Star.
London, England, 1814-04-29 00:00:00

F

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

doing busink
Being asked
wicked mat
Faultier, an,
words were
Cow tone of
The Jur
which did

COURT OF KING% BENCH, APRIL 25.
' RANCE Vi WRIST, MIRK, AN'D WIFE..
This was an•action of slander, brought by Miss
Rance, a Young woman who keeps a ladies' school
at Guildford, against the Rector of Stoke; in that
neighbourhOdd, and his lady, for writing the follow.
ing anonymous letter to Mr: Clarkson, a gentliman
who was about to commit his daughter to the plain:.
tit's care, whereby be was induced tti decline doing
so, and ether persnns were induced. to remove their
children from the school t
" A friend to Mr. and Mrs. Clarkson, and who is herself a
mother, feels it her bounden duty to suggest to them, that Miss
Rance is a peredu who is not fit to have the ears of young ladies;
and as Mr. Clarkson. has now left-Guildford, the person who
writes this considers be may not have heard the Iranians reports
which are circulated in Miss Rance's disfatour, which, though
they may not be founded in truth to their full extent, have per-
fectly convinced the writer of Miss Rance 's unfitness for the
charge of young ladies beyond their mere education, she being a
woman of very unguarded manna..."
Mr. Clarkson proved that he was introduced to the
plaintiff by the defendant's wife, in whose family the
plaintiff had formerly lived as governess. lie had
let the plaintiff the house in which she carried nn her
`school, and was abut to rem6ie his own daughter
to the plaintiff's care,' from Dursley, in Gloucester-
shire. Upon receiving this letter, which was not
written in a disguised hand, be suspected its author,
and called upon Mrs. West, who did not deny 'the.
fact, but adduced instances of the plaintiff's miscon-
duct. alum These-had' been related to her by Miss Bishop,.l
an inmate of the plaintiff's house, who had partly
observed them, and partly heard them from a female
servant in the family, who likewise now proved them
Many of them are unfit to be detailed in a news:
paper, and the whole of them, Lord Ellenborough.
observed, fully warranted the character which was
given to the plaintiff in the letter, viz. that she was
" a woman of very unguarded manners. His Lord-
ship charged the Jury, that the question for their.
censidaation was, whether this letter was the roe
duction of officious malice, or whether it was not that
friendly communication of just suspicion, proceeding
from a partyln whose family the plaintiff had for-
merly lived as governess, and who had at first encon•
caged her in her school, and who had therefore, in.
some degree, rendered herself responsible for her cons.
duct to a gentleman to whom she had introduced the
plaintiff, and who was about to commit to her charge
.the awful responsibility of a daughter's educatioal
If it was so, the law would protect it, though written
anonyMousiy (but the hand-writing was current and
undisguised) ; and the defendants would be entitled
to, their verdict, although they hod pleaded ~ Not
Guilty," and had not justified the tluth of the words.
Lord Eu.snaottouou did not riseTrom. the trial of
the cause till half an hour after six o'clock • and the
Jury, after retiring fora short time, renamed a Irer.,
diet for Ilse plaintiff—Damages seloo. ' , •
APRIL 27.--GIAITON lit, Wiz. c.
Mr. PARK moved for a Rule to thew cause why the
verdict for the plaintiff fur 850, in this case should
not be set aside, and a new trial granted.' The action
was tried at Guildhall on the 25th of February last,
and was for seduction of the plaintiff's daughter by a
Gentleman ia the army. There was no other evi.
dense at thelrial than that .of i.e daughter herself,
who swore. draelter child by the defendant, Which
.xas born on the 23d of March, 1811, Was now at So-
niers'-town, under the care of a person whom she'
named : she knew not exactly wherenbunts. Mr.
Park now produced an affidavit in contradiction of
these facts by three witnesses, who swore that the per-
son entitled to never lived at Somers'Aown ; that the
child of the plaintiff's daughter, which they had in
their care, was of the age of only 16 or 17 months ;
that the plaintiff had been more than once heard to
say that her daughter's first child lived only seven
weeks ; the registry of the death of that child had been
examined ; and the nurse, who was present at the,
birth of both the daughter's children, joined in the,
affidavit. The damages of 850 had been given by i
the Jury under the impression that the detendant.';'
child was now living.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—Take a rule to shew causes.
REX V. THE INHABLTANTS far ST. GEORGE, HANOVER.
SQUARE.
Mr. JEKYLL moved the Court in this case, in which
the rule for repairing the pavement of Piccadilly had
been enlarged four 'feints till the present Term, and
yet the street, was not yet repaired. The conviction
for the nuisance was in 1812, and it was pretended,
that two,years was not time enough to pave a street.
The latie frost had been set up as an excuse this year,
and the procession of Monday se'nnight.
Mr. ATTORNEY GEN VIAL. for the defendants, said,
that there' had been no funds for this repair till the
Legislature had lately granted an Act to' raise them s
they were now raised, and the repair was going on
under the very respectable suPerintendauce of the
`Vestry of the parish. . .
The Court enlarged the rule till the las! day but
one of 'Trinity Term, when they would enquire what
,had been dose. If the repair should not he effected
by that time, no longer indtdgenie would be granted.
APRIL 28.---SIK J. HON EYWOOD v. STONE:
This case was first tried at Madstone, and after.
wards at Guildhall, upon the following contract :.--
Sir John Honeywood had given a horse and AIM for
a horse of the defendant's, and the defendant agreed,
that if Sir John did not like his bargain, if he would
return the horse sound on the. first day of October,
With a brace of pheasants, that then Sir John Honey-
wood should' have his own horse and money back
again. Sir John did not like his bargain, and rain..
ned the horse betore the first of October ; an.' on the
first of Octuhcr, in the evening, he sent a brace of
pheasants to the defendant by the Canterbury coach
to London. These pheasants, hoWever, did not ar-
rive till they were past eating. The defendant insis-
ted that Sir John had not complied with the contract,
as• he onght to have delivered the pheasants to him
on the first. The' Court, however, were of opinicn,
that delivering them to the carrier on the first of Oc-
tober was complying with the contract, and refused a
new trial.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, APRIL, all. '
E4TON V. HOUGH.
" This was an action brought by an attcrney,Pf this
Conn to-recover a-compensation in damages for slap-
i derous words. The defendant, who, it seems, was.
' dissatisaed on account of the settlement of some pecu-
niary matters with the plaintiff, said, he was sorry
' Mrs. Faultier (a female far whom the plaintiff was

This acts
to recover
defendant,
Infirmary,
rations an(
stitution.
been person
the plAintif
'of the last,

The Jai
mages Thy

J. Stoct
the•house
shoes and

beet riot
sorter sn;
om it,
ver4l bi
the pri!
crowd,
race!,
a eatrole,
street,
the btu
Willi
of back
the pill
v loos

passim
.>i most
reconn
person!
of rnoi
Thl
spoil 1
Mal
terfeit
Bryan!
Evans
steaks
anti J.
Met fie)
horse-
How:
Smith,
burg)

, 1

E. Braz4
for stealing
Mr. Harris
The fei
and the Ms
time, and ,
-had missed
do* was
Bence to
property
acquitted,
They
ing them
Ingram,
After
she got s
veral arts
present
of the show,
stituted.
*horn is
tl
an
prove
i l
Gut:
of
e, r
jo

to
cej
in,
ill
cc
re
U
si
0
' •
1