The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT, Guildford, Wednesday, Aug. 5.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Common Jury.)

YOUNG V. KNIGHT.

This was an action of slander. The declaration
stated that a marriage was about to take place between
the plaintiff and one Clarissa Charrington, and that in
consequence of certain slanderous expressions made use
of by the defendant respecting the plaintiff, the lady re-
fused to marry him, and he :sought to obtain damages
for the injury and loss he had sustained by means of
such refusal.

Mr Montigue Chambers and Mr. James were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee for the defendant.
Mr. CHAMBERS stated the case for the plaintiff, who,
he said, had been compelled to bring the pre-
sent action in order to vindicate his character for the
gross attack that had been made upon it by the de-
fendant. He then proceeded to state that the plaintiff
was a respectable young man, who carried on the busi-
ness of a furrier in London, and the defendant was a
fishmonger in that city. The plaintiff had been intro
duced to the family of a lady named Charrington, re-
siding at Croydon, and in a short time an affection had
sprung up between him and the daughter of that lady,
and it was eventually arranged, with the consent of the
young lady's mother and all her family, that she and
the plaintiff should be married, and the ceremony was
fixed to take place in the month of May. On the 13th
of March, however, the defendant happening to meet
with a person named Anderson, who was related to the
Charrington family, took upon himself to say that the
plaintiff was a scamp, and advised him to prevent the
marriage ; and in consequence of this communication,
which was, of course, conveyed to the mother of the
young lady, she refused to allow the marriage V) take
place. The plaintiff had, of course, been very much
annoyed and injured by such a proceeding, his prospect
of being speedily united to the woman of his choice lied
been destroyed, and when the jury were informed that
there was not the least pretence for casting any imputa-
tion upon the character of the plaintiff, he was sure they
would feel that it was a case calling for such an amount
of damages as would satisfy the world and the family
with which he sought to be connected, that there was no
ground for the attack that had been made upon the
plaintiff by the defendant.
Mr. Frederick Atkinson deposed that he was cousin
to Mrs. Charrington, and was acquainted with defendant.
He was also acquainted with the plaintiff, and he had in-
troduced him to Mrs. Charrington and her daughter,
and he bad heard that the young lady and the plaintiff
were to have been married on the 16th of May. Witness
met defendant in March, and he asked him how Mr.
Young was getting on, and he replied, he believed very
well, and added that he was going to be married to one
of his relations. The defendant upon this said, "By
all means put a stop to it —there is not a greater scamp
in existence, and his father does not know what a scamp
he has got in his family." He communicated what the
defendant had said to Mr. Joseph Freeman, who was a
trustee for Miss Charrington, and a friend of the family ;
and the statement of the defendant was subsequently
communicated to Mrs. Charrington. The defendantltold
him that what he said was in confidence, and he asked
him not to mention it, but witness thought it was his
duty to tell Mrs. Cherrington what had occurred.
Cross •examined— He introduced the plaintiff to Mrs.
and parties
fi wereom thate ngaed
time to
mbr.
. Young
Charrington in July last year, and he understood that
tle
e
ter
received the
fifth
b y
visit,
Mrs. Charrington as her daughter's suitor.
Charrington deposed that she was" the mother of
Miss Clarissa.Charrington' the lady alluded to in the de-
claration. She remembered a communication being
made to her by Mr. Freeman, on the 16th of April,
respecting the plaintiff, who was at that time engaged
to be married to her daughter ; and in consequence of
that communication she wrote a letter to the plaintiff,
requesting him to discontinue his visits to her house, I
and breaking off the engagement that existed between
him and her daughter. She was induced to make this
communication solely in consequence of what she heard
from Mr. Freeman, as hating been stated by the de-
fendant.