The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-28 00:00:00

THE RING.-FIGHTS TO COME.

Jan. 25.--Jem Bailey and Charles, 501.asicie, on Lans-
down Race Course.
Jan. 28•--William Turner and William Redman, same
place, 3/. a side.
March 11.—. Ned Neal and Baldwin, within forty miles of
London, 250/. to 2001.
March 12.—Dick Acton and Jack Nicholls, 25/. a side.
April B.—Brown and Sampson, 230/. a side, half way
between Birmingham and Bridgenorth.
April 8.---Piefinch and Young Gas, 1001. a side

NATURAL HISTORY.-A blood mare was
taken to the Cape of Good Hope, and whilst there had a
foal by one of the little horses of the country, which are
striped on the neck like the Zebra. The foal was striped
like the stallion, and became a fine animal. The same
mare was afterwards brought again to England, and had
several foals by English blood horses; but for three gene-
rations they were marked in the same manner as the fruit
of her firet.love. Drawing of these animals are preserved
in the Hunterian Museum...... London Weekly Review.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN, 26.
T 0 :0' end s furut a
mile
BIGGS AM) ANorkiEß, Fri.LoitEs.
SERGEANT The COMMON
cause why the verdict obtained by the plaintiffs
o
should not be set aside and a 1
action was tried at the last Sittingsentered. ts
hv
The
at Guildhall be-
fore Lord Tenterden. It was brought by the plain-
tiffs, as assignees of a person named Collier, a bank-
rupt, to recover the sum of 1411. received by the de-
fendant, after the time when Collier had corninitte,d
an act of bankruptcy.
Lord TENTERDEN---Take a rule to show cause.
CRAY C. GUTILERIDGE.
In this case, which was tried at the Sittings after
Michaelmas Term, before Lord Tenterden, tae
plaintiff sought to recover the amount of certain de-
posit money paid to the defendant, an auctioneer,
under the following circumstances :—The defendant
had put up to auction, at Garraway's, an estate belong-
ing to a Mr. Edwards,and the plaintiffbecame thepur-
chaser of it at the sum of 1,1801. The deposit-
money on the purchase Wag ?,261,, for which sum the
a. pl ; .nt.- gave a cheque to thedefemlant)who immedi-
ately handed it over to Mr. Edwards, Wild Ni,as pre-
sent at the sale, and whom the plaintiff knew to be
the vender of the estate. An agreement between
the plaintiff and defendant was signed in the usual
form, by which it was stipulated to complete the
purchase on a day named, Subsequently, However,
a defect was discovered in the vender's title, and on
the part of die plaintiff a notice was giver) to the de-
fendant as auctioneer, not to paw over the deposit-
money to the plaintiff. He had, however) already
paid it over; and at the trial it was contended on
his part that such payment exonerated him from all
liability to the plaintiff. Lord Tenterden, however,
directed a nona:it, on the ground that the defendant,
as stakeholder between the parties, ought to have
retained the money in his hands until the purchase
was ready for completion, or at all events until all
objections to the title were removed.
Mr. FOLLETT now applied for a rule to show cause
why the nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new
trial granted, Although his Lordship (Lord Ten-
had
terden) on Lie tr.;a..a.;if - great stress on the cir-
cumstance of the defendant having signed the agree-
ment, yet he (Mr. Follett) should submit that the
defendant had riot by that act rendered himself per-
sonally- liable.; It had been considered in some ease:
that an auctioneer was a stakeholder, but in the pre-
sent case the defendant had been employed on the
part of the vender only, and did not act as an agent
of both parties. He was exclusively the agent of
the vender, and the mere receipt of the deposit
money did not make him a stake-holder.
Lord TENTERDLS—Iie may be an agent of the
vender, and yet a stakeholder. In this ease the de-
fendant sold the estate and received the deposit-
money. He arid the plaintiff signed an agreement,
the teems of which were—. We do hereby mutually
agree to complete the purchase." &c. Here the de-
fendant, acting for his principal, signed the contract
in such terms as rendered it personally binding upon
himself.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. f 26.
MINGLE V. 30WILLIAM.

This was an action of libel, which it was alleged
was contained in a letter• written by the defendaotto
the Committee of the Battle-bridge and Holloway-
road Company, of which the plaintiff was clerk and
agent. The case was tried a few days since, before
the Lord Chief Justice, at Guildhall, when a verdict
was returned for the plaintiti.—Damages 40s.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, on the part of the defend-
ant, now moved for a rule to show cause why that
verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted, on the ground of a misdirection on the part
of the Judge.--sale granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAN. 26.
HALL V. LONGMAN AND OTIIERS.

This was an action of libel, brought by Mr. Hall,
a teacher of languages, against Messrs. Longman,
Rees, and Co.. the celebrated publishers of Pater-
noster-row, for publishing a letter of the late Dr.
Jones, purporting to be an exposure of the Hamil-
tonian system, in which the writer, speaking of the
plaintiff, said that he had lately attended a lecture
given by him, and then proceeded thus :—" The
lecturer did not want talents, nor did he Want impu-
dence : he wanted nothing but honesty ; for the
whole of what he called his system was taken from
a little work published by inc, called Analogi(c La-
time," &c. The trial took place in the sittings
after last Term, before the Lord Chief Baron, and
the jury found a verdict for the defendants.
Mr. BROUGHAM now moved the Court for a rule
to set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial, on
the ground of misdirection on the part of the Learned
Judge. His Lordship, in addressing the jury, said,
" The sting of the libel is the imputing to the plain-
tiff the want of honesty ; undoubtedly this is a harsh
phrase taken by itself, but it is one which may be
explained; and the way in which it is explained on
the other side is this—they say it is not an imputa-
tion of dishonesty in the common sense of the word,
but merely one of plagiarism. It is for you to say
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to any da-
mages. There is no evidence of his having incurred
any injury through this publication : it does not ap-
pear :that he is the poorer or the less esteemed in
consequence of it." The tendency of the latter
part of this address, the Learned Counsel contended,
was, by saying that no evidence, &hors the libel,
had been given of damage incurred by the plaintiff,
to mislead the jury into the supposition that such
evidence was necessary.
Mr. Baron HULLOCK—In case of libel, does not
the law infer damage from the libel itself ?
Mr. BROUGHAM—That is precisely, my Lord, the
ground of my abjection to his Lordship's charge.
By saying that no evidence of special damage had
been given, the jury would be naturally induced to
infer that such evidence was necessary to warrant
them in giving a verdict for the plaintiff. This is
different from a case of oral slander.
The LORD CHIEF BARON.—Did I not put it to
the jury to say, whether or not this was more than a
mere charge of plagiarism
Mr. BROUGHAM.—Your Lordship said that that
was the way in which it was explained on the other
side. But, with great respect, it appears to rue,
that even a charge of plagiarism may be so made as
to constitute a libel.

Mr. Baron GARROW—Can any person understand
an imputation to be cast upon a man's moral charac-
ter by this :—I ho to hear a lecture ; the lecturer
stands up behind his desk and brings to the Per-
formance of his task talents, confidence, and a know-
ledge of his subject. More than this is net re-
quired, nor can we conceive what we have to d°
with his honesty on such an occasion. Well, I say
he possesses those requisite qualities which I have
mentioned, but adds that he wants honesty, not in
the ordinary sense of the word, but the honesty or
candour to acknowledge that he I; indebted for
that part of his system, for whichhe is so much ap-
plauded, to a work of mine, from Which it was
borrowed. Now, was it not a fair question for lire
jury to determine whether such a mere charge of
want of candour as that entitled the plaintiff to any
damages ?
Mr. Baron HULLOCK—It is very true an impu-
tation of a want of honesty is a libel, but it may be
so qualified by other expressions as to prevent any
person from inferring from it that the party is really
dishonest. So, to charge a man Ivith being a felon

Mr. BROUGHAM-4 apprehend that a charge of
plagiarism may be so made as to amount to a very
serious imputation upon a man's reoral character.
As, for instance, if I charge a man with taking a
book of mine, on which I bestowed great labour
and time, and publishing it with his name in the
title-page, I know no more foul imputation to cast
upon hi:, honesty or moral character,- It was with
a view to rescue his character from a charge of foul
plagiarism like thiS that the plaintiff, Mr. Hall,
brought the present action. It was imputed to him,
that he had stolen his principles from Dr. Jones's
book, without acknowledgment, whereas he had ita
fact published these principles many years before
Dr. Jones'3 boolz was written. And believing that
to be a libel on his character, we now apply for a
new trial, on the ground that the jury were miglea
into the belief that evidence ought to. have beets
given of special damage incurred by the plaintiff.

311.. Baron CT'Anßow.—Taking the whole of the
charge together, I confess I can find ne fault with
the advice given by my Lord Chief Baron to the
jury. I think it was a very proper advice, and veil
properly adopted by them.
The rest of the Court concurred iu th;,_; opinicT,
and the rule was refused.