Star.
London, England, 1825-06-27 00:00:00

HALE V. WEEDnN.

This was an action by a tailor at HarefiAJ, near
Uxbridge, against a baker residing i.) the same place,
for slander. It appeared that the plaintlf, the 9:h
of August last, weat before a Magistrate to charge a
person named Taplin with an assaalt, on which ccca-
sian the defendant said his oath ought not to be taken,
he was forsworn, and no man wouid sit on a :I,,ry with
him, which expression• f e also usel at a pabnc house,
called "The Cricko.-,1:,." Mi. Norton, th. Etorliey for
the plaintiff, was.called to prove that the def. ndant had
admitted thathe used the word " perjured,' which t!i..l
not appear on the other evidence, -and which has been
held necessary to sustain an action on such a Charg..,
unless the word" forsworn" be explained as having re-
ference to some judicial proceedings. To contradict.
'Mr. Norton, Taplin, ttie man charged with the assault,
Was called, who said that theitttorney had-givALlitni
diff rent accouat of his conversatiowwith the defendant.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant on tbepinnti.al•
leging the word " perjured" es spoken ; and for. the plaintiff on
the other eounts,which leaves the question of law open to a mottos)
In arrest of judgment. • • •
. .

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE 24.
THE ADTORNEY GENERAL V. DEARS.
This Case, which is of considerable importance, as it
affects Accountants "to the Crown, and particul trly
Army Agents, Reginiental Paymasters, and all other,
whose accounts are et +mined at the War Office, came
on to be heard before the Barcitioi the Exchequer,. in
the shape of an argument on exceptions, taken. by. the
Law Offi era of the Crown, to the defendant's answer
to an information Filed against Ilia., as the executor
of his father, at the instance if the Secretary at It.ar.
Toe accounts question, which were those of air. n at y
agent, related to the expenditure of a re?i:nent fr rn
the year 1794 to 1797. thirty years ago, and h al
been iehvered into the War ()the • in the year Psoo,
twenty-five years •a ;0. The examination tf tl.ern waa
completed (as defendatd contended) • about the year.
1807, and the usual clearing warrant (the only final'
discharge which an army agent can obtain on the set-
tlement of an account, and the payment or receipt of
the balance) bad been granted to the defendant utidery
the King's Sign Manual. The accounts remained un-
disturbd and unnoticed in any way by the War Offict.-,
for the sp ,ca of sixteen years, except on one particti-
lar occasion, when the defendant' received a letter,
dated in November, 1814, in which the present Secre-
tary at War declared the accounts horn 1794 to 1797,
4to have been finally settled, and the ch aring warrants
carried into execution at the 0 lice of the Paymaster-.
General." But in April, 18=23, the defendant was re-
quired by a letter from the Secretary at War, not
only to make a retut'n to his offi: e, the consequence
of a compliance with which would have been to open
for re-examination, all the above-mentioned accounts
for the petiod 1794 to 1797, but als ta deliver his
ledgers and books of account into the NVar Office for
inspection, a practice p rfecCy unknown in the time of
any weeding Secretary at War.
'the defendant refused to make any return whatever
to the War Office requisition, or to produce his books;
alleging, that the accounts particularly referred to, viz.
those of 1794 to 1797, had been fin illy settled in the
year 1807. In consequence of this refusal, the Secretary
at War ordered an information to be filed against the
defendant by the Attorney-General; to which 'an «:-
seer was put in an oath, stating that t:.e accounts for
1794 to 1797-had been examined aad finally settled near
twenty yens ago; and qw,ting the Secretary at M'ar's
own letter of November,lBl4, and the clearing wan ants
signed by the King.
To this ans.% er exceptions we: e filed,on the ground that
the defendant had not fully answered the informa.i.m
(which was drawn in such ambiguous language, that it
was vet y d fficult, if not impossible; to ascet tain its teal
object), and the effect of the exceptions was, to extend the.
operation of the information to any and every periods
and to es ery account of every Regiment wall which the
defendant's late father had had any concern during his
whole life, taking a retrospect of at least half a century.
T'e COURT allowed the exceptions, but strongly sug
Bested the propriety of confining the information to the
period 1794 :421797, and to one particular corps, which,
after some discussion, was agreed to by the Counsel for
the Crown. Beside the attempt to open the accounts,
the defendant was required by the information to make
out a schedule of " all ledgers, books of account, ac-
iounts,,papers, wr: rings, memorandums, receipts, vouch-
ers, letters, or copies or extracts from such several docu-
ments, relating to the matters aforesaid, and also to.de-
liver up all such ledgers, &c. &c. for the inspection of
,the Secretary at War, his Cierks, or the Law Officers
of the Crown."
There wire one or two minor points discussed, but
of little consequence to the general merits of the eines-
don at issue above stated.
It seems, therefore, from this proceeding, that the
account of an Army Agent. or Regimental Paymaster,-
can never be finally settled.; but that he may be called
"'NM when, and. as often as a Secretary at War pleases,
and Ji3;anoe of time, to repass his account, to produce:

his barks, &c. and that a declaration under the halt
of a Secretary at War, that accounts bate been finally
settled,". and the productiln of the usual clearing war•
rant signed by the King (the only possible discharge
that an Army Agent can ob:ain) go for nothing; and
consequently that he must for e%er remain a debtor,
and accountable to the Crown; the natu*e. and MITS.!
of examination of an Ai my Agent's Account precluding
him from obtaining a quietus from the Exchequer.