The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-09 00:00:00

ROBINSON V. SAY.

Mr. PLATT stated that the plaintiff was a poor man vrho
had been in the service of the defendant, a tanner and
magistrate in the town of Bedford. The action was for
slanderous words injurious to the plaintiff's character. The
words charged the plaintiff with robbing him of one shilling.
It was the duty of the plaintiff to keep the tan-book, and
the defendant, suspecting he was minus a shilling in the
account, uttered the words which became the subject
of action.

Sir J. SCARLETT, on the part of the defendant, contended
;hat there was no proof of malice. _

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 250/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 6.

PURCELD V. STEPHENS AND MOAT.

This was an action for libel against the defendants, the
printers and proprietors of the Christian Advocate.
The plaintiff was a medical practitioner at Stockbridge,
in Hampshire, and the alleged libel charged him with
cruelty to a child and impropriety of conduct. It was con-
tained in a letter purporting to be from a lady in the neigh-
bourhood, descriptive of the efficacy of Morrison's pills, in
which she described the treatment pursued towards a poor
child named Rae, whose parents reside at Broughton, by
the plaintiff.
The defence was that there had been no malicious inten-
tion on the part of the defendant.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 500/.

ARCHES' COURT, JULY 8.

(Before Sir JOHN NICHOLL.)
lIELHUISH V. FACY.

This was a case of appeal against the judgment given by
the Judge of the Consistorial Court of Exeter in a cause
respecting the subtraction of tithe, promoted by the Rev.
Thomas Melhuish, of the parish of Ashwater, in the Diocese
of Exeter.

Mr. Alexander Martin Facy, the Respondent, had in
this case not paid tithe on his property from 1830 to Sep-
tember, 1832, and this case was brought forward for such
tithes by Mr. Melhuish in the Court below. In plea it
was stated by Mr. Facy that he was under a composition
agreed to for that tithe, and it was further stated that at a
meeting of the parishioners a new composition for tithes at
2s. 6d. in the pound was agreed to with the consent of the
Rector. In the Court below it was urged tha tthe compo-
sition was a bar to the suit brought by the Rector for the
subtraction of tithe in kind. The Cour tbelow had decided
that Mr. Facy should be dismissed from the suit, and that
the Rev. Mr. Melhuish should pay part of the costs. An
appeal from this decision was made to this Court by the
latter gentleman.
On the part of the respondent Dr. LUSHINGTON said it
was plain that if a composition or any kind of parish agree-
ment between the respondent and the promoter for the tithe
took place, such could not be void unless another composi•
tion was made, or a notice to take tithe in kind was given.
Dr. ADDAMS, on the part of the appellant, said the
real question was whether any composition existed between
the appellant and respondent which would bar the rector
of the parish from maintaining a suit for the subtraction of
tithe in kind. He contended that there was no such agree-
ment in existence that would bar the action of the Re
Mr. Melhuish for tithe in kind.

Judgment was then given by Sir JOHN NICHOLL. 11
should pronounce for the appeal, reverse the decision
passed, and pronounce that the tithes were due to the
Rector, leaving the amount of tithe to be considered by the
Registrar. He should leave both parties to pay their own
costs in the Court below ; but as the Rector was compelled
to make the appeal here he should give the costs of the
appeal, and he hoped this would have the effect of putting
an end to further litigation.