The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. e 5.
BLACKBURN V. BLACKBURN.

This was an action forThedefendant
pleaded, first, the general issue, and secondly, a jus-
tification. The plaintiff was formerly a preacher of
the Wesleyan Methodist persuasion, but within
these few years had become the minister of a con-
gregation of Independent Dissenters, at Bethnal-
green, from which situation he had been suspended
in consequence of a malicious libel published by the
defendant, charging him with forgery and fraud.--
The circumstances which appeared to give rise to
this charge were these :—So long ago as 1814 the
plaintiff had been preaching for some time in Canter-
bury, where he had contracted a debt which he had
not the means of meeting at the time, and being
anxious to leave that part of the country, he pro-
posed to give a bill for the amount, which was 201.
95., at two months' date, payable in town. Thin
proposal was acceded to by the party to whom the
money was owing. It happened, however, that nei-
ther this person, nor the plaintiff, were very con-
versant with the strict forms of business, and the
bill was drawn and accepted by the plaintiff, and
made payable at the house of the defendant, in the
Minories, he being at that time on very good terms
with him. Having entered into this arrangement,
the plaintiff came to town, and previous to the bill
becoming due, provided the defendant, his uncle,
with 20/. to take it up, which was done accordingly,
and thus the matter rested until the plaintiff became
a minister of the congregation at Bethnal-green,
when, from some inexplicable cause, he thought pro-
per to give rise to various rumours of misconduct on
the part of the plaintiff. In consequence of these
rumours, a meeting of the deacons and elders of the
congregation was convened, and the defendant was
requested to attend and state his grounds for the
report he had circulated. lie did attend, widths the
ground of what he had stated, produced the bill
drawn by the plaintiff, in 1814, asserting that on
the face of it he had been guilty of a forgery
in making it payable in his own name at his (the
defendant's) house. A letter was also produced
from the persona to whom the bill was given,
stating the whwlc of the tiansaction. This
bill was examined by the persons present, and de-
clared to be nothing more than a simple bill of ex-
change; and although somewhat irregular in its
form, yet there appeared on it no ground for an ac-
cusation either of fraud or forgery. In consequence
of this, another meeting was held, when a statement
was published, in which it was declared by the con-
gregation that they were satisfied the plaintiff had
been guilty of no misconduct, and he accordingly
continued his situation of preacher. This statement
was published in February last, and in the May fol-
lowing the defendant thought proper to make it an
excuse of repeating the libel in a stronger and snore
direct form. In consequence of this, the plaintiff
was suspended from preaching, and his only resource
to prove the falsehood of the statement was to come
into a court of law, where he had no doubt of ob-
taining ample justice. _ _ _

Garrett, one of the deacons of the meeting,
proved the facts of this statement, so far as related
to the suspension of the plaintiff in consequence of
the representations of the defendant.
The :Lary, after having retired for an hour, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 50/., giving
it as their opinion that there was no proof of express
malice, and that the defendant did not mean to make
a charge of forgery against the plaintiff.
The trial of this cause occupied the Court from
two o'clock until ten.