The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-24 00:00:00

MILLER.V. ELKINS.

.

The &nri occupied a considerable time in going
through.again'the papers in this case, the particulars
of winch have, more than once, been repeated. The
case wag-Oiled'with,.without having noen disposed of
in judgment. •
EK.PiII'FB PICKERING IN THE MATTan OF npT-
. ditilsSON AND OTHERS.-:-. -STOCKTON BANK.,

110 ft N E ,Strlted, titt the COnrt would'reeolleet,.

it imckprdered a renawed Commission to issue in this
matter; directed tu. new Commishitniers ; that a meeting
of the creditors should be called to consider whether

they would or. wartldo. t have anew choice of assignees;
that the Creditors4On4d have a stew choke if they
.please 4 ; .anti .that all.liarties should be 'Paid their costs
out Ofethe estate ; he ifad now to state, that creditors
who loot Vt;ted for the foxilier choice of assignees 1),)
power 'of ettorocy, were anxious to have the Court s
opinion upon the .question, whether. they might vote
undur,ihe seine powers itt Another choice, should eo
lith-lit that the Court
othlverigoiireAe
rt!rie,tlceoc,iidtardail,tleortn.„,cop
wotilditot order the, patties' ta.vote under ,ruiy instru;-
mot under which votes had beet! token: The, order.
had beerLetitered, passed, and;4:cted up‘)n; the-bank-
,kitits 101 d; been examined under it, were ,now under
e,7tateintitiott; tilerefore'llo'.emnplained of itifor,
gnllit ~ tit Ilrifigitig this. mutter "now. before the 'Court,
as it iod
.hope d site''6urt would make
Horne's•die4spay tre...eots.: 4, the epplication.
• FirslL..oThp P :was of opinion 'OW in strict ptiit,
of lawsthe Authority 'muter a
.power .of. attorney in such
a nAtt(E:asr this was gone 'nntriediUtelv on the assig-
nees;liemg chosen. Mr. Horne's '`i.;lle.nts had acted
very'properly.in bringing this poi4..liefoile the. Court;
they could not; however,iliave costs .of :the application
out of the estate; but Mr."Heold's chiral& should.
His LaRDIE if—Said he understootilie could not
sit on Monday,,,it being the, 29th of May.. •
• HAIt T said the Act of Parlirunent.enacted that
no Court should sit on the 29th. of May; but that the
Privy Couucil, considering theinselves no Court, alr.
Y
'toys sat oirthat tra. ,

COURT OF:COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL.
.(Titts DAY.).
.Before the LOCI' Chief Justice and a Common Jury,
BILOWNE. SHRUBsOLE.
This was an action for slanderous words spoken d
she Plaintiff,

Mr. PLATT'opt_ined the pleadings.-
Mr. Sergeant VA Yo u A N anted the case. The
Plaintiff' and Defendant were bared-owners, residing
at Sheerniss. The former traded in stone, Which was
used in making barker's cement. About Christmas'
last, the Plaintiff was advised to take a change of air;
on account of his health, and accordingly he went to,
Cheltenham and Bath, where he remained for a few
months ;- on which occasion the Defendant circulated
unfounded and- Malignant reports respecting him,
saying that he had been broken, and had fled to evade
shia creditors.
Joseph Goran deposed that he was a grocer at
'Sheerness ; on the 10th of February last the defen-
dant came into his shop and said, a prettyjob this is
about Jeremiah Brown ; he is strimpt (by that word
witness understood that he had been broken to pieces);
witness said he did not believe it.; defendant replied
that Saxby told him that all his vessels and tackle
were in the harbour for sale; and that he knew Brown
a long time' before lie came to Sheerness,, that he 61
been broken once or twice • defendant was. very
wealthy.
Thomas Clayton--Met the ueienuarit on 9th of
Febrtiary last, 'who asked if he had heard the report
'that Brown was broken • witness said that his barges
Fe
were going on as usual defendant replied, they arc
no more Brown's' than they are Mine or yours.
Lewis Shrubsole is a cheesemouger at Sliecinies;
defendant called into his shop inbruarylast, tuld
13rown is off, and there will not be a Fertmyfor
any man ;" the barges; which he had been USlng were

not his own ; he never had any thing of his own in
his life, and that he could prove. • •
Mr. Sergeant WILDE addressed the Jury for the
defendant. He said that however imprudent his client
had acted, there was no reason to impute to him
sordid motives ; though both parties kept barges, yet
they were not engaged in the same trade, so that the
defendant could not expect to gain any thing by cir-
culating an injurious report of Browne ; the fact was,
he had leant too ready an ear to what he had heard
from others, and was too fond of gossiping. He
hoped the Jury would not, in such a ease, give such
damages as if he had been influenced by malignant
motives.

The CHIEF JUSTICE said, that as the jury were
tradesmen they were best -judges what compensation
ought to be made for words calculated to rum a man
in business, particularly at the calamitous time in
which they were spoken,—he hoped they would give
such damages as would mark their disapprobation of
such improper conduct.
The Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff—
Damages 1001. •

LIABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL VESTRYMEN ,TO 'PAY
DEBTS INCURRED BY THE- ACT OF THE VESTRY.

A case involving a question on this point, obviously of the
greatest interest to all those who are members of Select Vestries,
has of Lite excited much notice iu a part of the country from
whence we have been favoured with a communication on ,the
subject, inclosing the report of the legal proceedings, with the
opinions of the Judges. We conceive, by giving this report at
length, we, shall be conveying information in which a Very large
proportion of our Readers must feel Coocerned. • '