Star.
London, England, 1807-06-12 00:00:00

SMITH V. JEFFILFY3.

The Plaintiff is a Stockbroker, and is likewife eon.
eetned in a banking honk At Milton. The Defendant
is an Attorney.. This was an aBion for flanderous
words fp.Oken by the latter againfl the former.
Mr. Gaartow opened the cafe on the part of the
Plaintiff, and then called the evidence.
Mr.. COwtey another witnifs depofed, that the
Plaintiff and Defeidant, with fotne other perfons,
had met together at Milton on
up bniinefs, when the
Defendant, addrefling hiinfelf to the company, allud-
ing to the Plaintiff, laid, " He is a ufurer ; he has
robbtd the Bank; he has an credit, and no one will
takiUs drafts." Thefe fcandalgus expreffions were
afterwards repeated at the Guildhall Coffee-houfe by
the Defendant to bis witneffet.
Mr.. Pate, fur the Defendant, ;nailed that the
Plaintiff conld not recover. In ill the counts of the
declaration, it was Rated, that the exprettons were
made ufe of to injure the Plaintiff in his butinefs as a
flock broker, or as a.binker, when upon the evidence
it alerted out, that they had no allulion to either of
that oaapatioas.

Lord ELLtuspitouc“ was of opinion, that a net'.
di& wish% be found kr the Plaintiff upon the fiftfi
count of -declaration, what iirwis' generally Rat-
e 4, that the Plintiff was an ufurer.
,*.After Mr: Platt bad concluded kis addrefs to the
ury,
The Catty jurrice raid, that the word* njnin
which the Plaintiff ennl4 only be entitled to alterdift
were vague, and without any particular fubjellf to
which they were diielled. They were, howteer,
aaionable, becaufe it had been determined that they
were india,,ble. The Jury would align fuck da-
mages AS they might think tit, in a cafe where tht
I party Sad better have brought no aCtion at all.—
Verdia for the Plaintiff, tot.

THE RING V. SARAH SEAL!.

The defendant had been conviaed before the Ma.
giftrates at Marlborough.flreet Police Office, of in.
luring the ticket No 9, in an unlawful lottery, called
a Little Go. Mr. Maaavar, on the 3d of this month,
had argued againft this eonviftion upon four diftina
grounds. tit. That by the agate, it was required
that the penalty to be enforced under it. should be
applied, one-third to the Crown, one-third to the in-
former, and one third to the perfons who fhould ap-
prehend and (wire the offender ; whereas, nplin the
fait of the conviction, the names of the perfons did
not appear to whom the penalty was to be paid. idly.
That the Aft required that there fhould be an imme•
diate apprehenlion of the perfons fufpeeed ; but, on
the contrary, in this cafe, the arreft did pot take place
till three weeks after the unlawful infurance was made.
idly. That it did not appear by the inftrument, that,
previous to the commitment of the defendant, the
penalty was not paid. And, 4thly. That the con.
vieion Elated-the offence to have been proved at the
Police Office, without laying that it was before a
Police Magiftrate. To thefe objeCtions to the con-
vieion, the Common Serjeant was inftrueed to re-
ply, but he not being. then prepared, the difcuffion
was plliponed until this day.
Mr. lileffwcvs prefaced his argument to the Court
by obferving, that the object of the Statine in gild--
lion was, to pnt an end to a practice which had he•
come too prevalent, by which perfons, under the
appearance of advantage, plundered the lower claffes
of !he community, out of that property which their
induftry had ct Defter! ; and the Court, therefore,
would make every poffible intendment in fupport of
fo falutary a conviction. It was plain from the
words of the inftrument, that the lira ()Nation of
Mr. Marryat could not in this cafe apply; for it
appeared, that the defendant, Sarah Seale. was
brought before the Magiftrate by Wm. Chadwell
and White, and no difficulty could there.
fore arife, to whom the penally fhould be paid.
Lord ELIENBOROUGH -4' It it not a better ground
for you to fay, that it is not neceffary to name the
perfons to whom the difiribution is to be made, the
Aft having Rated, that the penalty fhould be difpoled
of in three particular wa) s. The caufe of 6' The
King v. Ballard" has decided that it is not neceffary
for the Magiftrate to Rate the names of perfons to
whom it is to be paid, for that world be alum agire."
Mr. MARRYATir argued, on the contrary, that it
was ablolutely neceNr7 that the names of the infor-
mer and the perfon taking the offender into catody,
fhould be let forth in the conviction ; otherwife this
inconvenience might arife, that the fagiftrate who
convieed might alfo be the informer, concealing that
;la on the face of the inftrument.— Judgment de.
'erred.