The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-06 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 5.

DAVIS 7'. SHAW.
This was an action brought for slander by the plaintiff, who
was. Captain's Steward, in The ship• Mangles, during a voyage
fr ern IVladras to London, in 1819, against the defendant, an
Officer of Dragoons.
. Captain Foster, of the 14th Light 'Dragoons stated, that he
was passenger in the year 1819, on board the ship Mangles,
from .Madras to London ; that the-passengers (twelve or fifteen
in number,) had, in consequence of the civility of the plaintiff
during the voyage, agreed to 'subscribe for him 11. each ; but
were prevented from doing so by the defendant, who said,
" I shall not subscribe any thing for Davis because he is a
thief ; he has stolen my gun."
Captain Kerr immediately corroborated this statement, and
the Jury immediately found a -verdict for the plaintiff--
Damages £lOO.

JACOBS V. JONES.
This was an action •of assault. The- plaintiff was a glass
dealer, in Charles-street, Soho ; the defendant a wharfinger's
clerk. Thelatter had called upon the former for a settlement
of account. Some words arose as to the amount of the money
due; the plaintiff gave the defendant the lie, and the latter
immediately knocked him down and otherwise beat him.
Mr. GURNEY was for the plaintiff, Ad Mr. PLATT for the
defendant.—Neldict for the plaintiff—Daniages, 30s.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

THE JUNO AT THE PROSECUTION OF JAMES BROWNE,

ESQ. M. P. AGAINST ROBERT BINGHAM, ESQ.
This-was a prosecution for .endeavouring to light a duel.—
The Prosecutor is one of the Representatives in Parliament for
the County •of Mayo, of which the Defendant is the present
High Sheriff. • •
Mr. _PitiLnins, the Irish Barrister, who has been lately
called to the Bar in this country, stated the case for the prose--
cution in a brilliant speech.
The facts, as stated by the Learned Gentleman, arid proved
in evidence, were simply as•follow :—Some time in the mouth
•of February last, the prosecutor being at the time on a
Visit at the house of his father Lin-law, in Kent, the defendant
called on hiin; and stated that he had come over from Ireland,
for the purpose of Complaining to him of the conduct of the Post-
master of 'Ennis, near which town 'in Ireland the defendant
resides, and who, he said, wits insufferably uncivil to him
and his family. He proceeded to say, that -he understood
the Postmaster had been appointed through the influence
of the prOseetitOr's father (the Right Honourable Dennis
Browne), and therefore he applied to the prosecutor to pro-
cure him redress, by the removal 'of the Postmaster from
his situation. The prosecutor assured the d. fenda It that he
would acquaint his father with the coniplaint the defendant had
made. ,The Prosecutor aceordingly,loat no time 'in making his
father acquainted with the defendant's complaint of . the Post-
master,' 'in consequence of, which his father gaVe him a written
paper, stating that it was not through his interest the Post-
master had •been.appointed.— In • short time after the defend-
ant called. again on the
_prosecutor, who laid atis paper on
the table, and was about to leave the room without giving
any further explanation, when the defendant, calling him
back, said he had other• business, with him, for,• said he,-
". Your father has made my uncle promises which must be
enforced, and I have brought a' friend. from Ireland for that
purpose, and I expect a meeting froth you." • The Prose-
cutor rerlied, he had nothing more to say, and was leaving tile
room; but the defenda4 called him again, and insisted on a
saying; at the same time, " `lre can't"( ght in this,
:countay...,. I am: going to Mayo, and I know you will be there
soon." . Some time after this the defendant wrote a letter to the
piosecutbr, which 'clearly manifested his determination to force
the prosecutor to fight aduel.
'JaMes.Browne, Esq the prosecutor, proved the facts,. and
stated, that he never had any quarrel -or dispqte with
.the de-
fendant, nor had he ever given Turn the slightest provocation.
Mr. ALLEY addressed the Jury on behalfof the defendant.
The CnAiumAN. charged the Jury, that if theybelieved the
defendant intended to provoke the prosecutor to fight a duel,
they must find a verdict of guilty.
.The Jury, without any -heaitation, -found 'the- defendant
Guilty, and the Court sentenced him to pay a fine of 601. and
find security for keeping the peace, himself in 2001. and two
sureties in 1001:- each fdr two-years.
The Defendant paid the fine in COSyiti and was allowed to
depart,