Star.
London, England, 1822-08-15 00:00:00

&teed him to treat the little schoolmassereD "Wend v ;
he said, the plaintiff had stated .o..isim—.the
de-
fendant is a stout strong man.
Other witnesses confirmed these witasspes aslOthe
blood on the face of the plaintiff.
Mr. GURNEY ascribed the usage whisk the plaintiff
had received to his improper conduct inhering been
extremely insolent to the COMpalky, and also by in-
traducing Crickett. He admitted that a verdict must
be found against the defendant for the assault ; but
the provocation offered by the plaintiff entitled him
only -to the smallest damages. As to the blood on
the face of the plaintiff, he should call a witness to
contradict that part of the statement, and who would
prove that no more violence was used than was suf-
ficient to remove him from the company be had so
grossly insulted.
Several highly respectable witnesses were called,
who negatived the blood and bruises, and confit med
the view taken of the case by the Learnea Counsel
for the defendant.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY replied in sr very ingenious
and humorous speech, and put it to the Jury if he
had not fully made out the case.
The LORD CUM BA Row summed tip the evidence,
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, One Shilling.

AUGUST 13.—CROWN MDR
The business on the Crown side finished to-day,
when sentence of death was passed upon 13 capital
convicts, none of whom were left for execution.—
Their cases were not marked tly any prominent fea-
tures of enormity, being chiefly burglaries, .sheep-
stealing, and horse-stealing.
- CIVIL SIDE.
GREOSON AND OTHERS V. MORRELL AND OTHERS.

This was an issue directed by the Court of Exche-
quer so try whether there was an immemorial modus
for mowing crops in the parish of Hawkhurst, in
county, at the rate of 2d. per acre in one part of the
parish, and lid. in another. The principal plaintiff
was Mr. Jesse Gregson, formerly a respectable Soli-
citor in London, and the defendants were the lessees
of the tithes of Hawkhurst, and the Dean and Chap-
ter of Christ Church, Oxford.
This case was of great importance to the parties.
After a trial of considerable length, a verdict was
found for the plaintiffs, establishing the modus, and
confirming' a decision upon the same question be-
tween other parties, in the sth James I.

ELSAM AND ANOTHER V. MANTLE AND OTHERS.
This was an action by the plaintiffs, as architects,
to recover the amount of their bill for erecting the
new Jail at Dover, in pursuance of a contract with
the defendants as Magistrates of the Borough. After
the trial had proceeded a considerable length, it was
agreed to refer all matters in difference to the arbi-
tration of Mr. BOLLAND.

GAT V. WHOLMES AND WIFE.
This was an action for defamatory words, impeach-
ing the plaintiff's chastity, and imputin to her an
improper intercourse with the male defendant. The
words were alleged to have been spoken by the female
defendant. Special damage was laid in the loss of the
plaintiff's situation as a consequence of the slander.
Mr. MARRYAT (with whom was Mr. BOLLARD)
represented the plaintiff to be a Miss Gay, who had
been employed for many years, as an ironer, by a
Mr. Hall, who carried on the business of a laundress
at Lewisham, through the agency of his wife. The
plaintiff had lodged for about a month with the de-
fendants. For some groundless cause Mrs.Wholmes
thought proper to entertain a jealousy of Miss Gay,
to whom she imputed improper familiarities between
her and her husband, and had gone the lentil of
calling the plaintiff by the offensive name of —,
and had even declared in express terms to several
people that she and her husband had had criminal
conversation. The Learned Counsel admitted, that
for such slander op action would lie in the Common
Law Courts, unless temporal damage could be proved.
In the Ecclesiastical Court, to call a chaste virgin by
the hateful name to which he alluded, the sentence
was no more than standing in a white sheet before
the Altar with a taper in her hand. Here, however,
loss of service could be proved as a consequence of
the defamation ; for Miss Gay had for a period Of 15
years been in a lucrative situation, where she earned
14s. a week and her board, which advantages she
lost in consequence of the gross vituperation of the
defendant's wife. For so serious an injury she now
sought a liberal compensation in damages.
Two females, named Gable and Clarke, proved
distinctly the slanderous words alleged in the decla-
ration, and Mr. Hill, the male laundress, proved that
he had dismissed the plaintiff from his employment
in consequence of the slander uttered by Mrs.Whol mes,
which was widely circulated through Lewisham,
Deptford, Greenwich, and the neighbouring district.
The plaintiff-had applied to a solicitor, named Mou-
bray, by whom the action was brought.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury in mitigation of
damages, and urged such topics as the circumstances
of the case presented.
The Jury, under the direction of the LORD CHIEF
' BAROIt, found their verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
1, mages £5, Costs 40s.