The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—May 22.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lard Chief Justice Erle,
and. Justice Williams, Willes, and Byles.)

AM ANN V. DAMM.- SLANDER..

The plaintiff ih this case was a clerk, and he
was sent by his master to the defendant, a box-
maker, to fetch some boxes. Hating got them, the
plaintiff left the house hastily, and after he 'lna
gone tn. chs.ndant missed a mathematical box, and
thereupon he went to the plaintiff's master, and,
asked him to come iuto another room, as he had',
something to communicate that was private. The
parties went into another loom, where there was
no other person but an English servant maid, and
the defendant there said, in German, that he had
missed the mathematical box ; that there had been
Ho other person in the room but the plaintiff; and;
that he must have taken it. The plaintiff subse-:
quently sued the defendant in the Lord Mayer'si
Court, contending that the words were slanderous,i
and on that occasion he obtained a verdict. Sub-f
sequently a rule was obtained for a new trial, upon,
the ground that the judge should have directed the
jury that the communication was privileged, and'
that no action would lie. The matter to-day came
on for argument.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it was perfectly
reasonable that the defendant if he believed the
plaintiff had taken the box should warn the plain-
tiff's master of the fact, and it was also reasonable
that the defendant should, under the circumstances,'
follow the plaintiff to where he expected to find his
property, and ask as the defendant did to look in
the plaintiff's drawer to see if the box was there.
Under these circumstances the communication
must be held to be privileged.
Rule absolute.
LOCKWOOD V. LIRICK.-COMMISSION.

This matter came before the Court upon a rule'
for a new trial being argued. The short facts were,
these. The document upon which the action was
founded was issued by the plaintiffs, who are corn-!
mission agents ; it stated that they got orders for
manufacturers, acting as agents only, and not in-1
terfering with the accounts beyond forwarding the'
orders and references. Another statement was, " we
expect to receive commission on all goods bought
by those whose accounts are opened through us."l
The question was, whether "goods bought" applied
to goods for which orders had been given and ac-I
cepted, but which goods from unavoidable causes
had not been delivered. The learned judge thought
the term applied in such an instance, but it was now
submitted that the learned judge was wrong in
holding this opinion.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that what the
parties meant by " goods bought" was that the
order should be obtained by the plaintiffs and ac-
cepted by the defendant, and therefore the learned
judge was right.
Rule discharged.
COCII ER V. FENN.—SINGULAR _ VERDI CT.

This was an action to recover the amount of a

policy of insurance upon a vessel which had been
lost upon the coast, and the defence was that the
vessel had been wilfully cast away. The trial took
place before the Lord Chief Justice, at Westminster,
when the jury returned the following singular ver-
dict :—" We find a verdict for the plaintiff, but we
hope that he will get nothing by it." The question
now was whether there should be a new trial upon
the ground that the verdict was against the evi-
dence.

Mr. Keane showed cause against the rule for a
new trial being made absolute, and said that the
reason why the jury appended any remark was that
they were not pleased at the manner in which the
plaintiff gave his evidence, but yet, in spite of this
dislike, they felt compelled to find for him.
Mr. Honeyman supported the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was dissatisfied
with the finding ; it was the most unsatisfactory
verdict he had ever heard.
Rule for a new trial absolute.