The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-13 00:00:00

a letter couched in these terms, " Sir, as I believe you are
well aware that Gardener was discharged from the ser-
vice of Mrs. Nichols and myself for dishonesty, and I
L have reason to suppose that many of the flowers of
which I have been robbed are growl* in your garden. When
can I see you ?" That was the case of the present action.
The defendant had pleaded a justification to the first part of
the libel, and by it was bound tb prove that the plaintiff had
been so discharged for dishonesty. He dared him to the
proof, and had no fears for the result. He would probably
have an opportunity of •addressing them again ' • in the mean-
time he would call his witnesses, and rely upon the Jury.
then called William Charsley, parish-clerk of Hendon,
said4:e knew the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff was now
living with Mr. Pearce, before that time he lived three or four
years with Mr. Williams, and before that with Colonel Ni-
chols, and after his death with the Colonel's widow. A letter
put into his hand, the signature to which was in the hand-
writing of Mr. Williams.—(Thc letter was put in and read :
• it was the one referred to in Mr. Thessiger's address.)
Cross-examined by Mr. WIGIITMAN— Had some conversa-
tion with the plaintiff, who told him that he had nothing to do
with the action ; his master had to pay all the expenses, and
he should never trouble his head with it. Had often heard
him say that the defendant had been a very good friend cf his.
Mr. Pearce, the plaintiff's master, said the plaintiff had been
in his service since May, 1833. He had made no application
to the defendant for Gardner's character before he received the
letter which had been read. Ho had nothing at all to do with
the action further than as a witness, and was not liable for one
farthing of the expenses.
Cross-examined—Knew the plaintiff had been living with
Mr. Williams before he took him into his service. He (wit-
ness) had also brought an action against Mr. Williams, because
he considered that he was libelled also in the same letter. His
attorney was the same who was conducting the present action.
Knew from the plaintiff he had brought another action, against
the present defendant for wages. The plaintiff received from
him 351. a year, and he was boarded in the house. Had heard
that the plaintiff had lived with Mrs. Nichols, but did not
know for what he was discharged.
Re-examined.--Mrs. Gardner had been keeping witness's
house for a considerable time before the plaintiff came into his
service.

Mr. Hurley (the plaintiff's solicitor) proi,ed a 'demand for
141. 95., for wages due to the plaintiff. It was made on the
3d of October, and an action was brought for the amount in
the following November.
Mr. WIGHTMAN then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He very much regretted the situation in which he was
placed by the absence of his Learned Friends, who were to

have led-him. He said he would prove his case, and then con-.
fidently rely upon getting a verdict. The action was evi-
dently not that of the plaintiff; but of Mr. Pearce, who also
had an action for the very same letter. He trusted the Jury
would not gratify the revenge of Mr. Pearce, in putting costs
into the pocket of his attorney—he it was who the mover of the
whole ease. He then called
William Nichols, a moneyer at the Mint. Was son of Mrs.

Nichols, in whose service the plaintiff had lived. Portlierly
she
.had attended as a witness when the cause was not called
on. She had died since last term. Plaintiff lived in her ser-
vice . for four years. One Sunday morning he saw a man
named Milburn in the garden, carrying a large butfdle.
Another Sunday morning, in October, 1828 or 1829,
be and a constable stopped three men with onions,
apples, and cabbage plants upon them. They were
taken to Mr. Williams, who is a Clerical Magistrate. Witness
sent for Gardner, where, being in company with them, they
said be gave the things to them and the charge was with-
drawn. Gardner did not say anything on the occasion. He
withdrew the charge at Mr. Williams suggestion—he- said it
%you'd ruin the gardener. He was discharged from Mrs. Nichols
service immediately.

-.7
Cross-examined— Gardener attended voluntarily at Mr.
Williams's, and he entered that gentleman's service in two
weeks after. Mr. Williams did not apply to his mother for a
character.

John Warren, constable of Hendon, remembered Mr. Wil-
liams being ill in the winter of 1832. Knew that lie had some
very choice flowers in his garden. Was present when Mr.
Williams discharged the plaintiff. Heard Mr. W. say, " I
took you out of charit," with a dishonest character ; I have
seen you carry several parcels from my premises, and some
things are amissing which are under your care, and I shall
discharge you with a dishonest character." Plaintiff said pay
me my wages, the defendant said, " come in and I will do so.'
They then went in doors, and when they came out again the
defendant again said, " I might have done it last Thursday,
when I saw you carry aw ay a large bundle."
Cross-examined—Wm; not present at the beginning of the
conversation. They were both warm, and Mr. Williams
spoke very loud.
Peter Carty was gardener to defendant before the plaintiff.
He was present when Mrs. Nichols made the charge against
the men, and Mr. Williams said it would be a pity to ruin
Gardener's character. He once called at Mr. Williams', and
walked round the garden. With plaintiff. Ile saw some pinks
in pots, which the defendant had bought of a florist, to whom
he had given them after he had taken them from Mrs. Nichols
when he left. In June last he saw Gardener, who said be
had nothing to do with the action—it was his master's—and
he did not care whether it was won or lost.

Mr. THESSIGER then addressed the Jury in reply.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and
The Jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for the

plaintiff—Damages 5/.

COMMON-PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BOYLE V. TOOKE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a young
woman of the age of twenty, against the defendant, a pub-
lican residing at 'Hammersmith, to recover damages for in-
juries sustained by her in consequence of being knocked
down by the defendant's gig, whilst he was driving it. The
plaintiff, it appeared by the evidence, was coming along the
Edgware-road, at half-past nine o'clock at night, on the
29th of last July, and was crossing the road where it meets
the New-road, in order to join some of her friends on the
opposite side, when she was knocked down by one of the
shafts.of the defendant's gig, who was driving down the New-
road at what the witnesses described as a moderate pace.
The only witness who saw the accident, said that the de-
fendant could not stop his gig, as there was an omnibus
coming along which would have taken the gig and upset it,
if it stopt. He further stated that he did not think
any blame attached to the defendant, as the accident
occurred from the plaintiff running round the horse, in-
stead of waiting till the defendant had passed, and then
passing by the regular crossing. The defendant drew up
►mmediately, and assisted to convey the plaintiff to the
nearest surgeon's shop, where he ordered her to be taken
all proper care of, and left his card, promising to pay all
expenses'whieh the case might require. The only seeming
injury which the plaintiff received was a bruise on the arm,
but she had received some internal injuries which confined
her to her bed for about two months, and which for some
time rendered her recovery doubtful. It was for com-
pensation for those injuries that the present action was
brought.

The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case to the Jury, and
told them the" only question for them to try was, whether the
accident was occasioned by the plaintiff running carelessly
in front of the gig, so as to render it nearly impossible for
her to escape, or whether the defendant: was driving p.t
such a rate, or in such a manner, as to render him action-
able for the accident that had occurred.

The Jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned a
verdict for the defendant.

- There was another action, brought by the father of the
plaintiff against the defendant, in order to recover compen-
sation for the loss of his daughter's services ; but the
Counsel agreed to withdraw a Juror in both actions—thus
leaving each party to pay their own costs.

SOUTHWARK REFORM DINNER.—Great pre-
parations are being made for conducting the dinner intended
to be given to John Humphery, Esq., and W. Harvey, Esq.,
by the electors of Southwark in a very magnificent style. The
large room at the New London Bridge Tavern, which is 74
feet by -32, has been fitted up as a tent, and splendidly adorned
with the national and City flaps, Mr. -Humphrey's banner as
Sheriff of London, &c. Several musical gentlemen of talent are
engaged. The dinner will be provided by Mrs. Harvey, of
the -Three Tuns ; and the Committee are bestowing the
greatest care tc. ensure the comfort of the company, which
is the more necessary, as we understand that the demand
for tickets already greatly exceeds the number that can be
accommodated. Mr. Grote, Dr. Lushington, Mr. flume, Major
Beauclerk, Mr. Tennyson, Sir Samuel Whalley, and .Colonel
Evans have already accepted the invitation to attend the din-
ner ; and others of the Metropolitan Members are expected in
addition to the Members for Southwark.

HANOVER, FEB. 2.—His Royal Highness the
Duke of Cambridge set out yesterday with a numerous suite,
to pay a visit to the Prince of Schaumburg Lippe, at Backe-
burg. We hear that the Duke and Duchess, with the Prin-
cesses, will go to England at the beginning of the next month,
to be present at the confirmation of Prince George.
Symptoms of change on the Irish Judicial Bench
have exhibited themselves in the striking of the approaching
circuits. The four following out of six have been promul-
gated :—Home Circuit—the Chief Justice and Baron Smith ;
North-east—Judge Johnson and Baron Pennefather ; Lein-
ster—Judge Moore and Baron Foster; Munster—Judge
Crampton and Mr. Serjeant Green. The appointment of
Mr. Serjeant Green as one of the next-going Judges of Assize
has created considerable surmise as to contemplated arrange-
ments, for at present none of the Judges are in bad health.
The members of the Church Commission held a
meeting at three o'clock yesterday afternoon at the office of
the Commissioners for Building Additional Churches. The
same Commissioners (including Sir Herbert Jenner) attended
as were present at the meeting held on Wednesday.
SCIENCE IN RUSSIA.—In one of the last sittings
of the Academy of the Arts and Sciences of St. Petersburgh,
it -was resolved that a sum of ten thousand rubles (nearly
5001.) should be appropriated to the purchase of the manu-
scripts, copper-plates, and herbarium of the late Marshal Von
Bibberstein. The Academy also approved of the application
of a similar sum towards the first year's expense of an
" Archmographical Journey through the Russian Dominions."
The same meeting gave its sanction to the acquisition of a
collection of birds, in which the Zoological Museum is at
present deficient. •

One of the neatest compliments on record is that
paid by Lord Camden to Fox, that " his gripe was immortality,
and he knew that posterity would pay it."