tit
of
insJtetaidsticoef. indictment, and for
tcillosreenasoton,preoleaeroinbtyheacnteioxnt
day after the trial the defendant might turn round and say—
" You dared not to proceed by action, because you knew I
could prove a justification." The Learned Counsel then de-
tailed the conduct of the defendant Benhow when he was
served with the copy of a Writ, and expressed a hope that
the Jury would not in consequence of the alleged poverty of
the defendent Benbow give moderate damages, because if he
could not suffer in purse he must suffer in person, for hav-
ing published such foul and malignant calumnies. He should
make one other observation, and that was, that as the names
of the plaintiff's patients were given in full length, his Lord-
ship would, as far as the Rules of the Court weuld permit
hint, suffer the libels to be read without mentioning those
names.

Dr. Hume-1, as a physician, have visited Whitmore House,
under the authority of the Act of Parliament, from September,
1820, to September, 1822. The establishment is conducted by
a person employed by the plaintiff. The licence produced,
and dated the 19th of October, 1021, is signed by me. I have
visited another establishment called White House. It also be-
longs to Mr. Warburton, but it is under the immediate care of
Mr. Talbot.

George Brand—l went last July to the defendant's shop in
Castle street, where I purchased the.. two pamphlets now pro.
duced. I bought them from Benbow himself. I 'served the
defendant Benbow with a writ on the 31st of last October. I
asked him if his Dame was William Ben bow, and ho said it was.
I then told him I had a writ to serve upon him. Ile said he was
glad of it, as he did not think Mr. Warburton would have gone
on ; that it was a good day's work for him (Benbow), as helived
by selling books, and that he should make 5001. by the book.
I asked him if he intended to publish any other pamphlet, and
he said he did, and that it would make the hair of my heati
stand on end. At the time I made the purchase, he gave me
thevlaeard now prodneed.
The placard was handed to the Jury, but Mr. Brougham
said he did not wish it to be publicly read.
John Dunstan—l am a medical man, and hare attended
Whitmore-house professionally for 22 years. The persons whose
names are in large letters in this publication were patients at
that establisliment.

The pamphlet was here put in, and the likllons passages
Were read by Mr. Bellamy.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
No person having appeared on behalf of the defendants,
His Lounstm, suu►med np, and the Jury immediately
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages DUO!.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 15.
TEASDALE v. TOPLIS.
Mr. Serjeant TAnDY stated, that this was an action of trover,
the circumstances of which were shortly these:-The plaintiff
is a journeyman cabinetmaker, the defendant a master cabinet-
maker. The plaintiff' was employed by the defendant to per-
form certain work for him ; but before it was finished, the
plaintiff having been bil'ered what he thought a better situation,
wished to withdraw his chest of tools from the house of Mr.
Toplis, in order to secure his new engagement by depositing
them with his new employer. The defendant thought proper
to detain the chest of tools ; and it was to recover compensation
for that detention the present action was brought. Since the
commencement of this suit the chest of tools was returned.
The Jury would perceive this was an action for tools; his
Learned Brethren, Vaughan and Pell, were the tools by which
the defendant meant to resist this action ; but it would have
been better to have relied upon law and justice.
Mr. Serjeant VAuGHAN—Your first observation was car.
rect. Brother Toddy, and your client will find that we are
tools that *ill work well.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Serjeant PELL—Nire are the very tools described by
my Brother Taddy ; Brother Vaughan is Law and- I am
Justice. _ _

The CHIEF JusTICE—T hope, however, that law and
Justice will never be made the tools of anybody.—(Loud
Laughter.)—Mr. Serjeant TADDT then proceeded to call—
Jon Brand, a cabinet-maker, who proved the refusal by
the defendant to deliver up the plaintiff's chest of tools, on the
ground that the plaintiff had not finished the work he had under-
taken to do. The plaintiff told defendant that he had left out
tools sufficient to finish the job with, arid that he would conic
in the evening and complete it. Mr. Toplis said he should not
have the chest until the work were finished ; adding, that if
the plaintiff spoiled the work, he (defendant) would sell the
tools to indemnify himself for it.
Cross-examined—l am not a member of the Society (of Jour-
neymen) who brought this action ; I was turned out of it
about a week ago, for the purpose of qualifying me to be a
witness here, tine! suppose I shall be re-admitted. The So.
ciety to whichl I belong is formed for the purpose of insuring
our tools against fire. There was a "strike' by the men in de-
fendant's employment. Mr. Toplis keeps his shop in St. Paul's
Church-yard. Phree of his men left his employment ; I was
one of these. It is not the course anti usage of the trade for. the
masters to hold the journeymen's tools until the work they
undertake shall be completed. I have heard from the plaintiff
that there was an unsettled account between him and Mr. Toplis,
and that there were a few shillings due to Mr. Toplis by Teesdale.
The work undertaken by Teesdale was not finished at the time
of his demand of the tools. About a week after that demand
Teesdale received a message from the defendant offering him
his tools ; but the plaintiff refused to take them, lest the costs
of the action which had been commenced by him for the pur-
pose of recovering them should fall upon himself. I did not
advise this action to be brought ; nor was I at the meeting (of
the journeymen) at which it was determined the present action
should be brought. Mr. IValls is the Attorney of the Club.—
The plaintiff has got his chess
Henry Menzies, a journeyman cabinet maker, corroborated
the testimony of the former witness.
Cross-examined--I ceased to belong to the Society (of jour-
neymen) about a week ago, to qualify me to appear ruin witness
in this action. The clerk told me 1 was struck off the roll.—
(A laugh.)---I cannot tell the number of members hi the So-
ciety ; there may be three; there might be thirty; there might
be 100.
Mr. Sergeant PELT.—Where is your club-room P—(A pause;.
the question repeated)
Witness—I do not think that question deserves an answer.
The CIIIEF JuTTICt desired the witness to StigWer•
Witness—l think it is at the. Coach and Bones, NeviComp-
ton.street.
-- Walls examined—l am Attorney for the plaintifr, and
Cross-examined—l am not einplord
had my instructions from him.
the Society ; I
know of no Society; I have got no ;security for my costs.
Plaintiff's case closed:
Ar. Sergeant V.avotioat thenaddreesed the Jury for thtde•

The Curry JUSTICE—Brother Vaughan, I think that'nb-
servation ought not to have been made. It rests With the Cotier
to certify or not to certify. / will put an end to this relent':
tice ; and because the subject hat beeamentioned, I w ceri
tify in this case.
Mr. 14Crigetillt VAUGHAIr-4 trttst,'my Lord, that the inati.
vertency of the Advocate will not be visited upon the Client.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Proceed, Ilrotlit? Vaughan ;
at all events, is not the proper time to entertain that question..
J. Thorley examined—l The witness (who is fireman of the
defendant) proved, that in about a week or"ten days after the
refusal of defendant to deliver up to Teesdale his toolsk the de.:
fendant served him with notice that he might have then. The
'altness -made a similar, but verbal offer: At the time when
the plaintifiquitted defendant's employment, there wash small
balance due by him to defendant, and the work lie had in hand
(a Ecio table) was unfinished. The plaintiff' with two other
men came subsequently, however, and finished it, but it was
badly finished. It split in the top in consequence of its having
been badly managed by plaintiff:,
Mr..Serjeant; TAIMY replied.
The-Cfmr-JosTlCE'then charged the Jury to find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff,, as the defendant had no right to detain
his tools. If JciurneyMeli refused to 'finish their work, there
was a Statute no doubt to meet that case; theY were also liable
to an action 'for breach of cOvenant in common with all other
classes of society. The right of the.plaintiff to recover wa%
therefore dear, the amount of damages was the only consider-
ation for the Jury. There was every reason to suspect that
the costs of the plaintiff in this action were to he &flayed
by a club, but we must not proceed on suspicion. I 1 is
Lordship then proceeded to animadvert upon the illegality
and injurious tendency of clubs. of work Men to • raise
their wages. Those of masteis to keep theni down were
equally illegal. Every man .has a right to set *Upon his
labour whatever price he pleases—every employer has an equal
right to refuse purchasing such service unless on terms which
he himself approves—hut both on one hand and on the other,
combination was illegal. His Lordship then referred to the
facts of the case, and Concluding by remarking, 'that the de-
fendant ought not to have contented hitriqlf with of to tft.o
plaintiff his tools, they should have been sent to him.
After a consultation of a few minim's, the Jury found a ver:
diet for the plaintiff-4Jamages, 101.'