Star.
London, England, 1807-05-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MAY it.
SMITH V. JAMI 3.
This was an aftion of affault. The plaintiff is an

aniioneer and appraifer, and the defendant an aunt-
ney. The latter had the management of an ellate
,atWitney, in Oxfordibire, and went down to eflimate
. tome dilapidations made by an outgoing tenant. It
was agreed that two perfons (hould be called in to
.treprefent the contending interetts, and fettle the da•
images. The plaintiff was one of thole, and the de-
fendant objecting to come part of his condutt, words
- enfued ' • the plaintiff called the defendant a liar, and
• the defendant, in return, kicked him out of the room.
TI le Jury recompeafed this injury by giving aftillitig
damages.

ROBIRTS D. CAMDEN.
'lite Plaintiff is an Attorney, at Hollowell, in Flint-
fliire ; the Defendant is a Gentleman of fortune in
Oar neighbourhood. This was an action for slander.
After Mr. Sceset.avr had ripened the pleadings,
!The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the Plaintiff, laid
that this was an example of the molt foul and male-
volent calumny that could difgrace the records of the
Court. A namefake of the Plaintiff was under fome
derangement in his affairs, and it became neceffary
that they Mould be invelligated. The Plaintiff un-
dertook this bufinefs profeflionally, and in fulfilling
his duty, he had occafion to go to Dublin, to attend
various meetings of arbitrators, and to go through
involved and intricate accounts. For all this bufinefs
the whole charge was only 1301. Roberts could not
or would not pay the bill; he endeavoured, therefore,
to fight off, as the phrafe was, and for this purpofe
he required that the Bill fhould be taxed by the Pro-
thonotary ; but, in the feqticl, it was not taxed at
all. On this short and plain Rory was founded the
calumny, mifreprefenting every fait. The Defendant
propagated, through all Hollowell, and its vicinity,
that the Plaintiff had promif-d to Mrs. Roberts, the
wife of the perfon for whom he ailed, to charge no-
thing for all this laborious exertion, and yet that he
had railed an extravagant bill of I 501. which, how.
ever, being examined, was reduced to 501. having
been taxed by the Chief Jußice and another Judge,
who reprimanded the Attorney publicly in Court.
[Bills ire not taxed by the. Judges, but by certain
Officers of the Court appointed for that purpofe.]
There could not be a more impudent dander, and
invented again& a perfon whole livelihood depended
upon the purity and integrity of his character. In
this fituation, the Plaintiff could not continue his em-
ployment, without taking Reps to reftore his injured
reputation. For this purpofe he wrote a letter to the
Defendant, (trongly infißing that there was no ground
for the calumny, and defiring that it might be contra•
diCled. The application produced a dry, and infolent
anfwer. The Plaintiff again expollulated, defying'
the Defendant to prove his charges ; and demanding,
that if he could not prove them, he would retraft
them. The Learned Counfel would read the reply,
becanfe no excefs of credulity in the minds of the
Jury could lead them to fuppofe that be Rated from
memory correaly the contents.
4' Sir—Upon the receipt of your letter, it was my intention to
have had fat6faetion of you for the opprobrious language and
epithets you have ufed of me. But wilhful Brit, for my own gra-
tification, to inveftigate further the anecdote which I had in the
courfe of converfation related, I called again upon Mr. Gryffith
Williams, who confirmed again the whole ; and farther informed
me, that he had diredtions from the Attorney General to prole-
cute you for perjury. Until you have cleared yourfelf of this Im-
putation, I cannot look upon you as a Gentleman ; and muft difmifs
you with the epithet of a feoundrel, which your condudt to me
merits. Your's, &c. 3d July, tBe6.'•
The Plaintiff (continued the Learned Counfel) had
complied with that requifition of the Defendant, and
be came to an Engliffi Jury to relieve himfelf from a
charge (o unjuß and oppreffive to his feelings. The
words would be proved, and the letter '-could be pro-
duced. The fallity of there affertions being evident,
- it appeared further, that the Plaintiff, at the time the
original action was brought,' was only an Attorney
belonging to the Court of Great Sellions, in Wales,
and laid the venu in Middlefex—When, upon applica-
tion to the Court, on behalf of the Defendant, it ap-
pearing that the tranfaflion was a local matter, and
the parties all living in Wales, the venu was changed
to the county in which the tranfaBion took place.—
The Plaintiff difcontinued that atlion, and, having
previoufly procured himfelf to be made an Attorney
of this Corer, he brought a fecond action, and laid
the venu in Middlefex, being then entitled to do fo,
whereby the Defendant was put to a very confider-
able expence, in bringing Witncffes from Wales. It
alfo appeared, that a Mr. Griffith Williams was the
perfon wno informed the Defendant of the whole of
this tranfadtion. Nothing, (laid the Attorney Ge-
neral) could exceed the hardfhip upon the Plaintiff,
excepting, indeeid, the hard malevolence of the De-
fendant.
Mr. James Ewer being examined by Mr. GARROW,
laid, that Mr. William-Williams, Colonel Hughes,
and the Defendant, having dined at his houfe, loon
after the ladies had withdrawn, the Defendant ob-
ferved, that •' Roberts' conduct was not better than
that of other Attornies, for that he had offered to
Mrs. Roberts to tranfall her law bulbuls for no.
thing : but after this, notwithitanding his profeffions
of ft iendfhip, he had brought in an exorbitant charge
of 15o1.; which bill was afterwards taxed, and re-
duced to sot. but not without a revere reprimand
from the Court." The witnefs further laid, that the
fame language was repeated by the Defendant at
the public Billiard room, who added, that Gryffith
Williams confirmed the whole, producing at the fame
time a copy of the letter which had been read by the
Learned Counfel. On his crofs-examination, he laid,
that the cenverfation was held on the aoth of June ;
he did not recollect that it was introduced by fome
talk about a little Ft ench milliner, but the name of
Madam Coberge was mentioned, with whom, it was
Paid, that Mr. Gryffith Williams bad fome flirtation.
Mrs. William Williams, in the prance of the wit.
stet, told the Plaintiff of the calumnious expreffions
ufed by the Defendant.
Mr. William Williams being called, confirmed the
leading patticulars &ft Rated. The Defendant Paid
the more the Plaintiff furred in the bufinefs, the worfe
it thonld be for him. On his crofs examination, the
witnefs laid, that Mr. Gryffith Williams being in the
next vain with Madame Coberge, when Roberts the
Plaintiff made the offer to Mrs. Roberts, he Gryffith
Williams flipped behind the curtain, and heard the
converfation. The fun began with the little French
milliner.