The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-05 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.

This was the first day of the Sittings of the 31Awrint of
the Ross s. His Honour took petitions ; hut no case of
any public importance was brought before the Court ere
ere left.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
WRAC HT V. LIPSCOMBE.

Mr. DENMAN (with whom was Mr. DUNK) stated to
the Jury that this was an action to recover a compensation
in damages for defamation of character. The plaintiffand
defendant had both resided at Winchelsea. The plaintiff
was the daughter of Mr. Wright, of respectable connec-
tions. her mother had died some years since, and 1!r.
Wright married a Mrs. Allen. Subsequently the father of
Miss Wright, from some disagreement, agreed to allow
her 40/. a• year, on condition that she resided in France ;
she (lid reside there for some time, but in consequence of
some aspersions on her character, which she heard bad
been cast by Mr. Lipscombe, the defendant, she deter-
mined to clear up her character. She applied to her fa-
ther's house for protection ; but the scandal that had been
uttered prevented his receiving her, and a lady who had
taken her under her protection from motives of humanity,
was ultimately induced to turn her out of her house,
an outcast upon the world, withoura home or a friend.-
She had, however, determined to put the defendant to the
truth of what he had uttered, or justify her character to
the world. She had embarked every farthing which she
possessed in the world in the expenses of this action ; and
if she failed, she wculd be utterly ruined in character and
in circumstances. The defendant had not pleaded a justi-
fication, and aggravated the case by asserting that what
he had uttered was true ; on the contrary, he had denied,
by his plea, that he had ever uttered the words in question.
The Learned Counsel, however, would be able to prove
that the defendant had used the words alleged, and that he
had admitted having used them. He would also prove
that the plaintiff had suffered special damage—that she bad
been ejected from the house of Mr. Richards, a c'ergy-
man, and other persons whom she had been in the habit
of visiting; and he believed that the Jury would then re-
store this injured young lady to the society to which
she had been accustomed, and to her father's house.—
He exhorted them to take the case into their consideration,
as if it was the case of their own near relative, and give
the plaintiff those damages which they considered her
wounded feelings and reputation entitled her to. He then
called witnesses to prove his case.
The Rev. Mr. Richards, examined by Mr. DUNN—
Knew the plaintiff and the defendant. They both, as
well as himself, resided at Winche!sea. The plaintiff had
never visited his family till after the slanderous words had
been used by Mr. Lipscombe. She then requested wit-
ness to interfere, and had one or two interviews with him
at his house, in consequence of which witness saw Mr.-
Lipscombe. The witness having the question repeated to
him, again said that the young lady had never visited
his house till she requested him to interfere in her behalf.

Lord TENTERDEN—I am afraid, Mr. Denman, that this
proof wii not do. The allegation charges special damage,
and that she was prevented from visiting the house of Mr.
Richards, where she had been in the habit of visiting.
Mr. DENMAN-Is your Lordship quite clear on that?

Lord TENTERDEN-Certainly. When special damage
is made the gist of the action, you must first prove special
damage before you can recover. The words are not ac-
tionable in themselves.—The plaintiff was then nonsuited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
DRAPER V. THOMPSON.

The plaintiff in this case is a broker, and was some time
since employed by the defendant to transact certain busi-
ness, the defendant at the time giving the plaintiff an in-
demnity. In the course of the business the plaintiff's men
caused considerable damage in the house in which they
were employed, which he was obliged to pay, and now
brought the present action to recover the amount thus
payed under the indemnity. •
The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE held that actions of this na-
ture could not be maintained. An indemnity only related
to illegal proceedings, and never could be intended to screen
a person from the consequences of negligent conduct in
transacting his business. The plantiff must be called.—
Plaintiff nonsuited.

BUSIIE V. NeFA BRYN.

This was an action brought to recover compensation in
damages for an illegal distress.
_ _

Mr. Serjeant 'Mime (with whom was Mr. Illcunans)
stated that the plaintiff in this case, some time since, rented
a house of the defendant in Whitechapel-road, which he left
on the 19th of last March, and went to another house in
the neighbourhood ; at that time no rent was due. The
defendant, however, followed him, and thought proper to
levy a distress ; and if a friend had not stepped forward and
advanced the money, his client's furniture would have been
sold. This distress was clearly illegal, no rent being due ;
the plaintiff would therefore be entitled to a verdict.
The plaintiff's daughter proved the distress being put in,
and the goods condemned. On her cross-examination she
admitted that her father left the house without giving the
defendant notice of his intention so to do ; that the whole
of the furniture was valued at 10/. 125., and that it was
removed by a single article at a time.
Mr. Serjeant PEAXE for the defendant, admitted that
a verdict must go against him, but under the circurn-
seances he was sure they would think nominal damages
sufficient. The plaintiff removed his goods in a clandes-
tine manner, and shortly afterwards took the benefit of
the Insolvent Act, and if the defendant had only waited a
few days longer, the distress would have been perfectly
legal, but he entered it sip about six days before the quar-
ter was due.

The LORD CHIET JUSTICE said, the only difficulty was,
whether or not the sum raised by the distress, as the dis
tress was certainly illegal, could be detained by the defend-
ant, he was of opinion it could not, and therefore the
plaintiff must have a verdict for that only. He did not
think the Jury would be disposed to give any further da-
mages. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 121. 10s.