The Sun.
London, England, 1828-08-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

PALACE COURT.
SLANDER.—GOMPERTZ V. ItRILLY.
This was an action for slander. The defendant pleas
the general issue.
Mr. FLANAGAN stated the case. The plaintiff 0.1
gentleman who had always borne an irreproachable
racter, and the defendant was a saddler and harness o'3l
residing in Finsbury-place. The plaintiff had now to el
plain of one of the most atrocious attacks that ever tvasl°'
upon the fair fame of any individual; and the Leal-
Gentleman said he felt happy that vice and luxury
not yet gone so far in this country as to say that e,
racter was not useful and necessary. Let the Jury v
examine their own minds, and their feelings would at e
answer, that no man could or ought with impunity to
the language which the defendant in this action was obi'
ed with applying to the plaintiff. It would be unneced,
to waste the time of the Court and the Jury by a len,
ened address, for if the Learned Gentleman were to sp
for three hours, he did not think that by any rernav
his he could add to the enormity of the defendant's 00'6,
The slanderous language of the defendant would spa'
own condemnation. It would appear in evidence that
the plaintiff's servant was proceeding down Chancery-
in his master's gig, he was met by the defendant, I
accosted him in these words, " What, are you and
master still on town ?" The next question went, a.higher, until the last inquiry crowned the w"-"let
(continued the defendant), are not you and yourlV,
hanged yet? Who did you and your m.,ter do 01
that gig in which you are now sitting? why do You 1!
that coast with a crest on your button ? you are 1111;•
vant, you are a partner with your pretended masterf4
you go about swindling together : he has robin
of 1001. worth of harness, and you may tell kt:
have said so ; I'll pull you both up together.
master is a notorious thief; he has been guilt'
many felonies, and has compromised them to prevent
being transported—he is a felon." This was the 01°
of which the plaintiff justly complained," and, as
character was dear to man, a jury would prevent scow
iv
from using such language in the public streets. It
the Learned Gentleman thought, be an insult to tu_4t,
derstandiag of the Jury to attempt to aggravate the
which rendered the present action necessary, and lie,
regretted that, consistently with the jurisdiction °''
Court, they had been obliged to limit the dorsi
191. 1 Os.
Samuel Andrews was then called and examined''
proved that, on the 24th of June last, he was rest
Chaacery-lane when the pldintiff's servant, whose nO4
Spurling, was addressed by the defendant in nor
very words stated by the Learned Counsel.
On his cross-examination by Air. Ross—The 4
said, lam a wine merchant. I am frequently
through Chancery-lane, indeed, I may say, five days
the seven ; I reside at No. 13, Lambeth-place; 1,
the plaintiff, Mr. Gompertz, for about six or eight ati
but I never accepted bills for him or drew bills 01il
but I have frequently sold him ale and cyder; I neY
Spurling dressed otherwise than as a servant. 'fbe
took place between Cursitor-street and Symond's-iot
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ross took• a preliminary objection, namell.
there was no evidence of the slanderous words havi
spoken within the jurisdiction of this Court--that,
say, in the city of Westminster, in the county of
sex, Chancery-lane, being within the limits of the'
London.

The Learned JUDGE over-ruled this objection.
Mr. Ross then submitted that the plaintiff must
suited, inasmuch as the words imputed to the dt .
contained no substantial charge of felony, as stated ;
declaration. The whole context of the words 11
farther than to convey a charge of swindling. Tbo
Gentleman contended, although the defendant,lin tl
tion of passion and with irritated feelings might haft bt
the epithet " thief" to the plaintiff, still that 0.
coupled that expression with a general charge of el,
the particular charge of felony must merge into Os
The JUDGE was of opinion, that there was a sullo
charge of felony contained in the words proved
been spoken by the defendant. '
041
Mr. Ross said, that as the point of law was agaitii
he trusted that the Jury, after an attentive considered
all the circumstances, would think that justice nil
side. The Jury, he hoped, would not bind down th,)

ant to any particular epithet which he might have
moment of passion, but would infer from the O,
together, what every bystander mast have inferresio6
meant to charge the plaintiff with being a sw'o'p
If the defendant had taken up goods from differes,of
men,ics
vodsiweeldi t
was
ota
shu
et eodvweefre
npintending.
,dto pay for theln---1
l
the f
hraaive
iansoue,chfarroanacterprtoavinlogse
.4
the a unondthtdr eeua others,
htlt luoefghl surelyti e
tt
yet he could and would prove the plaintiff Gone rtli
a swindler, and that his character was not sf°
farthing.
Mr. FLANNAGAN objected to the admissibilill
such evidence, as there had not been a plea of jusot
put upon the record. Vo give such evidence f°r„
pose of mitigating damages, would be to atlgoai
state of the cause, a justification, although untie,. 0
name. It would, moreover, be taking an nib' tb
tage of the plaintiff, who, front the plea put 111 bYele
fendant, did not expect any such evidence, ors'
was not prepared with witnesses to rebut it. tereil
Mr Ross admitted, that there was a sort of
between justification and mitigation, but said, thil r 1111
ducing evidence of the plaintiff's being a swiscit.e;
not mean to prove the truth of any particular pl
him. The object merely was to show that Ind ;
had lost nothing, because he, in fact, had "P,
character to lose. The Learned Gentlernsy'
port ,of this view of the law, cited the aft`{
Lord Leicester in 2d Campbell, in which it aPf",,
Lord Mansfield had under the plea of general ioli-ce
ted the defendant to prove rumours of the offer'
the libel imputed to the plaintiff.
After some discussion upon this point,
,
The LEARNED JUDGE ruled, that the ey-
by Mr. Ross was admissible in mitigation of fof
he would give the plaintiff permission to ine're,..oe
trial, if it shtfuld subsequently appear that he sr''
this decrsion.
frgct'
Mr. Ross was about to call evidence to toe-t 1-,,
another discussion took place, the result of 04'7;01
the Learned Judge altered his opinion, and re'linsi
ceive the evidence proffered by Mr. Ross in r°l
damages.
Mr. Ross' then proceeded to address the
hands, he said, were bound, but he hoped that,
would have little difficulty in shewing the Ja,ri.rief
character of the plaintiff was. His Learne3,
the other side had adopted the old rule of 44,
and proving shortly. They contented thee"
calling • Mr. Andrews, when they nligbtere
duced Spurling, to whom the words 1,004
have been addressed. Why not place
1
the witness-box? He could best have I°,o
whether the charge made against his roaster,o 00,
false. He could have told the jury whether hisvhef
or had not been three times a bankrupts a'3o/,
did not owe between 20,0001. and 40,°u.d or
have told the jury whether his master birre.
watches upon his person for which he neter
could have told the jury whether his ot,so
not given two small bills to a tradesman, reeeir e p
for thedifferonce between the amount andthes t pr
and whether those bills were not afterlOr'seet
He
raised
dcouhlida hehavareaettoelvd, wothehtohteorehtihsamt asofterativisidanwe
ling could best have spoken to these cbargetelend,
he could have cleared the character of his 4
rse•
Mr. FLANAGAN protested against the cola_
.10,
Ross was pursuing. After the derision icb:
Judge, he had no right to state charges wu"
knew he would not be permitted to prove' IA
Mr. Ross, under these circurosrauc",!,..
1
altogether in the hands of the Jury, w""
of the character of thtf plaintiff as well 1;10
deuce which be kept back, and sought tool
from that which had been received. fle
itr
upon a view of the whole case, they could
_ose
The Learned .luncx summed up ; an r.:.fer
lobop-hole p- o
givingl e tthheey
advantagew oul would me meet the
few minutes' consideration, returned a verdi 4
seatiff—Dams one farthing. the
Mr. Ro sked the Judge to certify, for
deprivi LEARNEDaintiff of his costs. id Coo
etojthsthteiedeefaefoctillyet7jor.,
The JUDGE said that he would
whether be would certify or not.
Spurling had also commenced
In the course of the proceedaino
' I fendant.
of proceedings,

Xol'
CORK HARBOUR REGATTA.---
lace
the aquatic amusements commenced at tbis
hp
conducted with great spirit. The LoRD
was not present as expected.
THEATRE-ROYAL.--On M0p03.70,
atre was opened by the French CompanY 14/
with such success in the English Oper3-1,
—Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle.