The Sun.
London, England, 1802-03-02 00:00:00

name of Adams visited the Plaintiff, in the house
of the Witness. The Plaintiff told her he. was hei
sister's husband. Upon inquiry, the Witness ra.,
ther thought that was not so.—That this Gentle,
man's mother was the aunt of the Plaintiff—that was
not true.-L-The Witness doubted whether she should
discharge the Plaintiff, if she' had not heard this
story 'abOut her being with child, but she made up,
her mind.—After considering all things together, and
it was three days after she went aw;iy, before the
Witness determined not to take her hack. She Was,
permitted to' leave her cloaths behind her when she
went, in prosped of return, &c.
Mr. Wm. Burridge proved that application was
made to Miss Stewart to take the Plaintiff back,
but she refused.

Mr. Ettsict NE disclaimed all idea of hurting this
young woman's reputation ; but maintained, that
unless it appeared that this Plaintiff lost the service
of Miss Stewart in consequence of what the De-
fendant, said, the Jury were not empowered by law
to give a verdia for the Plaintiff in this case, for
if Miss Stewart did not determine to refuse receiv-
ing her in consequence of what the Defendant ut-
tered, there was no special damage in this case, and
without special damage, there was an end of the ac-
tion. It could not be maintained—for the law had,
long ago, said, that a woman shall have no anion
for any calumny upon her chastity, unless she could
atlually prove consequential damages. At all events,
supposing the Plaintiff was entitled to a verdiEt, is
could be for no more than the value of the remain-
ing six months of instruction from Miss Stewart,
and even a ,verdiet for that would be the ruin of
the Defendant, &c.

Mr. Justice GROSE confirmed the Law as laid
down on both sides in this Case, that a Woman
cannot maintain an Astion for slander upon her
chastity, unless she proves consequential DaMages
hr that slander :_ The Question would then be,
Whether Miss Stewart, who had refused to 'take
back the Plaintiff, had so refused, in consequence
of the calumny uttered by the Defendant ? If she
did, the Plaintiff was entitled to a Verdia, and if
so, it would be important for the Public to know,
what the consequences are to a man who uttered
such expressions. If they thought Miss Stewart
did not refuse to take the Plaintiff back in conse-
quence of what the Defendant said, then the Vera
diet should be for the Defendant. As to the words,
they were certainly a very foul calumny. They
were uttered no less than three times, without any
thing to call for the utterance of them ; they were of_
fieiously, maliciously, and infamously uttered—they
were false also, as appeared in evidence. This condo&
from a man, a relation, who ought to he a friend,
was base a,id cowardly—however, wicked as it
was, if the Jury thought it was not the cause of
Miss Stewart refusing to take the Plaintiff back,
the Defendant would he entitled to a Verdkt.—
Shameful, infamous and cowardly as the conduCt of
the Defendant had been, there could be no Milan
unless that damage was so proved. If the Jury
thought that Miss Stewart refused to take this
young woman back in consequence ,of what the
Defendant said, then they would consider of the
SUM they would give her by way of compensation.
The Jury withdrew, and in about twenty mi-
nutes brought in a Verdict for the ?lanai% damages
401.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Siroltg LORD ALVANLEY AND A SPECIAL JURY.

WADDINGTON V. UPTON.

This was an Adion brought by Mr. Waddington
and his Partners, against Mr. Upton, a Hop-planter,
to recover damages tor the non-performance of a
contrat for the sale of all his growth of hops in the
year rBOO, over 90 acres, in several parishes in the
County of Kent, to be delivered at Maidstone within
a certain pe;iod, at ten guineas per cwt. the Defen-
dant agreeing to begin picking as soon as his neigh-
bours, and to deliver them in a merchantable con-
dition.

The cause has been once tried before, and a Ver-
di& was found for the Defendant.

From the evidence of the witnesses, it appeared
that the agreement was made on the 4th of Novem-
ber, 179 x, for the growth of the enwing year. It
was signed by Mr. Upton, with a penalty of 50001.
upon its non.performance, and was sent by him to
Mr. Waddington,- who was to have returned a coun-
ter-part, signed by himself. Mr. Waddington kept
IVlr. Upton's agreement, and returned one which
extended the period of delivery from the 2oth of
O. to the ist of Nov. and omitted any mention of
the penalty. The Defendant, upon receiving it,
observed to his Clerk, that it was not sufficient, as
it did not subject Mr. Waddington to a penalty
equal with that to which he was liable—however,
it appeared he afterwards acted to a certain extent
upon his own agreement. In the mean time the
price of die market rose, and it was rumoured that
a letter from Lord Kenyon had been circulated in
the County of Kent, which threatened the Hop_
planters with imprisonment if they carried their
fore-hand bargains with Mr. Waddington into
execution. The Defendant therefore absolutely
refused to perform his contra Ct. A variety of
legal objeaions were taken in tie course of the
trial, but at last the cause went to the Jury upon this
single point—whether the Contra Et was mutually
binding upon the parties, as the agreement signed
by Mr. Waddington omitted any mention of the
penalty ?,
The Jury determined in favour of the Defendant,
and stated, as the ground of their verdict, that they
did not consider the Agueement reciprocal. Had
the verdict been the other ~vay, another question
would have been raised, Whether the Contraa was
such an one as the Law would,sanaion ?

WADDINCTON V. FRANCIS.