The Sun.
London, England, 1804-07-21 00:00:00

COURT OF KING's BENCH, TULY 10.

CMS C/• DY,()N•

MI...ERSKINE stated this to be an anion to re.
cover in dan-oges, compensation on account of libel.'
loos words uttered by the Defendant of and can.
corning the Plaintiff. The parties, he ,said, are
hop.faelors, and perfrdly,respeetable; each of them
had received from a Mr. Dalby, a hop.grower, 100
pounds weight of bolsi, aid the Plaintiff sold the
lot. sent to' him at 97 shillings ; but the Defendant
was able to pro Cure only 94. shillings for his ; upon
the Owner convening with. him on the ssubject if
that difference, the Defendant uttered cer.lain words
of the Plaintiff, boporting that the Plaintiff had not,
in fad, sold the hops at 97, but had sold them at
91., and had cribbed the rest out of the weight.
Now this to a person in any kind of trade must be
highly. injurious Unless it was refuted ;. but to a
person in the lisp trade would be absolute ruin if
not repelled, because there was about that trade
something which mule the public mnrc readily
suspect fraud than in other trades. It became,
therefore necessary that the Defendant should re.
trael those injurious aspersions, which he under.
stood him to be disposed-to do. That being done,
the object of the idiom was attained, for there
was no wish on the part of' the Plaintiff to harass
the Defendant with vindielive damages. To do
away, unequivocally, all imputation of fraud in
the cindnet of the Plaintiff was all that he desired.
• Mt. Glans, on the part of the Defendant, said
his Learned Friend, Mr. ERMINE, had done the
parties, justice in
,this ease. The Defendant had
brought himself into a disagreeable situation ; he
thought his Client quite wrong ; what he hattsaid
of the Plaintiff was quite unjustifiable, and must be
Considered as highly offensive to him, for which the
Defendant was now sorry. He thought himself
very handsomely dealt by on the part of the Plain.
tiff. Mr. thans.added, he always thought it bet-
ter that apoh,gies should he plain, candid, and ure.
quivoed, alien they were made at all, not merely
rtiraeling what teas said before, but to acknow.
le(ge at once the error, and express most explicitly
concern f9r .falling into it ; for which reason the
Defendant now publicly by him, his Counsel, anide
this public acknowledgment, and offered this apo.
logy, which he thought the coly effectual way of
doing it.
Mr. ERSKIN6._.rt The Defendant pays costs as
between Artotney and Client, and submits to a ver.
diet of 501."
Vertt4 for the Plaintiff--Damages Sol.
Mr. 'ihis'sum of money is to be
divided among certain objects in an excellent chari.
table institution." _

Mr. Ginusi--" It affords great pleasure to Mr.
Dyson to learn that the money will be so well die.
posed of."

G. MOLGAN AND j essa FOWLER ro. W. MOLLOY.

The first Plaintiff is an Attorney, the sevaral a
Bookbinder. Mr. Chester Gould, who lias obtained

`►atents for numerous important purposes, had pro.
cured a Royal Grata for certain glasses useful in the,
Navy. Mr. Henderson, a pocket-book-maker, had
delivered to the value of 3501. 4S. in, the articles of
his trade to this ingenious person, for ti share in
the patent for these glasses. Colonel Sinclair, a
Gentleman too well known to need observation
here, told the Plaintiff Fowler, he had some lands to
dispose of in America, and by thii expedient con.
trived to get a portion of this cargo of pocket-books
into his possession. From Col. Sinclair they were
disposed of to a Mr. Clarke, and, through the me.
dium of the latter, they came into the house of the
Defendant.

1 Messrs. ERSKINE and WIGLEY, for the Plaintiff-4,
contended, that the, pocketbooks were the property
of the Plaintiffs, that the Defendant had bnly
,ad.
vanced - 751. upon them to Colonel Sinclair, and
that the Plaintiffs had offered this amount, and the
interest upon it, and. had demanded. the property, to
which they were justly entitled. .
• Mr, GAR Row, on the other side, argued, that the
pocket.books, if they had been admitted into the
house 'Of the Detendatt, were not under his con.

troul ; that they belonged to a lodger of the name of
Clarke; and that the action, if maintainable against
any person, could only be supported against 1103
Clarke. The evidence on both sides having been
heard,
Lord ELLINBOROUGH said, that it did not appear

the property was in the hands of the Ddendant, and
even, whether they were purchased by Clarke, or
deposited with lint as a security, was not sufficiently
distinguished for the purpose of an anion, bad it
been Urought against the latter.—Verdia for the
Defendant.