The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-23 00:00:00

THE KING V. PARRY

In this case a rule had been obtained on the part of Sir R. P.
Joddrell, Bart., calling on John Billingsley Parry, F.sq., bar-
rister-at-law, to show cause why a criminal information should
not be filed against him for sending letters to the prosecutor,
tending to provoke a breach of the peace.
The present proceedings arose out of former proceedings in
this Court, in which criminal informations were granted against
Mr. Slaney, the solicitor for Sir R. P. Joddrell, and a Mr. Ady,
for publishing libels during an election in Oxfordshire, at which
Mr. Fane was a candidate, and which libels imputed immoral
conduct to Mr. Parry's wife, with the knowledge of Mr. Fane,
who was related to the lady. The letters now complained of
were written in consequence of the disclosures made at the
former trials : Mr. Parry conceiving that Sir 11.. P. Joddrell
had not sufficiently disclaimed all knowledge of the contents
of the libels, and finding that although Mr. Slaney was con-
victed of publishing them, Sir R. P. Joddrell still employed
Mr. Slaney as his solicitor, and received him as his friend,
acted upon the belief that Sir Richard, or some member of his
family, was privy to the publication.
After hearing counsel to-day against, and in support of, the
rule, their Lordships said they were of opinion that although
Mr. Parry's conduct was not wholly to be justified, yet he acted
under an impression that Sir R. P. Joddrell had not sufficiently
disavowed all privity of the contents of the libels. They,
therefore, ordered the rule to be discharged.

BAIL COURT.—(Tins DAY.)

FLETCHER v. HAMILTON.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, jewellers, in
Great Marlborough-street, to recover 1001. from the defendant,
Captain Hamilton, on a promissory note, dated August 17th,
1830, at ten months' date.
Mr. PoLLocx having stated the case, called a witness, who
proved the defendant's hand-writing to the note, in the usual
way.
Mr. HirrentxsoN said his defence to the action was two-fold.
First, that the defendant had received no consideration for the
note; and secondly, that the transaction was usurious.
The Learned Counsel called Mrs. Ellen Courtenay, who
stated, that being in want of money she applied to Captain
Hamilton, who could not assist her, but gave her a warrant of
attorney of one Dutton's for 1001., on which she was to raise
money. She applied to a person named Clarke, who said he
could procure her jewellery for it. He brought her jewellery
from the plaintiff's, for which he gave her a bill she now pro-
duced, making the prices exceed 100/. Clarke also wished for
a bill as a better security, and she got the present promissory
note from Captain Hamilton for that purpose. She stated
that the articles which were charged at 1001. were not worth,
at the outside, more than 601.
In cross-examination she was asked the value of each arti-
cle, and from her answers it appeared the value was about 701.
In the bill of particulars, a diamond half hoop ring, was
charged at 28/., but she never had that at all. She admitted,
that after the bill was due, she called on the plaintiff in Capt.
Hamilton's name, and informed them that he would pay it, and
they consented to wait.
Mr. Boyce Clarke was called by Mr. Po LLocc, and stated
that he got the articles from the plaintiff for Mrs. Courtenay,
and made out the bill produced by that lady. He also got from
them a diamond half hoop ring, but he did not give that to her.
Mr. POLLOCK, in reply, contended that if fraud and usury
were committed, it was not by the plaintiffs; Clarke was
not their agent, but the agent of the defendant, and if the
Jury would look at the particulars of the plaintiff's demand,
and the account made out by Clarke, they would perceive
that the goods received by Mr. Courtenay, and stated to be
worth about 70/., were, in fact, only charged at about that
sum, but, including the diamond ring, the value of
which was twenty-eight guineas, the 100/. was made up ;
the probability was, therefore, as the account deli-
vered by Clarke showed much higher prices than
the particulars of the plantiff demanded, that Clarke kept
back the diamond ring, and increased the prices of the otker
articles to make up the deficiency. The plantiffs, therefore,
were not guilty of any fraud or usury, and they were conse-
quently entitled to recover.
The Jury found a verdict for the plantiff for 1091. 14s. prin.
sipal and interest.