The Sun.
London, England, 1810-12-13 00:00:00

COURT- OF KING!S BkNCl4,•pie, iv.

MARTINDALE V. LOVELL.
. This was an'-action brought by the plaintiff, an
xteosive paper • manufaCtin.er in the neighbOnr-
hood of Cambridge, .toreciiver from the defend-
ant,•the proprietor of Me Statesman evening news-
paper, the sum of 7501; fur paper 'furnished to the
defendant,
The delivery of the paper in question, as also the
price, -and quantity furnished, were admitted-; but •
it was Contended; that a considerable part of the
paper so turuiShed-was disconform to the specimen,
and of a very inferior quality,' nay, that to the
amount' of ninety-eight reams of it were now• lying
in the defendant's Ware-rooms, unfit for ,any use
Whatever, the. defendant having objected to the
quality,' and the-plaintiff having engaged to take it
back, but having, at the same time;'requested-ofthe
defendan tit) -give-it-vrarehouse room in the mean
tittW, the plaintiff= not having room for it in his
warehouses, • • - _
For the plaintiff, in-reply, itswas contended,. that
the objection as to the quality of the paper, at leAt
to the extent contended, -was cafirely..an..aftpr
thought, -the quantity-unfit for use hiving been: se-
leaed by a Mr. Pickering, at the sight of a friefid.•
of each of the parties, and amounting only to four,.
bundles. The cause of the remaining 98 reams'of -
the paper in the elefendant:s .warehpuses unused,
was-to be Vaced to the late rise of the Newspapers
ftom'tid. to 00. necessarily requiring Oat the paper
served:to the public should be of better quality ; in•
addition to which, it was alleged, that lite defendant
being also indebted to Messrs. Magnay and Co. for
paper, •did not find it- convenient to use any other
paper than theirs. - A boy, in the temployment of ~
the defendant, who WAS present when the paper un-
fit for use was set aside by Pickering, proved, that
instead of four, there-were eighteen bundles in this
sit,tation; which now lay under the counter at the
Statesman Office. • •
Lord ELLENBOROUGH left it. to the Jury to. de-
termine as to, the contradiCtion between the evi-
dence of •the boy and .of Pickering. In the event
of their believing. the testimony of the former,
there would be a deduction to be made from
..the plaintitrs demand, to ,the • amount of eigb-
/teen bundles ; but if they thought that on Pic-

rel6nce could ,be pinced, then the
deduttion trust only- De to the atu.)llot of the
of four bundles.

The jury' found for the plaintiff—bamages to the
amount of his.elaim, minus the value of eighteen
bundles-of the paper furnished.

, ALEXANDER V. HARRIS. •
This was an action of damages for words spoken.
The 'plaintiff is a Jewish broker, alias a Jewish
butcher, and the defendant, is an
,attorney of the
same nation. . The words .used by die defendant
Seemed to be words of passion, arising in the course
Of aquarrel, rendered the,more unseemly, from itS,
having arisen at a charitable feast of the Jews, held
in' the London Tavern, on Sunday, the 7th Janu-
ary. last.
• The epithet applied by,the defendant to the plain-
tiff was, that which is, .above all others, calculated
to excite and call into anion the indignant feelings
of a man ; but the only sentiment it awa.kened in
the breast of this plaintiff, was an untnanly retort
00 the defendant, referring fins to his own (the de-
fendant's) sister, for, a vindication again,t such a
charge.
After a suitable charge float Lord ELLENBO-
ROFGH, the Jury found for the plainta—Datuages
201.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 11.

SLANDER-PENDRILL V.( AITCHINSON.

_This was an at.Slion brought by the plaintiff, a boot-
' maker, residing in Newgate-street, against the de-
fendant, one of the same trade, in Butcherhall-lane,
_to recover-damages for slander.
It appeared that the parties met at the Plough, in
Gilispur-street, in November last, to celebrate the
acquittal of Mr. Hardy, and "Trial by.lury." When
the plaintiff entered the room, be was charged with
having seduced a married woman : in answer to
which, he said, if he was a seducer, h. had followed
the example of the defendant, The latter then !Ose,
and used the words"---" You are a thief ; you' have
robbed me, and I can prove it." . 'For these words,
described to be void of the least
.foundation, the
plaintiff expecled large damages.
The first witness was cross-examined by Mr. .S er7
jeant EST, who put the following questions,,to
prove that all the company had bten makin4
very liberal sacrifice at the shrine of the jolly
, God

What time did Mr. Pendrill Come into the room ?
—Aboutihalf-past ten o'clock.
You had been to celebrate the .acquittal of Mr.
liardY at the Crown and Anchor Tavern ?—Yes, we
bad. )
You had taken your glasSes cheerfully,, drank nine
enough I suppose ?—We
.took it at diseretion, as
every man. should
.do.,

I take it for granted a few bumpers were drank ?
—I don't recollect,any bumpers.
What, not drink mr. klardy'slhealth and "
by Jury," in .a bumper If you did not, you don't
deserve averdict in futurefrom any English Jury.
It was contended, on the part .of. the, defendant,
that the words were spoken in a moment
,of inebri-
ation, and that they were not used to convey a
charge of felony, It. was also stated, that the de-
fendant had been deprived of several of his custom-
ers by the plaintiff, who had formerly lived
.with
him as a journeyman, and, under all the circum-
stances, that it was not a case for damages. The
Jury found ayerdiat for the plaintitf—Damages IS.

GREEN V. BARKER.

This was an action of assault and. battery. The
plaintiff and defendant were officers in the Customs,
and- it: appeared that they had quarrelled respeding
some tea in the Custom tiqusq. The plaintiff hav-;
ing refused to leave the defendant's office; a pugk
listic contest ensued. The plaintiff was overthrown
in the combat, and received a.few blows.
Mr. Serjeant COCKELL,OII the part of the dew
fendant,-triade a humorous appeal to the Jury. He
observed, that in this paltry adion, a few blows of
no consequence had been represented as a most-vi-
olent assault. A learned anatomist and surgeon had
been called, and a touch on the pPintiff's shoulder
'was called-a bruise on the scapula ; a blow on- the
back a contusion of the spine. The Jury, who
'knew what an English boxing- match' was, would
not suffer themselves to he imposed on by anatomi-
cal terms. The plaintiff bad only received, in the
terms of pugilism; two slight hits, one on the back,
the other on the shoulder.• What would Big Ben
and Johnson have said,- it a -man who had fought a
battle, had complained of a blow. on the spine ?
They would- have said, " if you fight, you must ex-
peel blows." The Learned Serjeant concluded by
calling on the Juryi, if they were of opinion that
the assault was-proved, to give the plaintiff a far-
thing, in order thar-he might hang it rouncl.bis
neck. The Learned Serjeant observed, it would
be a good -New Year's Gift—And the plaintiff, by
looking at it, would avoid fighting, and say, ‘.‘ if I
should get a touch on the spine or scapula, I won't
commence an. action, because an English Jury will
give me no More than a farthing damages"