Star.
London, England, 1801-11-24 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 23.

The following perfons, who have fcverally been
brought up before, convicted of alfai:lting and
obtirtsaing Revenue Officers, were again brought
up to-day and fentenced as follow :—Timothy
Micklethorne and J. Millar, to three years impri•
fonment ; Robert Purchafe, two years ; Thomas
Holmes, two years ; John Robinfon and William
Hart, two years; R. Hook, two years • John Hol-
den, eighteen months; John Ward, twelve months;
James Totherticld and Job Stokes, twelve months;
R. Kane, nine months ; and John and James
Hughes, three months each.
HAVCROTT CRIASY.

This is a cafe which has very defervedly attract-
ed the nctice of the Public, and is extremely ince-
refting to every man in this Couniry, who either
[hall lave occafion to ;A of another, or to give
another a charaFter ; it becomes Rill more tote.
refting on account of the turn it has now taken,
and therefore, as it may be laid to be a cafe of the
rft impreffion in its kind, we have bettowed upon
Ft more labour than is ufual in common cafes, af:
luring our Readers, they will not be miffed by
what they fee in this Paper, but that they may
give it full credit for accuracy, as f..r as it goes.
We have no room for the °Nervations of counfel,
but we (hall give the fubfkance of what is more
important, bccaufe of higher authority.
Lord KEN roil reported the trial as it took place
before him and a Jury of Merchants at Guildhall,
at the Sittings after the last term. His Lordfhip
raid, that the delaration fated in fubftance, that
the Plaintiff being an Ironmonger, before the
fraudulent reprefentations made by the Defendant,
of and concerning one Frances Elizabeth Robert-
, fon, did apply to the Defendant to know from him
whether he, the Plaintiff, was tale in giving cre-
dit to the laid Mifs Robcrtfon ? That when appli-
cation WAS fo made to the Defendant, he repre-
fentol
her Intuition and credit to be such, that he,
the Plaintiff, might safely croft her. That the
Plai stiff- did croft the laid Mifs Robcrtfon, on ac-
coirct of the charafler which the Defndant gave
of her. That the was infolvent at that time, and
that the Plaintiff thereby 101 l his Money.
'lllc evidence for the Plaintiff was that of his
Goland of his brother ; for the Plaintiff had no
tha-e in this tranfaelion he being at Bath
for the benefit of his health. The cafe is, that of
Miis Robcrtfon of Blackheath, whole name is fa-
mil ar to a eonliderable part of the public. The
Plaintiff is a furnifhing Ironmonger. The De-
fendant a Currier, both living in the neighbour-
hood of Blackheath. The fubitance of the evi-
dence of the inn of the Plaintiff was this—" That
he, the fon, had a converfation with the Defen-
dant, of and concerning Miti Robcrtfon, when the
Defendant laid, My father might credit her with
perfect safety. That he knew. of his own know_
ledge, the had a large fortune from bar mother

' and was la expeciation of Hill greater from her
grandmother. I dealt s id: her entirely on the
Defendant's recommendation. I afked him, if he
was certain as to the recommendation he made ?.
he anfwered, .‘ I am." He Rated that he knew
the Lady was echred to Mr. Secretary Dundas
and to Lady Paget. I wrote to my father, and
wanted his direction. I called on the Defendant
again, and afked him as to the character of Mils
Rebertfon. The Defendant laid, .1 I can poll-
tively, of my own know lcdge, affure you, vou may
credit Mins Robertfon to any amount with perfect
(Way." He laid, my father need be under no
apprehenfion, for Mifs Robertfon had come to a
large fortune a few months ago, and expected a
Hill greater. I executed the order entirely on the
faith of the Defendant's character, and to the
amount of 4851. 9s. 4d. and all the charges are
reafonable."
The fubflance of the evidence of the Plaintiff's
brother, as read from his Lordfhip's notes, was
this : I fuppofe (faid the Plaintiff's. brother to
the Defendant, who called on the Defendant by
way of further caution), I fuppofe you do not
mean to inform me on hearfay?" The Defendant
laid." Friend Haycroft, I know your brother may
truft Mil Robertfon to aay amount with perfect
fafetv."
'elk is the fubftance of the C...fe on the part of
the Plaintiff.

On the part of the Defendant it was contended
then, and now, that the Defendant did not give
this charaaer with any view of fraud, but that he
told the truth, as he himfelf fuppolcd at the t Smc,
but that it appeared afterwards, that he, as u 11 as
many other perfons, became a dupe to the artifice
of iviifs Roliertfon, who had all the appearance of
a perfon of great property: That no cafe had yet
gone the length of deciding that ally man (lipoid
be liable for the confequences in giving a charaCler
of another, unlefs he did it fraudulently, C(c. That
here there was no fraud intended by the Defendant
for that he himfelf had become, and was at the
time when he gave her the charaaler, a dupe to
her artifice.—That the efferce of this fort of Ac-
;ion was fraud in the perfon who gave the elm-
rafter, a dodrine which was czprefsly laid down
in the Cafe of Pafeley v. Freeman, which laid the
foundation of thii Anion, and recognized in the
Cafe of Eyre v. Dunford, Sec. That the Defen-
dant having here taken upon himfelf to fay, " he
knew this perfon might be fafely trufted," was in
common parlance between men, who do not con-
fider the meaning of words like Lawyers, not to
mean abfolutc knowledge, but that degree of pro-
bability which is taken for certainty in the tom-
mon affairs of life. That in thi; Cafe, the De-
fendant had fomething more than hearlay to guide
his opinion, namely, the plans of .the fuppefed
ellate of this Lady. Her making, out Powers of
Attornies to receive her rents—ordering mourning
rings—having a carriage, fervarts, and all the ap-
pearance of a perfon of property—all taken toge-
ther inducing the Defendant to believe that the
was a woman of property, and therefore hii fay-
fn was the common language of men of infe-
rior education, who commonly, in difcourfe, Paid
they knew that of which they indeed had only evi-
dence to warrant belief. That this was the cafe
of the Defendant in this anion, and that, as the
Jury might have given their verdid on the fuppo-
iition that the Defendant knew, at the time he
gave it, the Charaetcr lie gave was falfe, whereas
it was the genuine repretentation of his mind, ,
there ought, in this cafo, to be a new Trial.
On the part of the Plaintiff it was contended,
that although this cafe was different in its parti-
culars, from thofe which had gone before it, yet, I
the principle by which it was to be governed was ;
the fame, namely, That whenanty application is
made to a man for the cliaraEler of another, he
either tell the truth or hold his tongue. Nor was
there any hardfhip in this, fince no man was bound
to give another a charaCter. Here the Defendant
had laid, he knew that the Plaintiff might truft
this woman to any amount. He (lid not (peak
from bearfay, which might be matter of belief;
hot of knowledge, which was matter of certainty.
Upon the faith of which the Plaintiff had given I
edit, and had fidtained a lofs ; the Jury had or-
dered
the Defendant, whole conduit was the caufe j
of that Infs, to bear it, and therefore, upon the
principle which guided this ACtion, the Verdict I
was right."
We do not mean to fay, that this was all that
was faid ; on the contrary, the Cafe was argued
at great length, and with much learning, but we •
latae endeavoured to bring into one view, the fob-
flanze of that which was in coin AI between the
Part ies.
As allufion seas made to the Charge of my Lord ,
KF% vox at the trial, his Lordthip read the words
which conflitutcd a material part of it, which he
wrote out in his Book before he addrefred the Ju.
rv, and fcorcd them under by way of emphafis.—
They are as follow :
Comiaering the manner in which the queflion
was put to him (meaning the Defendant) and his
anfwer, fpcaking to his knowledge, I though; the
Ailion maintainable."
The Arguments at the Bar being ended, the
Court pt .iceeJcd to give its opinion.
Lord K::s ars fpoke nearly as 1, Vows :
" I with, if there be any real da.il,t apron this
point, it could be put in a way to receive decifaa:
in the dernier TClOi t ; but not knawing how that
can be done in the prelim cafe, and my mini be-
ing made tip on it, I (hall proceed to deliver my
opinion.
" A Tradefm in, h-re, has fitflained a lots, as '
the Jun's- haw: laid, to the amount cf aial. os. 4d.
That Tradefns in makes a charge upon that per.
fon, through whole mifia-prefcraation that lafs
has procaeslcd, and he has incurred that lefs, and
calls npnn him to make fatisfaftion for it. From
the anxious manner in which the Inquiry has been
made, filch as never took place in any inquiry be-
lore, I believe, we have the cafe molt clearly be
tore us upan the evidence. The fon, who has the •
condlift of his father's hofincfs in his abler:cc, is
applied to by a perfon he does not know, to fur
nibs goods to a large amount, and he is referred
to the Defendant. He goes to the Deferdart.
and elks him. What is the Rate, condition, and

i credit of this perion who wants the goods? The
!Defendant lays, You msy trtot her uith perfes
fafety to any amount." The young man alked if
he k"ew this of his own knowledge, or whe:her
! had heard it from others ? He tells him, " of his
own knowledge." '*l;ke inquiries thus made, by
this young man, are repeated by his uncle, who
being more mature in age, is luppofed to he more
prudent in conduit, and polleffed of more Lnow-
ledge of lorfinefs. He afks the Defendant, Whe-
ther this p.,rfon might lifely he united ? " I flip-
pofe, (figs he) you do not give me information
from hearfay, but knowledge of fads." He fly;,
" Friend Hayeroft, f know your brother may ti nit
Mifs Rohertfon with perftd lafety." Nov the
queßion is, Whether this repiell:ntation nhieli -he
Defendant made, was true or falfe? To that
lion, in put, only one arifwcr can be ?iven ; nrisl
it is quite immaterial in what worth. the dcki ,is_
tion of that anfwer is given.—Whether it he
" common parlance," or uncommon parlanc •, is
not worth while to inquire, and appears to toe
no better than nonfenfe. The quellion is, eel.,
titer this anfwer of the Defendant, and ua v h
.the Plaintiff's fon aded, was cold:A.:liable to fir_
fad or not ? That it was a grofs fah'eltoosi,
ther• is now no dinibt upon earth. That a I-is
has been (attained, in confeiotenet, is eel •:isr
clear; and the queftion is, who 0n.,..)5t to Ineal•
lots ? I came into this Court in the sear r ;RS, and
, it was in the January follow,ing that the ea::, r I
Palely and Freeman came before us. I had then
• the Alliance of three Judges, on ..shich
I 'Tiled with great refee.l, and feel with
ode. Two o; them (Mr. Jffilice Asa I: It ST and
Mr. Jake LL FRI were, from their
Iludy, eminently flei led in p. hits of pradiee and
the nature of anions. They were of el: it inn t' e
align would lie. The other learned Judge (Mr.
Juftice Giro Ai or whofe opinion I cannot fpeak
highet than I feel, was of a different opini•tn. I
was hot inforaul veto: critically of the nature of
anions ; but I had then advanced fifty years in a
life, which was not :r very idle one, in which I
had endeavoured to (tore my mind fomewhat,
with knowledge of civil, moral, and religions du.
ties. It is to very little pUrpOre that i have in
early learnt a leffon which was long ago in.
culcated, that the law of the land is never fo well
excreifed as when it is fubfervient to the caufe of
morality, or focial order and religious duty, if
this fpecies of anion is not maintainable in a Court
of Jullice; for I think we could not preferve fa-
cial order, or good morals, nor perform our re-
ligions duties if we determine that, when a per-
fon, by any mifreprefentation, whether wlllliiv. or
from too fcanty an inquiry hinifelf, produces an
died which is injurious to another, is, neverthelefs,
not to make to that fufferer, from his fault, arty
compenfation. That the plaintiff, in this cafe,
has been damnified by the conduit of the defen-
dant, is beyond all queltion.—l fuppofe, if I were
to put it as a queltion to the Attorney General,
who is of counLl for the defendant in this caufe,
whether he was nut very lorry that his Client's re-
prefentation has ruined an honelt man and his
family, hy canting almo( all his goods to he
taken from him ? I fhould receive from that HOD:
and Learned Gentleman that which would be dic-
tated by honourable feelings, an unfeigned alfu-
ranee that he was very lorry.
" 'fholewl•o can diftinguifh this cafe from other
cafes which have gone before it, and in which the
anions have been held to be maintainable, are
lurnithed with powers of intelled of which, GOD
knows, lam not matter. The Attorney-General,
at the dole of his 'argument, has hinted that this
cafe would be an incroachment on the Statute of
Frauds, but he did not • critically enter into that
art of the cafe. 1 fay this cafe has nothing to
do with the Statute of Frauds ; if it has, I have
for upwards of twelve years been deceiving the
Country—l have been deceiving the Country if
this frLics of adion is not maintainable by :he
rules of law. Ever fince Hilary Term in the year
1789, it was held by the authority of this Court,
nor de traded, I hope, by my concurrence, that
this ad on is maintainable, with the diffent at
firft, but afterwards the acquiefcence of the Learn-
ed Judge upon my left hand (Mr. Jiillice GROSE.)
I have uniformly held that dodrine iince, and have
had occafion to Rate it to Juries feveral times—
Where am Ito go, or where that! I hide my head,
if this slodrine he not agreeable to the law of the
land ? Perhaps in my cafe, as in many others, in-
firmity of jeidgment as well as body, accompa-
nies the advance of years. 1(1°,1 fhotild retir:—
otherwile, what than I be able to fay to the people
of this country, if for twelve years I have milled
them in the law of the Lind ? but I hope I have
not mills en the law. It is not a tit thing for
Judges to ufe birth words upon parties who come
before them. I ufed no harfh epithets upon the
cafe of the Defendant in this adion.

4. The ground I went upon was that which
was Rated by Mr. GIBRC, which was, that the
cafe relied upon this, " That the Defendant af-
firmed that to be true; of his own kturvledge true;
which was not true.—Did he affirm it to he :i,•e?
Ike slid. Did he know i: to be true ? He cord
nc3, for it was falie. I will not here difc-::s
moral turpitude of fuch coridlic't ns this of t!i: De-
fendant, nor is it LeceTary th..: any foch 0%0041
appear, b:fore the Plaintlif !hall have a of
aelion in filch a cafe as this. There are a :.: niber
of cafes in which there is a frard in conarn.ft'un t7.f
Law, wlizre there i 5 no moral y;ni:t. Many
there are under the Stature of Elizabeth, which I
will not n.iw delineate. Many cafe; there a.... ih
XV.:IICh a man, will the fairelk moral condea, is
neverthelefs cot:lJ.:led as 7uilty of a leral trand,
where he fails in the perforeance of a t!t:ty !hat
unconnc,:ted y.ith morale, hot which tha Law
fi um his c.:ndition. S 1 here, lac.
ing any tin: 7, of the intenti• f the party, toa:ch
.1e6.1i.s the morality of the Clang, he has volun:a-
rilc that wh,ch is de.tirnental to ar.r.h.ir, and
therefore, I fay he anfw:rable. Not f-r
what he believed to be true, but for laying he
knew that to be true, which he could r.nt know
to he true; Fri: which the Dc!.:ndant's Counfel
conterd h,d reilm to believe to be true, be-
caufe he had evidence Grit from a thoitrand goy--
tees, and alrncilt all points ef, tae compati, at 4

Fi-

}

ben they alk, 1- he to have no empailion held
Cowards him ? he is entitled to compaf
if he was impufed upon; but his conduei
bac at all events been injiitiotes to the Plaintiff.
echo by the way is treated, in fome part of tin
argument, as if he had done folnetbing that wa,
urong. Why, one can hardly know where one is
on fuch an occafiorh _ _ •

It is very me, as has been 114ted, there are
• debts of imperfca obligation ; as WI fee a man, tr
whom I owe frieodlhip, 'going to the altar with a
woman who has loft her virtue, and is given up to
vice, I ought to ditfuade him hunt entering into
fuch connedion ; but that is an impale& obliga-
tion, for I am not bound to pull him by the fleeite,'
and 101 l ft upon It that he ought to Than the danger
of his deitrudion. Or, if lice a friend abobt to,
give large credit to a man whet is jolt going to
be declared a bankrupt, I am bound, In 00,
rality, to inform him, of it, but I sun not Let Md
by
law ; and therefore ea obligation, fines the la*
will not inforce it, is a Ismerfed obligation.e—But
here is every species of,obligntitin on this Defen-
dant, perfett and imperfed. r fay he is anfweta•
hie in a. Court of juftice. Goo forbid I thmtld
(peak proranely,but as far as Borussia, has been
divulged to man, I think he is anfwerattie:by the
law of HEAT kW. In foro Civil he is anaerable,
and I think he is anfwerable in fors Ceti. He has
tranfgreffed the duty of man to man:l think, there-
e, that by the rules of morality and focial order,
by the folemn duties of religion, and by the law of
the land, this Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff tor
the ininry lit has done him. I fay this anion, upon
the principle that oneman is civilly refpotifible for
the injury which he does to another, is maintain.
.able. This is my opinion, and, until I am cor-
reeled by fuperior anthoi ity, I (hall continue to
hateit as my opinion as occafion may require. I
think I am doing no violence to any good princi-
. Ole by this duCtrine, for I think that all focial, mo-
ral, and religious feeling, go that way. This is
the dodrine which has been uniformly held under
the authority of this Court for the lift 13 years
nearly, and by which I think we ought to abide."
Mr. justice Gatos' (poke very nearly as follows:
--is I am not clear that I underhand what the
true queltion here is. I do not undcrftand the
queftion to be, Whether or not this aBion will lie ?
If that had been the queftion, we fisould not have
had a motion for a new trial, but a motion in ar-
rea of judgment. As to the cafe of Palely v. Free.
Man, lam bound by the decifion of that cafe ; I
beard it, I have read it fince with great attention.
-I cannot fay I underhand the cafe pettedly, but
NB I am bound by it, for a majority of this Court,
to whom I pay, as I feel I ought to pay, perfed
and entire fubmiEfion, as the authority of thofe
whole opinions were better than my own, have fo
decided. By that law I am bound, and shall con:
tinue to be bound, until there be a decifion to the
contrary, by which decifion, fhould it ever happen,
I than alfo bold myfelf equally bound when it
takes place. But here the queftion, as I take it,
is not whether the Aaiun will lie ? but, whether
the Evidence given in this cafe, proves that which
is necessary to sustain the Adion ? I will not now
confider whether the Adieu will lie in this cafe,
becaufe upon that point I conceive myfelf bound
by the cafe of Palely v. Freeman, which upon that
fubjed I confider now to be the Law of the Land.
queftion firs with me is, ,4 What was the
ground on which the Aftion of Pafely v. Freeman
was held to be maintainable?" When I heard that
cafe argued at the Bar, and the opinion of my
Lord and my Brothers then upon the Bench, I
did underhand (my understanding may be de.
fedive, but I certainly did iinderffand), that the
right of Adion was founded on fraud—it teas
etprefily fo laid, in fo many words—and not only
fo, but all the other cafes rpm which the opi-
nion of the Court went in giving Judgment in
Palely and Freeman, are cafes in which either
Fraud or Derek appear ; for that is alfo a word
that is used--fe that Fraivi is the very founda-
tion of the Adion--fo did I underhand from the
learned Judges who differed from myfelf in the
cafe of Pafery and Freeman. I therefore then confi-
detect, and have ever fince confidered, that as fraud
was the foundation of the aiftiun, without fraud
this Idiot: would not lie. This makes it neceffacy
for me to confider, whether there is fuch a fraud
proved by the evidence in chi.; cafe, as will fupport
this anion ? Now, in looking, out for fraud in
the condo& of the Defendant in this cafe, I ;ulster!
I do not fee where I can find it; for I confider him
a :,fferting nothing more flan a mere opinion. J
obfei ye the words are, You may truft Miti Ito-
bertion, to any amount, with retied lately." But
what was the meaning of that ? He meant to give
his opinion, filch as it was (a weak one, perhap,),
of the circumftances of a woman in the neighbour-
hood. I cannot treat what has been laid at the
Bar upon this point as folly and nonfente. They
fay, it was nothing mote than his opinion that lie
rave to the Plaintiff—his mete opilicn of the crc-
Jit of another. When lie fa) s, I know von may
troll her," let rue confider what the queltion is
which is put, and what the knowledge is that is to
he pvedicated. I think that lie uttered, and that
he meant to utter, nothing mote than what lie
rcally and truly beli:vcd--It suns a quellion of
what credit was due to another ? edit is matter
sit opinion in its natiirr. I lay I know
3 perfon to he a pet fear (.1 credo," 1 mean to fay
re he is," for 1 have no doubt of it, fr,:ni
cool le acid mann -r and b.lbirs of the milli;
: believe kai .1 p: 11,,:l ict and I
f without weighing triy words. I know him to
a man of I not
it apptars to t- lie -h. t 0.,.
relit, and of %ski. ordiodi ily Ln,,wled;;.•
n foci' a fnh:•:ei if this :old the
':nd way (.1 W1:.1: IS ,alit:{ know•
I , %tr, a. Ay; .IWe t•I h a Li is
tk..c'.;, t.c:: , iulip•.it t'... iti this
IS t.,•.13: .11. y r,-,4l;in r tun,
c t.•iiin7 a 1' it rl:at
:new titer ss:.:it 1,, 1.1, i f,r !La
is tlie v.:).anc,: of a I.e. ii id ! . ay rcat.an to
b-here t:iat this s: •• .11:•.. credit I
Wi.-,1._ i.lcno interA
, • • '4.,11.': 1,1 1 ..1 ZI.Is time. lie ltad
cw.t woad-anti AUtli.•111) for raying that

(he was a perfon at cteck. lie ft,u:isl her wirl.
ill the habits and conditions of a %roman tii Ssit :tle,
1 eating others, and calieis treating her fplendialv,
playing the svhcle fcene of deception thorough-
:y, and he became her dupe. Am I therefore
o fay, it was a fraud in this man to lily, in
ordinary language, " I know her to he a woinan
of property, and you may troll her," yilien, per-
haps, I might have been duped rnyfelf by the fame
means, for I own; that under fuch circumdances •
I might have •fuppored fuch a woman to be a
woman oberedit. We mull demeinber all this
while, that the? Defendant had no intereft what-
ever is deceiving the Plaintiff. What is the•
amount of the evidencelere? I think it no mote
than aliening hit own firm belief, thatthis woman
was deferring of =edit; • If that be fo, as 1 think
it la, Iteally cannot feel anyfelf warranted in fay-
' ing that this Verdi& is right. I knoir it is matter
fbr the Jury to take the whole drat:alliances of the
cafe together ; bat inafinuch as they might have
confidered, that although this man Was. duped by
this wonsatz, andthat although he haduot any in-
tention to defraud the Plaintiff, '(till di be milled
the Plaiatifhis ought to repay the loft; in Which
cafe, is OUP app - stifion, the Verdisft would be
wrong...-. I think there ought to- be 2 neiv
trial; becaufe; I hold it, that in order to fupport
this 'talon, there mutt be convincing evidence of
fraud. That the Defendant laying, _ that which he
believed, in the charafter of a tnere dupe, is, in my
apprehenfion, not fufficient to fupport this aitlon.
And, indeed, with all doe flibmiffion to thole who
-think otherwife, I do not fee that there is evidence
enough to &Hart this action ; and therefore, tin-
lets others are of another opinion, I Jo think that
there ought to be i new trial. In this I beg to be
underftood to ray, that I do not meddle with the
law by which it is held that this anion will lie, for
I have taken the law upon that fobjet4, as laid down
in the cafe of Palely and Freeman, andwhich,
until it be_altered, I (hall confider to be :be law.
1 cannot, at prefent, concur in the verdift that was
given in this cafe, becaufe I do not fee that the
fats here Hated, do amount to a fufficient proof
of fraud, which is decided to be the foundation c;
the action in the cafe of Palely and Freeman. I
mild with to foe this quellion put Opon the Record,
fo that onr opinion may be put in the way Of being
chnfidered by higher authority."
Mr. Jake LAWRENCE laid, " that confidering
the extent of the queftion, he could not help with-
ing alfo, thatitswas put upon the Record, that it
might receive the determination of higher au•
, thorny. He walled it to be put in a way to receive
1 the decifion cl demier retort ; at the fame time
he rtsoft obfervc, that he had always confidercd
the can of Palely and Freeman to have decided
Fraud to be the foundation of inch an Aftion as
:his; and, confequently, that undo • :here was
Fraud, no anion would lie. tie toe.:: r tom the
report of the cafe of Palely v. Freer .:.71, to be
the opinion of all the Judges, if it went tf. t;ic Tory,
to confider whether the Party gi viii; he chaT.i.'ler,
that is of courfe, the Defendant hal a fraoduient
intention, and they found for the plaintiff the action
was right; but in this cafe he could not lay there
was evidence of that. It vas clear that the &fen-
dant here was a dupe, and that be really believed
the woman to be trod worthy. He dial mot think
that the cafe of Palely and Freeman went the
length of this cafe. He obferved that great ftrefs
Was laid on the words of the defendant, who had
raid, ~ I know," In and fo i now upon that he
would obferve, that common people do nat at-
tend to the critical nicety of words. A man in
common converfation, and, perhaps, in more than
common converfation, might fay, " I know there
is no City larger than London," becaufe he be-
lieved there was no City larger than London, or
he might fay, a I know there is a City larger ;Ilan
London," bccaufe he had been told—either the
one or the other of thefe things, and he believed
it; yet he could not properly fay In, in the one
cafe, as a matter of knowledge, lintels he had feat
and nicafured the City of London, and fome other
city that was larger ; or in the other, had meafured
not only .London, but all° every other City in
the world : but men in there cafes ordinarily
fubtlituted firm belief for knowledge. If this
man meant to reprefent, fairly and honeillyonly
what he thought, it Ilruck" him, he faid, that
this action could not be fupportcd. In order
to fopport this adios-., it fhould appear fome how
or other, that the Defendant had abed with fume
evil intention. It was not neceffiry that he Should
appear to he interelled ; but an evil intent dime
kind or other ought to appear. However, the
Learned Jud;re laid, that although this was the
'laning of his opinion at prcfent, he thought the
cite an important one, and he had doubts upon it;
and, alter what bad taken place to-day, it would
not become him to fay otherwife.
Mr. Ju (lice LE BLANC laid," he concurred with
his too brothers, in wifhing that this Cafe might
be brought more deafly before the Court than it
'vas at prefent. The Learned Judgz proceeded to
igive his of inion on tlic law at cotiOd rah!: length,
its Lid down in the ea..e of Pafely and l're,_inan,
recognifed in the Cale ot I:•.-re end Diirnfoid, and
inclined to tile opiniiia ti.. .i.. jiiiiice C./toss, and
Mr. Joilice I. SW Ili N( ~ t 1..: r:...•c• fl curd be a
Fraud in the I),:fei,da:.t. :, 1.,e ti.;< fo:t ,1.-Iftion
could be maintained. I'., i• la id J..: irrint an In-
tention in tile !iarie ! ;sin II:. e7iaraner, to de-
ci:iv: 11:;: i,a:a) :ii ~...i:iTi a: r...is p;ive!;, whether
6.1 iii,i, ~, I,;iii.-,;., ,ii .idvicil.i..:: to onither, was
io:mit :-: 1. 1 .:t tits- ma 1 1.-.0 .t:i :r.•(:-..ion to dc-

'171.2 .:10 t!!.it there
.ic pwin t • ;iy ;hi; C'a'a:, and
;,,: ti v,.t c,nuch tilt! is lhotii.! go
utforc .t p•trpof_ (l iir:ip6ing thc
polo: I. G,,e ;be urn C., 12:cord, that the
iiii,;(tion may t t CI:- Ucuticr It-tu.t."
Lott; 1.-t t%•.• 1,i.: fora new
Trial ly: 'he he put upon
Lc !t:cnt rill hr lit to fee ythether
my Lord I.l:itc•ri, uLr,tc ,!,.:mine I pti: in this
r it, ~t! nr tkr,ll:; ? lie lays,
:.at in Civil injury it done, the
itactition party ha% In thing to do with the
eitfc; :hr: t 'as in criminal Cafes only the maxim
holds—el •slif jig rm."
ituk fusitn. Ylfrtia