The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-01 00:00:00

right." Upon application being made, however, it appeared
they had changed their minds, as he found himself obliged to
have recourse to this action.
The ostler proved the delivery of the gig-and horse, the sub-
sequent injury, and the promise of the defendants to make all
right.

—A. blacksmith of Darlaston, who repaired the gig for the de-
fendants, so as to enable them to reach the stables, stated that
they were very much intoxicated, and that the horse had been
driven to excess.

Verdict for ti;e plaintiff—Damages Three. Guineas.

HOME CIRCUIT._LEWES, JULY 30.
(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL)
Thomas Foster was indicted for forging the acceptance of
one John Norman, with intent to defraud one John Henry
Norman.

Mr. HOLLEST conducted the prosecution. It appeared that
the prisoner's wife and her sister were entitled to some pro-
perty, which Mr. John Henry Norman, the prosecutor, had
entered into a contract to purchase, and for which he had paid
part of the purchase money: but a difficulty respecting the
title having arisen, the remainder had not been paid, and for
it the two sisters had made application through the prisoner,
who had proposed that Norman should give an acceptance,
which he had declined doing. The prisoner, however, went
to Messrs. Smith and Co., of Hastings, bankers, and produced
a bill for 901., upon a London banker, and begged them to
discount it. This they declined, and their clerk advised pri-
soner, who had stated that the prosecutor, Norman, owed him
money, to draw on him, and get his acceptance payable at
Norman's bankers, and on that bill they could make the ad-
vance, and they wrote for him the body of the proposed bill.
The prisoner said he could get his wife and sister-in-law to be
the drawers, and then he was sure Norman would accept. A
few days afterwards he returned to the bank with the forged
acceptance of John Norman, instead of John Henry Norman
upon the bill, which the bank immediately discounted. Mr.
Norman swore that he never gave the prisoner any authority
to make use of, or sign his name, and that the signature, John
Norman, was not his handwriting.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of uttering the note,
knowing the acceptance to be forged.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL immediately sentenced the pri-
soner to be transported for life.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE and a Special Jury.)
CAUDLE V. SIR DAVID SCOTT, BARONET.
This was an action of slander brought by the plaintiff, an
apothecary in Brighton, against the defendant, a Magistrate
of the town.
Mr. TURNER opened the pleadings, and Mr. Sergeant AN-.
DBMS stated the case.
A charge of assault was brought by a Mrs. Pritchard, an
inhabitant of the town, in January last against the plaintiff,
whose solicitor, Mr. Faithfull, appeared for him before the
bench of Magistrates. The accusation was, that the plaintiff
had kicked Mrs. Pritchard, and the defence was that it was
entirely accidental. A discussion arose whether it was possible
the plaintiff should conduct himself in the manner which Mrs.
Pritchard had described, and the defendant, who was present
with his brother Magistrates, said, " I am of opinion he has,
and for that reason I have not taken part in assessing the pe-
nalty. I had occasion, in consequence of some gross act of
severity, to call on Mr. Caudle, and to remonstrate with him.
He flew into a violent passion, he called me a rascal and a vil-
lain, and said that I had no right to interfere; that I was always
meddling between him and the poor. Several persons were
then collecting round the door ; I was on horseback, and there-
fore rode quietly away, not being at all offended at what es-
caped from so low, so vulgar, so uneducated a man as Mr.
Caudle ; and he must also know that I, in common with other
Magistrates, took great pains to prevent his practising in this
or any town, as he was not bred to physic; but, luckily for
him, the Act of Parliament preventing uncertificated persons
practising in medicine passed one year after he entered
into business. Every one who knows me must be aware
that I never could harbour any resentment against so low, so
vulgar, and so ignorant a man, as Mr. Caudle." The Learned
Serjeant commented upon the words, which, coming from a
gentleman of so high a station and character as the defendant,
spoken in so public a manner, were calculated to do the
greatest injury to the plaintiff in his profession. Whatever
passed before the magistrates at Brighton was sure to be
caught at with the utmost avidity, and, as might be expected,
the consequences were most serious to the plaintiff; still,
however, if the defendant would make an acknowledgment that
he had been betrayed into the use of hasty expressions, the
plaintiff would be satisfied.
Edward Wood, of Lewes, stated that the plaintiff practised
as a surgeon and apothecary as far back as 1807, and attended
his family until 1819 ; at one time he was parish surgeon.
Richard Terry, a native of Lewes, remembered the plaintiff
living at Lewes, and practising as an apothecary.
Cross-examined.—Did not recollect whether plaintiff was
ever a schoolmaster ; at first he did not pretend to be a doctor ;
witness did not know how plaintiff then got his living; he was
intimate with him, but could not ask him that. Mrs. Caudle
first told witness that plaintiff was a doctor ; plaintiff left
Lewes about 1821 or 1822 ; witness was not sure that plain-
tiff's family were removed to East Grinsted.
Henry Sutton, Surgeon at Brighton, knew plaintiff prac-
tising at Lewes nearly twenty-five years ago ; he came to
Brighton in 1822, and still practises there.
- Angelo Bennett and Barclay Phillips, both reporters, took
notes of what passed at the sitting of the Brighton Magis-
trates. Mrs. Pritchard made a complaint against the plaintiff
for an assault. Several Magistrates were on the Bench, and
and amongst them Sir David Scott. The Magistrates had
not agreed to any penalty before defendant spoke. The wit-
nesses then proved the words, nearly as stated.
Mrs. Pritchard attended, was sworn, and said plaintiff had
hired two rooms of her, for a sick female. There had been
disturbances in her house, and in consequence her husband had
given defendant notice to quit the lodgings on the following
Monday week. Defendant did quit them, and took away all
his goods, excepting a bedstead and a few other articles, and
gave up the key. On the Tuesday morning he came for the
bedsteads, &c. Mrs. Pritchard told him he could not have
them then, as the room was locked, and her husband, who had
the key, was out. Plaintiff, however, went up stairs, shook
the door, and said he would break it open. Mrs. Pritchard
said he should not, on which he used some offensive words, and
committed the assault ; and Mrs. Pritchard then showed her
arm, with the marks of a kick upon it. The plaintiff's attor-
ney told the Magistrates that the plaintiff had kicked her
accidentally. -
Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE submitted that the plaintiff must be
nonsuited, as the defendant was a Magistrate, and was so act-
ing, and a notice of action had not been proved, as required
by statute.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE reserved the point, and gave the
defendant leave to move.
Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE then addressed the Jury, and con-
tended that the defendant was acting as presiding magistrate,
on a complaint for an assault preferred against the plaintiff, and
was speaking in a privileged situation ; and was, therefore,
justified in what he had said. The Judges of the land were
protected in what they said, and so in some degree were coun-
sel. Every word used had a bearing upon the case of Mrs.
Pritchard. He had never in his life heard a surgeon or
apothecary that would not rather have sunk into the Tartarus
of his own medicine chest, than appear before a bench of
magistrates charged with kicking a helpless and defenceless
woman ; but he should not venture to express his indignation
on that point, because he had no desire to furnish materials for
an action of slander. The case the defendant had to decide
upon, from the evidence of Mrs. Pritchard, depended in a
great measure upon the probability whether the plaintiff was
such a man as could be believed to have conducted himself in
the manner described ; and none but a low, vulgar, ignorant,
uneducated man, could have done so. The words complained
of were therefore relevant to the case, and were spoke with
reference to the case, and not for the purpose of defaming the
plaintiff.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—Words might be justifiably used
on some occasions which would be actionable at others, as in
giving characters to servants, or in addresses of Counsel to
Juries, &c. The defendant was giving judgment on a charge
made by Mrs. Pritchard ; he, however, certainly, in some
respects, did deviate from the case before him. The Jury
would judge whether the words applied to the plaintiff per-
sonally or professionally—if they thought they did not apply
professionally, there would be an end of the case ; but if they
thought that the defendant took advantage of his situation to
launch out invectives against the plaintiff's professional cha-
racter—or if they thought he was actuated by malicious mo-
tives, they would give such damages as the case required.
To render the words actionable, the Jury must be of opinion
that they were spoken of the plaintiff's professional character.
The Jury retired for about half an hour, and then found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Farthing.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A journeyman tailor, named Edward Plank, was summoned
to answer the complaint of Mrs. Frances, the keeper of a
cookshop in Norton- Falgate.
Mrs. Frances said that on Monday the defendant, who had
been in the habit of annoying her by entering her shop when
full of customers, and asking for plates of stewed cats, grilled
monkeys, and other dishes which she never sold, walked in
tipsy, and ordered a pound of stocking-feet puddings. She
civilly told him she had none. " What !" said he, " can you
tell such a lie, when it was only this blessed morning you
bought the stockings off my feet to boil your pudding in ?"
The ALDERMAN—You never could have had any dealings
of the kind with him.

Complainant—Never, my Lord, with nobody. So he takes
up a piece of plumb-pudding .I just weighed out to a young
woman, and he puts it to his nose, and says he, I'll give my
oath that 'ere pudding was boiled in my hose. The young
woman walked off, leaving the article behind, and I took up a
pint of beer I had just had in, and throwed it at his head, upon
which he seized me by the shoulders, and shaked me so
wiolently that I thought I had fairly lost my skin, and I'm sore
all over from my neck to my toes ever since.
The ALDERMAN—WeII, defendant, what have you to say in
answer to the charge of having first injured the trade of this
poor woman, and then having assaulted her ? Plank—Please
you, my Lord, I'm in the habit of getting my wittles in this
lady's shop, for she sells good things now and then, only
sometimes she an't just quite particler as she ought to be ;
and, you know, if people an't nice in such fuzzy weather, it
won't keep sweet. well, my Lud, when I went in, says I,
" Mrs. Frances, do you steam your oven with gas ?"—" No,
you blaguard tailor," says she. So I sees a stocking laying on
the counter, and, says I, " Maybe you make pudding,bags of
old stockings, and I can tell you, if you do, you shan't have no ,
custom of mine." Upon that she ups with the pot, and flings
it at my lead. It's a. common thing -with cook-shops. There