The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-29 00:00:00

NUTT V. MUDFORD.

- -
Mr. PHILLIPS stated that the plaintiff (whom he de-
scribed as a solicitor at Canterbury, and having the confi-
dence of the Corporation, who had appointed him the
Town Clerk) complained of a series of libels. The de-
fendant was proprietor of a local paper, called the Kentish
Observer. There had lately been an election contest, at
which the plaintiff held a situation at one of the polling-
booths. The defendant bad taken advantage of the occa-
sion of a political contest to charge the plaintiff in his
paper with foul and corrupt practices. Now if the allega-
tions were true, he ought to prove them, in order that the
plaintiff might be, as he would deserve to be, deprived of
his situation as Town Clerk. On the contrary, the plain-
tiff had the right of demanding compensation for the injuries
inflicted.

The Learned Counsel on both sides held a conference,
when

Mr. ADOLPHUS rose, and said that for one he was old
enough to remember the contests which lasted forty days—
contests in which Mr. Fox, Sir Cecil Wray, the Duchess
of Devonshire, Lady Horton, Mrs. Hobart, &c., nay, even
down to the kitchen wench, were libelled ; but they were,
as the present, election libels, and were good-humouredly
passed by. He was also foolish enough to collect all the
squibs and paragraphs of that day, which now formed a
large volume in his library, and which were very interest-
ing. He did not blame the plaintiff for bringing an action
to sustain his character, nor did his client wish to defame
that character. The fact was, that his offence consisted in
having inserted in his paper a letter from the Times news-
paper, without being aware of the truth or falsehood of its
contents. He had no malice or personal animosity towards
the plaintiff ; for malies was alien to his mind. The plaintiff
had also been charged with obtaining a majority in favour
of a certain candidate. This allegation he retracted, and
was sorry it had been Used.
A verdict with 40s. nominal damages was then taken for
the plaintiff.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE.

WRIT OF DOWER.-bLL.TTER V. SLATTER.

Mr. JAMES, the Secondary, told the .-14,7 that .the case
about to be submitted to them was a very unusuakii.e. A
writ of dower had been issued, by which the Sheriffs were
directed to put a widow into possession of the third part of
a freehold property. The property consisted of a house,
and it was the duty of the Jury to give to the plaintiff what
appeared to them to be an exact third part of the building.
He said the present case arose from family jars, and all
interference was totally useless.
A great crowd assembled in the early part of the day in
the office, much curiosity having been excited by a case in
which damages were sought to be recovered in consequence
of a mistake made in a surgeon's shop, a dose of opium
having been given instead of a dose of rhubard. Mr.
Clarkson and Mr. Charles Phillips were engaged for the
plaintiff and defendant, and there were a vast number of
witnesses in attendance. The matter, however, was settled
out of Court, and a verdict taken for 301., without mention
of names.

PASSAGE IN SHA KSPEARE CORRECTED.----
" Vaulting ambition that o'erleaps itself," should be " its
sell." Sell is saddle, au Spenser, and elsewhere, from the
Latin and Italian. This emendation was shown to the late
Mr. Hazlitt, an acute man at least, who expressed his convic-
tion that it was the right reading, and added somewhat more
in approbation of it. Landor's Examination of William
Shakspeare.