The Sun.
London, England, 1810-07-18 00:00:00

LMT' REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S I4ENCH, fuLy

LOVELL. ‘VALLER.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that IIlif; was
an action brought by the plaintiff,. who was Pro-
w ietor of the Natesman Ne spatter, against the de-
lei,dant, a news-vender. The ground of the coin-
planit was, that the. defendant had substituted the
.dy'red, another Evening Nest spaper, for the-States-
Mall, in ins delivery to a subscriber, to the detriment
of the plaintiff's property. He was aware that the
present immediate injtiry was trifling, but there was
no saying to what extent it might at leugih pro-.
ceed, if toe practice complained of was persisted in.
The value of a newspaper depended entirely on the
extent of its circulation, and that circul Alan the con-
duct of the defendant went doubly to prevnt ; first
by apositive injury to the paper itself, and next by
the coMparative propagation of another. The States-
man had belonged to a number of proprietors, of
whom the plaintiff was one ; disputes had arisen
among them, the consequence of which•was the
cession of the other proprietors, and the subsequent
establishment of the Allied in opposition. It ap-
peared that in June, 1809, theplaintift
.received an
order from Mr. Horsley, a Gentleman residing at
Canterbury, for 'the Siatesinan, which order he
handed over to his news..vender, the defvndant.--.
The newsman 'wrote to Mr. Horsley for a reference,
and in consFqnence the p per was regularly sent
till the latter end of April following: 'atter that pe-
riod the Alfred was substituted. At first Mr.
Horsley supposed it a mistake, but the practice con-
tinuing for some time, be; on fits coming to town
on the t oth of May, 'called at the Statesman Office,
and informed the proprietor. The proprietor im-
mediately Cfommunicated with the defendant, who
made some slight and inefficient apology, but did
not discontinue the Alfred. Horsley at last discon-
tinupd the newsman, and, took the paper direct
from. the. Statesman Office.' Toe plaintiff only
sought nominal damages, as his chief wish was to
establish an example.
The plaintiff's property in the paper was proved
by the two first witnesses:

Mr. W. f-I.)rsley proved the statement of the
Attorney General ; and here the plaintiff' case be-
ing closed,

Mr. GA BROW Submitted, that there was no 'evi-
dence to prove that the defendant had ever substi-
tuted the Alfred for the Statesman, whiCh was the
main grievancecomplained Of. •
Mr. Horsley. was again called, and deposed, that
the envelope in which he bad received the Alfred
was exactly similar to'the one in winch the States-
:man had been formerly, ;' he never gave an
order to any one else for a newspaper.
Mr. GARROW addressed the Jury _for the "defen-
dant. He contended that the plaintiff had no right
to' recover against Waller. There was no privity
whatever proved between him and the Alfred, nor
was it at all subst,ntiated that he was the person
who tad substituted the Alfred. If. there was room
for a complaint' at all, it was rather to be exp,!eted
from fl,rSley, Who had suffered the inconvenience,
than from any one else. In order to render Waller
liable, it ought to be proved that he broke his agree-
ment, but "to such thing wa6 done. The Alfred
might even have been sent without his knowledge.,
It was frequently the case that, on the institution of
a hewspaper, a ropy was sent gratis to various per-
sons w ho might be supposed capableof .supporting, its
interests. This-he kneW was the east in the pre-
sent instance, as he had himself received an iiitrii-
dudory Oumber of the Alfred, in, which theie was
die4er, whiten by Maio,- Cartwright he believed,
on the subject `of the posse btli he 6661d-
n0t be certain, as the It.'arnej Major was in the
habit of writing so lauch' on similar subjeds Ii
might have •happerieT that a' Copy. of the. Alfred
might have been very innocently 'sent to Horsley,
without .any reference whatever, to the Stati:sinao.
" Lord: ELLENBOROUGU.--,-" In • that 'case, you
know, Mr. Gan nw, 'Mr. tibt sley must have received
two papers, one StateSman and one Allied, but that
'does not appear.",
Mr. GAltitokVadmireed it did not appear, but still
he Contended the Stateimah was trvery likely 'paper
to cause a *mistake in, the distribution". It- seemed,
from one of the witnesses,, this
.same Statesman
was a very popular produdien, so 'fliatho doubt the
moment its proprietor placarded his window with
" •0. P. Mot," " Grand Pro Cession," 'or any other
interesting sultjeet, the whole town would hitt to
puichase a paper, and the newsman, on a dearth of
the impression, would be obliged, on sUch.ocell.-
sions, to substitute any other paper he, could obtain
fur his country correspondents. • '
Lord ELLENBOLIOUGH, informed the Airy, that the
only question they had to .try. was; whether the
Alfred had been substituted by the defendant.' It
appeared
,the Stateman Was discontinued, and the
Alfred sent in the same handwriting, and tinder a
similar envelope, If they were Satisfied. of this tite'y
would give a verdid for the plaintiff,, with nominal
damages, which would Carry' costs.—Verdict
Damages, 495. Costs.

ARCHES COURT, Doc rcias' C9NiAtows, NLY 16.
TADDY AGAINST
,lOSE, FALSELY CALLING HER.-

SELF TADDY.

• This was a suit of uull►iy of marriage, promoted
by the husband against the wife, by reason of minor
rity, which was brought by Letters of Request from
the Consisturial Court of Norwich..

It appeared that the pahies were married on the
6th of January in the present year, by license, at
St. Peler's`church, in that city, (the husband being
then under the age of I) without first,having ob-
tained the consent of his mother, whose husband
died without appointing any guardian to his son.
The Learned Judge (Sir JOHN'NI6HoLL), after
hearing the evidence, and other necessary docu-!
meats .read, together with the arguments of Coun-
sel on both sides, observed, it was an extreme hard
case, and very injurious to the young woman, who
was only seventeen years of age at the time of mar-
riage, which marriage was consented to on the part
of her parents,
.but notwithstanding that, he was
bound by law (having no 'discteiion in such a case)
to pronounce for the sentence prayed, /it'd accord-
ingly pronounced the, Marriage to be owl and void.