The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-14 00:00:00

COURT OF COM3ION PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Mr.
Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)

TUN KS V. ELPHICK.
This was an action to recover damages for
slander.

Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Charnock appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Skinner and Mr. Dowdeswell
for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this case, in September last, pur-
chased of Mrs. Read the business of a butcher, in
East Moulsey, and paid £lOO for goodwill and
fixtures. The defendant had been for many years
a butcher in the same village. The plaintiff's case
was that in a conversaticn in February last between
the defendant, Mr. Greaves, and Mr. Furber, the

then keeper of the New Inn, but who had since
died, Greaves said that two diseased cows had passed
his house, and that the boy who drove them in•
formed him that they were going to the premises
of Mr. Baldry, a cattle dealer, at Twickenham.
The defendant said, " They do not send them so far
now ; there was one from Mr. Taylor's slaughtered
in this village last week." He added, that it was
killed at the, plaintiff's shop. He also said
that Dr. Roberts (the farrier), in passing the
shop, had noticed the meat, and said that, unless
the authorities of the village interfered, he would
give information to the police ; that he did not
consider the meat fit forhuman food. He also said
it was publy known that one of Mr. Taylor's de-
ceased beasts had been slaughtered the previous
week at the plaintiff's. On another occasion, in the
coffee-room of the New Inn, the defendant said, in
the presence of a witness named Howard, to
a man named Payne, " We shall have some cheap
beef." Payne said, " How is that ?" and the de-
fendant answered, " My neighbour, Tunks, has
killed one of Taylor's diseased cows, which was
driven down in the dark." He said a policeman
watched to see where it went to, and that the beef
in the shop did not look fit to eat. The witness,
Howard, admitted that he had formerly been in the
defendant's. service, and ten years ago he was tried
on a charge of receiving some beef stolen from the
defendant, but was acquitted.
Mr. Taylor said he had sold two heifers to the
plaintiff, for £25 155., and they were both
healthy and sound, though many of the animals
at the time on his farm were very badly diseased.
There was other evidence to show that the meat
was good, and Mr. Roberts denied that he had ever
said that there was diseased meat in the plaintiff's
shop.
The plaintiff and his wife were called to show
the injury sustained in consequence of the slander.
In September the takings in the plaintiff's shop
were about £5 a week, but in January the amount
had risen to nearly £4O. After -the slander the
amount decreased largely, and last week the plain-
tiff only took £3 ss. Bd.
On the other hand the defendant was called, and
he denied ever having uttered the slanderous words
imputed to him. Payne also denied the use of the
words said by Howard to have been spoken in his
presence.
A witness, named Hewitt, stated that he had

seen some beef at the plaintiff's shop which was of
the colour of mahogany, and he suggested to Mrs.
Tunks that she should not keep it in the front of
the shop.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff--
Damages £3O.