The Sun.
London, England, 1832-01-12 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY,)

His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS was occupied the
whole morning with hearing petitions, none of which pos-
sessed any feature of importance to the public.

COURT (IF KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justiee PArrEsox
sat to hear motions for new trials.

SCARF V. GARDNER.

This was an action tried at the sittings after last term,
by which the plaintiff, who was an attorney in Lyon's-
Inn, and also a vestry clerk of the parish of Putney, sought
to recover damages of the defendant, who was a country
Magistrate, for publishing a libel of and concerning the
plaintiff. The alleged libel, it was admitted, was written
by the defendant, and published in a country News-
paper; it purported to be the report of an appeal
to the Quarter Sessions agains the conviction of Mr.
Scarf, for an offence under the Game Laws. The plaintiff,
it was stated, bad been in the habit of driving down to
Henley in a gig, putting up his gig at a respectable com-
mercial inn, but staying himself at a low public-house in
Duck-lane, always concealing his name ; that from thence
he sallied with his pot-companions to various preserves,
upon which he always trespassed and shot game ; that he
always eluded the vigilance of the gamekeepers by jump-
ing into his gig, which was at hand, and driving off at a
brisk pace ; that at length he was detected, and on being
summoned before a Magistrate, he was convicted in the
penalty of ten pounds, against which conviction he
appealed, but the conviction having been affirmed
with costs, the plaintiff had to pay for his partiality
for game no less a sum than 26/, 17s. Sd. This was the
substance of the alleged libel. Several pleas were pleaded
by the defendant, one of which was a general justifica-
tion. The Jury found for the plaintiff with nominal
damages.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in behalf of the plaintiff, now moved
for a rule to show cause why there should not be a new
trial, on the ground that the pleas, even if they were sup-
ported, did not themselves justify the whole libel. One
plea was, that the libel was a fair and impartial report of
the trial at the Quarter Sessions, that plea had not
been supported by proof.
Cnixr JUSTICE—That certainly was not supported.
Mr. Camraitm, then stated that the libel charged that
plaintiff had been in the habit of coming to Henley, stop-
ping at a low public-house, and putting up his horse and
gig at the Commercial-inn, and that he was in the habit
of sallying forth upon these excursions of trespassing upon
preserves. Now it was not proved that he had so gone
down to Henley more than once. The assertion also
about pot-companions was not pleaded, and not proved ;
it was merely proved the plaintiff had gone with a man :
there were other objections, but Mr. Campbell thought he
had stated enough to justify the granting of his motion
for a rule to show cause why there should not be a new
trial.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he thought that a stet
processus would have been best.
Mr. CAMPBELL had no objection to that course.
His LORDSHIP asked Sir James Scarlett, who was en-
gaged on the trial, if he could consent for the defendant to
a stet processus, as the expenses would be otherwise
greatly increased.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT said he had received no instruc-

tions, but he would consult his client.
The Court, after some consultation, granted a rule to
show cause unless the defendant consented to a stet pro-

cessus.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

MACHELL V. SYLVISTKA.

Mr. THESSIGER stated that this was an action by the
plaintiff, an apothecary and surgeon in Berners-street, to
recover a sum of 51/. Bs. for medicines and attendance
upon the family of the defendant, who was a widow, and
kept a boarding-school in St. John's Wood-road. The
Learned Counsel was about to state what he understood
was the nature of the defence, when.
Mr. POLLOCK, for the defendant, said his client had
received a bill of the plaintiff's demand, and the whole of
that demand had been paid into Court.
Mr. THEssiora. was not aware of any such bill as that
alluded to by his Learned Friend. The plaintiff had fre—
quently attended the defendant, and hid charged for each
visit a guinea, exclusive of medicines, as he had a legal
right to do. He supposed the contest would be whether
or no the plaintiff had a right to charge for attendance
besides medicine.

Mr. POLLOCK then produced the bill he referred to,
which was addressed, not to the defendant, but to the exe-
cutors of her late husband, and included attendances at
two guineas per week, exclusive of medicines. The whole
of that bill was Reid into Court.
Ills LottosuiP then supposed that the question would
be, whether the plaintiff, having once sent in a bill,
charging two guineas a week for attendance, was after-
wards entitled to augment that demand and charge
a guinea for each visit. If that were the question it would
be soon disposed of by the Jury.
Mr. THESSIGER was afraid that that would he the

question.
His LORDSHIP thought that the plaintiff would have
little chance of success by submitting his case to the Jury.
Mr. THESSIGER offered to withdraw a Juror.
Mr. POLLOCK would not consent to that.

His Loansitip thought it was quite enough for a per-
son to pay what was first demanded of him, before putting
the matter into the hands of an attorney.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.