The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dz.. 10.
LINOARD V. EVANS.

This was an action by Mr. Lingartl, a merchant, known in
Lancashire by the name of Pan/ Jones, to recover back certain
monies which he had over-paid on the share of the defendant,
a warehouseman in London, of the profits arising from the sale
of goods. It appeared that it was agreed the defendant should
have, two and a half per cent, profit on the sale of satteens, pur-
chased as e. joint adventure, and that the plaintiff should have
the residue. Up to the end of 1821, there was 1 profit on the
sale, and Mr. Lingard gave Mr. EVans two bills, amounting
to 301., as his share ; but afterwards it was alleged that there
was a loss,, and the plaintiff contended, that the defendant
ought to repay so much of the money received as would cover
his share of the loss.
The Witnesses for the plaintiff did not prove the loss alleged;
and instead of establishing an acknowledgment of a balance
due from Mr. Evans to Mr. Lingard, they proved exactly the
reverse.

The plaintiff was according4y tonsuited.
EVANS V. LINGAII.D.
This WS a cross action between- the., sone parties as in the
former, in which Mr. SCARLETT proposes to sheen an admit-
ted balanciiof ?.L2l. from the defendant's letters. The learned
Counsel observed, that the defendant was called Paul Jones, in
reference to a celebrated buccaneer, and therefore the Jury
would not expect great elegance or correctness in his epistolary
compositions.
No substantial defence was offered; but the value of some
cheese being deducted, a verdict was taken for 2341.

WILLIAM V. FITHICE.
This was an action for assault and battery, to which the di-
fendant pleaded " not guilty."
The Sotacyron-GEsrmaar. stated the case on behalf of the
plaintiff. Mr. Williams was an officer returning from Quebec
in the ship of which the defendant was master at the time when
the injury was committed. The Captain being one day much
intoxicated, struck the plaintiff on the deck of his vessel without
any provocation, and had also shown his disposition to annoy
him by depriving him of advantages enjoyed by other passen-
gers. The Captains of merchant vessels were of necessity in-
vested with large powers over all on board their ships ; but for
that reason their conduct ought to.be watched with peculiar vi-
gilance and care. If the case should be proved according to his
instructions, it would require the Jury to mark their sense of
the defendant's conduct by a verdict for considerable damages.
Mr. Spilsey, the mate of the late Alfred, commanded by the de-
fendant, stated that they sailed on the 17th of August, from Que-
bec, with Mr. Williams on board as a passenger. On the 31st of
that month the Captain came on deck in a state of Intoxication,
and challenged any man to tight, but no one accepted his offer.
He then went up to Mr. Williams, who was walking near the
binacle, asked him who he was, and, using an extremely vulgar
expression, struck at him, but the plaintiff warded off the blow
with his arm. Mr. Williams carried the Captain down to bed.
A fortnight afterwards the parties had words, when the defend-
ant made use of unbecoming language.
On cross-examination, the witness said that the Captain, on
the morning after the assault, expressed his sorrow for what
had passed, and the plaintiff replied that he had carried hint
below as easily as if he had been a child.
The Loup Cum? Jurr tot observed to the SolicltorAle-
neral that he could scarcely expect more than 405., and the jury
would probably give him that sum.
The SOLICITOR.OEXERAL acquiesced in this suggestion.
Mr. GuusiEY, for the defendant, also agreed to the pro.
posal, but remarked that the statement of the Solicitor-General
was by no means borne out by the evidence.
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff--
Damages 40s.

LEA a. BUDD.

The plaintiff In this case, who is a merchant residing in
Friday-street, brought his action against the defendant, a
carrier, charging him with the loss of a parcel which he had re.
teiveefor conveyance by the van, from London to Cheltenham.
Qne -Of the—eiStatts h the rieclarattew shared tile defendant
with not delivering it in due time. The plaintirs servant
carried the box in August last to the King's Bead Inn, kept
by the defendant, and booked it to go by the van from the
Saracen's Bead. Inquiry had previously been made, and the
person was told the van left laindon on Saturday, and arrived
at Cheltenham on Monday. If the parcel had been sent by
that conveyance, the plaintiff would have received It on the
Monday, and have been able to exhibit the contents, which
consisted of patterns to his customers, but the defendant,
instead of sending it by the van, pet it in the waggon.—The
consequence Fa* that the plaintiff, to his great disrpoint-
ment, did not receive the box. It did not reach him, but
was taken back to. London. The question was whether the
defendant undertook to send this paled by the van ? If he did
his contract was not performed, onci the plaintiff entitled na
recover.

The Jug found a verdict for the plaintiff; Damages M.
The defendant consented to deliver up the parcel.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 10.
I►Ut3l £ND AIRY t•. htAY AND XOItTON.
This was an action brought to recover a sum of 44111. paid in
error, on account of the defendants.
Mr. Scrjeaut Lt. awed the Cage to the Jury. It appeared
that the defendants, respectable Solicitors, had been employed
by a Mr. Pugi, and put in hail in a wrong county, in come.
quence of which error Mr. Pugi was fixed for the same. Ile
then brought his action against them, and recovered the sum
of 2001. They afterwards sued out a writ of Error in conse-
quence of sonic flaw in the proceedings, hut the original judg-
ment was confirmed, and the present action was brought to
recover that sum, with costs.

Mr. foyer, a solicitor, 'produced an office copy of the recog-
nisance of the hail, and also the judgment in the original ac-
tion, amounting, with all the costs incurred, to 4461. Ills.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he had been em-
ployed by Mr. May to apply for the repayment of the money,
and In the event 01 refusal to bring this action.
Mr. Serjeant for the defence, objected to the
right of Mr. May to be joined with his co-bail in this action,
he having paid the money personally, and having, therefore, a
right of action against them.
L'his objection was overruled by the JudKe (Mr. Justice
Dula° van), and the Jury found for the plaintiffs-4461. 10s.

A TA I LOit'S
FUGAL V. TOULALASIE.

This was an action to recover from the defendant it sum of' 6/.
Mr. Serjeant Vartan.ot stated, that the plaintiff was a
tailor residing at 'Woolwich, and the defendant a gentleman
of high station in society, who had got a fortune for changing
his name. The plaintiff- hwl furelithfCtlte defendant's son
with a suit olckithen -whitfrthe deltritlint 'refused to pay fr,
and that circumstance gave rise to the present action. The
Learned Serjeant observed, that he understood the defence re.
lied upon on the other side was, that the clothes were not of a
description suitable to the young gentleman, but it would be
for the Jury to determine whether that was the case or.not.
Thomas 'fhclkel, nn irritabletiourneyrnan tailor, with sharp
eyes, small visage, and characteristic air, proved the making of
the clothes, and the delivery of, them to the young . gentleman,
who was a Cadet at the Academy at 14roolwich.
Cross-examined by .Mr. Sergeant PELL:.How long have
you known the plaintiff?
Witness— A long time. I have worked twelve years at Wool-
wich. I have been in the artillery myself.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—Then you have been a Cadet, I suppose?
Witness—Cadet, indeed ! Oh, no ! I'm'no gentleman. Lord
bless you, I'm only a joumeyman tailor.
Mr. Serjeant PE Lx.-..Very well, John, don't be angry.
IVitriess—My name is not John, hut Thomas.
Mr. Serjeant PELLIVeII, Thomas, look at that paper
(handing him the order against furnishing Cadets with articles
contrary to the regulation of the Academy), and tell me if you
seen any like it in the shops at Woolwich ?
Witness-_l can't read it without my glasses.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—I-Jere take mine.
Witness—No, I'llput on my awn ; I like them better.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—Very well, then put on your barnacles.
Witness—(having put on his spectaclea.)—l think I have
seen papers of, this kind before. (Aside.)—l suppose there
lawyers want to make a fool of me, but they will timid them-
selves mistaken.
Mr. Serjeant PILL,----Where have you seen them P—l can't
say where itiyixt GOD and my conscience.
Mr. Serjeant PELL.--.A tailor's conscience !
Witness.—Tailors have a conscience as well as lawyers.—(A
laugh.)
ArT• Seljeant PELL.—IIaYe you never heard your master
talk of a regulation against furnishing young gentlemen at the
academy with clothes ?
Witness.—My 11ester never talks to me OD such mitten.—

atn only his journeyman, and my business is to work, and
not to talk.
Mr. Serjeant PELL..Have you never heard any thing said
about it ?
Witness.—Never.
Mr. Serjeant Pzur..--You may go &tam, Thomas, you are
a very honest fellow.
Witness.—l hope I amt and so best for myself.
C-2orge Latten, an apprentice to the plaintiff', Komi the de.
livery of the clothes, and denied all knowledge of the .prohibi.
tory order in question,
Alexander Calder, a quirtermaater, proved that the young
gentleman had left the academy for the vacation, raking his
clothes with him, contrary to the regulation, which directed
that they were on all such occasions to be left in the care of the
witness.
llr. Justice Ilunnonort was ofopinion that as yet no evi-
dence had been adduced to make the father responsible.
Mr. Serjeant Pimi. submitted, that there was nothing to
show an implied contract between the plaintiff and the de-
fendant.
Mr. Serjeant VIUGITAN contended, that- in theiabsence of
all proof to the contrary, it was reasonable to infer, that the
young gentleman had gone to his father, at the vacation, and,
therefore, the, father amid be conscious to the transaction as
he must have seen the clothes.
Mr. Justice Lltrunotrou said, that as yet there was no litloll
to shew that theyoung gentleman had a hither at all.
Mr. Serjeant Vairou AN—l'll prove that fact immediately.
41 gentleman named Moffat then identified a letter as being
in the hand-writing of the defendant. It was in answer to an
application for payment made by the plaintiff's solicitor, and it
denied that the defendant had any knowledge whatever of the
transaction in question. It also went on to say, that those who
allowed boys under 15 yea!" of age to "accumulate bills," de-
served to lose the money.
Mr. Serjeunt PELL addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and said, that his client had resisted the claim purely upon
principle and not from any consideration as to theamount, were
it even much greater than the paltry sum of tk. lle asked the
Jury, whether they were prepared to believe for a moment that
a gentleman of Col. Toulmash's rank in life would send his son
to Woolwich, without furnishing him with every article that
was necessary for him as a cadet ? The reason why he refused
to pay this hill was, because the plaintiff' had not only furnish.
ed the young gentleman at Woolwich, but also at Oxford and
Cambridge.
The Learned JUDGE then called the attention of the Jury
to the flicts of the case, and said, that there was no evidence
whatever to shew that the father was conscious of the transac,
Lion, or thai there was any thing like an implied contract be.
tween the parties.—The tailor was nonsuited.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Mu. lfk
BELLS (ItY TUEIR GUARDIAN) SELLS
This case has been previously before the Cotirt, and wasmost ably argued, on Monday last, by the Learned Doctors at
both sides.—This morning Dr. LusittNOTOX replied.
Sir Joint' Nicitor.r. observed, before the Learned Counsel
had proceeded far, that he would save him the trouble of fur.
thee proceeding, as he was quite satisfied. He then proceeded
to give his judgment. The deceased, he said, died in 11121,
leaving a widow and one child, and possessed of property to the
amount of 4,0001. or 6,000/. ; he was married in 1002, but
shortly after the birth of the first child, they separated,-and
have not cohabited together since; in 1807, deceased formed an
illicit intercourse with a woman, named Elizabeth Clarke ; she
gave up her business, and entirely went to live with him having
by bins, at the time of his death, four children, the eldest 14
years of age, and the youngest ten • during their intercourse
they lived together as legally married, and it was therefore
highly probable he would at his death have made some
testamentary act in their favour ; deceased had been a
wire-worker in Fore-street, but becoming extremely cor-
pulent, and in consequence very indolent. he gave up
business, and went to reside at Waltham Abbey in 1821.
On several occasions he came to town, and when he did
so, he used to lodge at the house of one of his old neighbours, a
cheesemonger, in Fore-street. In the month of November,
he so came to town in company with Mrs. Clarke, and in his
hearing she expressed to Mrs. Swinburn, the person to whose
house they came, that Mr. Sells had come to town to make
his will. On this day he did not do so, having business at
Somerset-house which occupied the morning; but on the
I following day the will was prepared by Mrs. Clarke, which
was in a most informal state; it began by disposing of the
property, expressing it as his last will and testament, and
leaving Elizabeth Clarke all his personal property, of what.
ever nature or kind rawer; all his debts, funded property,
plate linen, &c. &.e. to her disposal, for the maintenance of
his four children. lie also left her his bills and rents for the
maintenance of such children; the will is signed by the tes.
tator, and regularly attested by three witnesses; but the will
is written upon a slip of paper, such as in used for receipts
or drafts, and is written on both sides. If deceased knew
and approved of this paper, it cannot lie considered as any
fraud or contrivance. The experience of this Court, continued
the Learned Judge, teaches us that persons do frame their wills
in a whimsical and singular manner. Extreme eccentricity does
sometimes occur where no suspicion whatever arises; the paper,
however, now propounded is found in the deceased's pocket-
book, and is dated at a time when he was in full possession of
his faculties, and by being found in his pocket-book, where
he had kept it since it was made, rendered the probability
very strong that he intended it as his last will, and wanted
no further evidence to support it. This was prima Aide
presumption he intended it as his will; looking, however, at
this woman (Mrs. Clarke) the Court is not much surprised at
what she may say; she has been living in open adultery with
this nian ; she Is not taken in an unguarded manner, but by a
regular compact, breaks up
.her business, and lives with him;
and then, to crown all, gives out that she is married by a
Catholic clergyman ; the Court, under these circumstances,
could not believe her on her oath; but there were ibur other
witnesses, whose evidence is material to the validity of the will ;
their evidence is not in the least impeached, nor does it appear
that circumstances have been mentioned between them, or that
their -evidence was preconcerted. The Learned Judge then
went into a general statement of the evidence, and finally gave
his opinion that the testator intended that the paper put in shouter
operate as his will, and the Court decreed accordingly.

SHXRIFF'S COURT, CoLEUANrSTAEZT, Dn... 10.
licfore the Secularity, Mr. COLLINaRIDGE.
LAING): V. stannts AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Pult.r.irs, for the plaintiff; stated that this was an ac-
tion in which the plaintiff complained of assault and false im-
priaonment. The defendant had sabred judgment to go by
default, and the present Jury wereassembleit to asses damages.
—The Learned Counsel then proceeded at considerable length
to state the case to the Jury. His client, Mr. Lainge, was
a gentleman of great respectability, the master of a merchant'
vessel, called thc Porcupine. The defendants were Captain
Harris, of his Majesty's frigate Hussar, and his First Lieu-
tenant. In. September last, the Porcupine was lying in the
Tagus, otf Lisbon, where the defendant's ship was stationed.
—Whilst the Porcupine was in this situation, laurel of her
men were tempted to enter on board the men of war who were
lying around, or they deserted. One of them went on board
Capt. Harris's ship, and on doing so deinanded a certain sum
for wages which he said were due to him. There Ataing some
dispute on the subject, Captain Lange refused to pay his
demand, desiring that the matter should be refiarted to the
British Consul to settle. Instead of this course being taken,
however, on the 13th of September last, about nine o'clock in
the morning, the frigate's barge, with the Lieutenant, who
was joint defendant with Captain Harris, and an armed crew of
20 men, came alongside of the Porcupine, and the Lieutenant
and several men came on board, and delivered Captain
Harris's orders to Captain Lainge for his going on board
the Lluesar instantly. With this peremptory order Captain
Lain °, feeling that Captain Harris had no authority to issueit, refused to comply,' and retreated to his cabin, determining
not to compromise the rights of those of the same class as him-
self, by voluntarily submitting to an order so issued by any
officer of his Majesty's Navy whoever he might be. The
Lieutenant then addressing his men who had come on hoard
with hint, and using the most insulting tone as applied to
Captain Lainge, desired them to go down and bring that
man up. They accordingly went dawn to the Captain's cabin,
and he being obliged to submit to so superior a force, came
up, protesting at the same time against being understood as
submitting voluntarily, and got over the ship's aide into his
own boat being directed so to do. The Lieutenant and his
men
igot into the barge, and took Capt. Lainge's boat in tow,
and n this degrading manner he was towed through a fleet of
200 sail, to the Hussar, Capt. Harris's ship. lie would prove
in evidence that it was impossible a more cruel course than this
could have been adopted towards Capt. Lainge, a gentleman, a

man of honour, and an individual well known in the city or
London, and highly respected by all who knew hint. Th
Jury would hear from the witnesses whom he should call, thate for an individual to be towed through a fleet, at the stem of
a man-of-war's boat, was most 'disgraceful. It was a situ-
ation in which only those were placed who were accused or
the most degrading crimes, such as theft or desertion, met
who were going to receive punishment for such ciffence.s.--,..
In this state, however, was Captain Lainge taken througii
the fleet to the defendant's ship ; here he was taken on
board, and that with such roughness, that his antic way violently sprained, and he received so severe an injury as to
confine him to his cabin, and deprive him of the use of his foot
for five weeks: He was detained in)ltts state for upwards
al/ two heurs, and then a message wrist sent to his ship for some of his own.erew to come to the frigate and take him back to his own vessel. For this assault and detention it wait - the t
the jury were now to give Alr.'Lainge a remuneration, anti should lie make out the case as suited in his'instructions, he
trusted the jury would give to his client
.emple darnattes,_on.l prove to the contmanders of ships of war that individuals
commanding trading vessels had rights which were not to be
invaded by them with impunity. The Learned Counsel pro-
ceeded to call the following vitnesses,
. John Leach -wag seaman on hoard the Porcupine, of whirl;
ship Mr: .f.atinge was Captain; recollects, on the morning 0:'
he Ifith -of *Soptem her, -thereleoits,,holaitgitig to the Histsae,
Captain Harris's ship, coming alongside the retecopinc:
there were an officer and several men on board. Witness
observed the officer awl four or five men come upon the'
deck of the Porcupine, and soon after saw Captain lAigue go down into his cabin, and the officer follow him. Captain
Lainge soon came upon deck, hod went over the ship's side
Into his own boat. The officer went on board the man of war'e
boat, anti took Captain Leinge's boat in tow, and he was thus
taken at the stern of a man of war's boat through a fleet of 240
vessels. One of the men belonging-to the Porcupine called to
witness, saying," Look at our Captain, they are towing him
through the' fleet at their stern." It is a great disgrace to be towed through the fleet at the stern of another boat ; it is only
done to persons who have been guilty of borne serious crime, such as theft or desertion. Captain Lainge was absent some time, and then Caine back in his own boat to the Porcupine.—
Saw Captain Lainge afterwards sitting in his cabin with hire
steward, bathing his leg. The Captain was not lame before he
left the ship ; he continued lame for five weeks.
Cross-examined by Mr. ATIOLPIIVS.—I don't know how he
was lamed. The boat passed through the fleet : don't mean to
say they went unnecessarily through, or round the different
ships. To be so towed at the stern of* man of war's bout is
disgraceful. It is seldom clone to any one not guilty of theft,
or some disgraceful crime. There was plenty of room in the man of war's boat.
William Grant, a seaman on board the Porcupine, saw the
frigate's boat come alongside the Porcupine. There was an
officer and about twenty men in her. The officer and four
others came on board. Captain Lainge went clown to his cabin
on seeing the boat alongside. The 'officer desired his men
to
go down, and bring that man up. Captain Lainge was forced
up from his cabin, and put alone into his own boet, and towed -
at the stern of the frigate's boat through the fleet. Ile was
afterwards brought back in his own boat, and was very lante4
Captain Lainge was now in Court ; be was the chief mate
Nicholson.
Captain John Black had been master of a merchantman eight
years. Saw Captain Lainge a few days after this transaction
he was very lame. If any dispute arises in a foreign port
amongst Captains and their men, it is usual to refer such dial
pute to the Consul, if there is one at the port. There Was at
this time a British Consul:et Lisbon, and an Aciniiral'a
(Neale's) flag flying. To tow a Captain of a merchantman
through the fleet at the stern of a man of war's boat was dise
graceful.
Cross-examined.—It was not usual, even if a dispute should
arise between a seaman and the Captain of a merchanttnan,
for the Captain to refuse to pay the man's wages, or to detain
his clothes and betiding. The Admiral's flag would be fir-
ing whether te was on board or on shore it he was on the
station t had seen a man towed through-a fleet to receive pi.
nishinent, but then he was towed alongside of every ship,
and a drum generally beat, so that a person would see the pu.
nitihment.
Re-examined—lf I saw man towed et
teath stern of man
of war's boat for a mile, I shonld consider disgrace, and
should consider that the man was going to punishment If a
seaman quitting a merchantman, and going on hoard a man of
war, had wages clue to him, the Ceptein was not obliged to go
on board the Man of war to pay bins. It was usual tO refer
disputes, if any arose, to the Consul.
Ralph Menzies was on board the .Poremplee when the Lieu.
tenant came on board from the Hussar frigate. Heard the
Lieutenant tell Capt. Lainge that Capt. Harris wanted to see
him on board the frigate. Capt. Lainge said, if Capt. Harris
wanted to see him, lie roust come on hoard the Poreephir.
The Lieutenant told him if lie did not go willingly he would
be taken by force. Capt. Lainge did not go freely, he went by
force. Witness did not mean to say any one laid hands on the
Captain ; but he did not go freely.
Air. Scott had been a captain in the merchant-service 18
years; has known Capt. Lamp 14 years. Ile is a man hold.
ing a most respectable rank in society. Witness would con:
cider being towed at the stern of a man-of-war's boat as the
greatest disgrace that could be inflicted on him. lie should
consider it es had as to put a merchant of London' at the cart's
tail, and drag him through the streets of London.
Mr. Urquhart had been 45 years connected with the Mers.
Chant-service, and confirmed the testimony of the lust witness.
Witness had nes er known such a mark of disgrace inflicted on.
any one except an individual who had subjected himself to'
severe punishment by misconduct.
Mr. Anotontrit observed, that going from a merchant
man to a Xing's ship was no desertion—no offence; but, ea
the: contrary, was even meritorious, if the service required,
it; and that the King's service superseded every other. It
had been said, that a captain was not compelled to pay, a sea.
man who quitted him the wages due to him, but that the
seaman would have his remedy on his return to this country.
Was a seaman, who hail wages due to him, to be tent *mi.,
less on board a man of war, to he absent from 'his country,
perhaps, for years, and to look for his remedy against the
individual who unjustly withheld from him the rights till
his return home, when, perhaps, his former eaptam might
no longer be alive, or, if alive, might not be to be tbural
Where then would be the poor man's remedy It *peered in.
evidence, that if a seaman quitted a trader, and went on :bear&
a man of war, it was usual to pay him his waffati, if any were due, an the bulk-head of the vessel. This CepteitfLeihge
refused to do i end one of Ilia men .being on beau' Ceprearl'
Harris's
totem, Captain Harris sent &message to noteog
desiring e him. The reply was, that he wuuldome
and if Captain Ilerris wanted to sec hint, he must crane on
board the Porcupine. This was somewhat hold and sturdy
on the part of Eaptain Lainge; and it wee not surprising if,
after such a declaration, the officer rather preferred Captain
Lainge's room to his complus), in his boat, and therefore took
Captain latinge's boat in tow, us described by the winiestaes.
A talc was told of violence towards him, but no violecee was proved. It was HIM the cabin Wee forced with 'violence'
by armed men, but there was no proof of any such thing. It
was also said that Captain Lainge`a ancle was sprained, but no .
one could tell how or when it wait done; but then came the
great aggravation of the case—that was, towing the beet through
the fleet, and the disgrace attached to that fact. But how did
the fact turn out ?Why, that so far from oing through the
fleet, they made a direct route to Captain Harris's ship, and that it was rather a matter of choice on the part of' the captain
to go so than otherwise r here were no marks of di ace at.
tached to his progress, no rowing up to the ditibrent xhips, no.
drum beating the rogue's march, or any thing to point him out
as a person disgraced i but he was towed *long, say you, at the'
stern of a man of war's boat. Why, so formerly criminals
were taken up Holborn ins cart; buttlid it follow, that at that
time every one who travelled up Holborn in a cart was to be
taken for a criminal ? Certainly out, unless the sherifii and
their officers accompanied him : 80 here neither was there
any disgrace in being towed at the stern of a men of war's
boat through the fleet, unless accompanied by the drum and
fife, and the exhilarating notes of the rogue's march. litt could
only consider this as intended to give a higher coloming to the
case, and as an attempt on the part of the plaintiffto drew hem'
the pocket at' the defendeut, an officer as distiuguiahed for Ids
urbanity of menners in peace, as for his conrage in vier, a
larger sum as damages than he could otherwise hope to alum.
The defendant, having suffered judgment by default, some
damage* must be given; but he was convinced, as the injury
which the plaintifi'had sustained was almost niuninal, so would,
the damages in this case be.
The SECONDARY aimed up the'evidenee.
The Jury retired fora few minutes, and then returned with,
a verdict ofloo/..damages for the plaiutiff..