Star.
London, England, 1808-07-26 00:00:00

- • • - z;IW

COTIRI' 01t KING`S'IIENCif, ruff? :ts. '

rittiruity.—Tltz KING 0 trtsigwAs•taiativ.
• This was an hither:nen% for .perjury. It appeared
that the Defendant hart on an issue from the Court
i
of Chancery, tried Jahr 1007, sworn that he had not',
executed. a deed of release to Mr. Bing, in Deeember,il
.1000, of a foreland of land on the river Thati'les,nearsi
the West India Docks. It was given in evidence on,
the tr, Al of the issue,"that he had given the release,
-and the Jury also believed his evidence. This day
the auesting witness and another person. who was
pres2nt at the execution of the release, roved it, and
the Jury found the Defendant guilty•of perjury.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. JULY 25.
SLANDER.—FLOWLR V. CLAYTON.
The Plaintiff in this case is a Printer, the Defen-I
dant is a Dissenting Clergyman. The action was
:for Slander, to which the Defeadant,pliaded the ge-
neral issue—Not Guilty.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD for the Plaintiff stated,
that his client was the Defendant's uncle, and brought
the action merely for the .purpose of checking the
repetition of the slander against him, and clearing
his character. The words on which .the action was
founded, were spoken upon an occasion when the
Defendant wes asked, whether he hid read a publi-,
cation of the Plaintilr? The reply was, " Mr.,
11-wee was so base. a man, that he.riever read any
of his publications--that he had been guilty of for-
gery, and that his mother had perjured-herself in
order to save his life, •by swearing that the writing
sea, her's."---The Defendant had put no justification
on the record, which he night hive done if he could
have proved the charge to be Will founded, but had
merely pleaded, that he had not spoken the words.
Of that plea, however, he would soon deprive him,
by calling two respectable witnesses to whom the
.words had been addressed.
Mr. Flight, it coal-merchant, at Hackney-, was
then called, and stated, that in July last year, he
saw the Defendant at Hackney, and asked him whe-.
ther he had read a publication of his uncle, Mr.
Flower ? (this it appeared, was a new edition of Mr.
Robinson of Cambridge's works, to which the Plain-
tiff had prefixed a Life of iMr. Robinson.) The
pefenciant replied, that he had not; and, in the
course of the conversation, introduced the charge of
the Plaintiff haying been guiltrof forgery, and his,
mother having saved him from the effects of the law
by swearing the writing to be her's. This was come
ynunicated to him in confidence, and he never said a
word about the matter, as it alluded to an old family
affair that had taken plaice twenty years ago, till he.
understood that it had been repeated by the Defen-
dant himself to Mr. Peimer, in February last. In
consequeace of this hi waited upon hiM, and desired
a further explanation. The Defendant said be had
pa >ere to prove what he asserted ; but afterwards
called for the witnesa, and stated, that it, was not
forgery of which Mr. Flower had been guilty, but an
offence equally heinous, as he had gone to his mo-
ther with a deliberete he in his mouth, and got a
power from her to tran,sfer her property from one
stick to another; and that when the old lady was
proceeding in her carriage 'vie the Bank,- to receive
her dividend, she was stopped and informed, that all
her p-operty in the funds had vanished. On his
cross-examination, he admitted that he had under-
stood that the P 1 entiff, in the early part of his life,
heti been a stock-jobber, and had lost a great deal of
his own and his mother's money; but he had always
conceived that the speculations with the mother's pro-
perty had been with her own consent. He also ad-
mitted that he had heard ofehe circumstance of the
mother's being about to proceed to receive her divi-
dend, and that she had been for some days distracted
en hearieg of her loss.
Mr. Palmer, a Dissenting Clergyman, deposed
that he had asked the nefend ant, in February last,
whether he had seen Mr. Flower's publicatiOn, and
the reflections contained in it against him, Mr. J.
Clayton and his family ? The Defendant replied,
that he very little iegarded what Mr. Flower might
say, as he had forged his mother's hand-writing, &c.
He had never told this to any but Mr. Flight, whose
opinion he wished to have, as he suspected there
emtist have been some mistake. In about foier days
afterwards, Mre Clayton had called lor him, and ex-
plained that it was not a forgery, but a fraud, of
which the Plaintiff had been guilty. • The nature of
this fraud he communicated, as had been stated, by
the other witness. He believed the charge would not
have been made by the Defendent, had it not been
for his having said that Mr. Flower had made reflec-
tions on him and his family.
Mr. Serjeant LENS for the Defendant pressed this
last circumstance strongly. As to a justification it
was impossible that his client could justify the charge
of forgery, which was the only one on the record.—
He had been in a mistake aboutlhat, bet he asked
the Jury whether, if the action had been bronght.for
a charge offrand, the Defendant would not have had
a complete justification ' • for he put it to them, whe-
ther, even upon the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff
himself, they were not of opinion, that a gross fraud'
lied been practiced on the mother, by which she had
been reduced fr im considerable affluence to beggary.
But. he suhmittod to the Judge whether, even under
the charge of forgery, explained and qualified as it
was, the Plaintiff could hive a verdict. If he could,
the smallest damages wou:d suffice. The Plaintiff,
lie thought, had jittlged ye: e unfortunately for him-
self in coming into court at all.
Sir J. MANSFIELD observed, that if the explanation
had immediately followed the charge of forgery,
the Plaintiff could not support himself upon that
ground ; but as a period of eight months had inter-
vened, he coeld•not say that the accusation had not
been for forgery. If the Jury should be of opinion
tiat the charge of forgery had been proved, they
must find for the PI tintiff, as no justification of that
bed been attempted. The question then would he as
to the damages, which they woUld award upon a full
consideretion of all the circumstances. Veidict for
the Plaintiff-eDameges 40s.
lI.Ef'ASING V. HEATH.
This was a question of Demurrage. A vessel,
chartered by the Defendant from Surinam, had been
detained at that port for a considerable time, in con-
sequence of the arrest of the Captain on a supposed
- criminal charge. A verdict was found for the Plain-
tiff, subject to the opinion of the Court.