Star.
London, England, 1825-12-23 00:00:00

8

&

•
%linen were bete pat In and read they fully *tint to sell•
staatiate the &hairs cue. . .
A witty., was recalled, *he ptoved tlatt :fie phintiff came Into
the possession of considerable landed property by iiihvtitances
aliout the commencement df ih24.

Mr. Scasamar, for the defence, addressed the Jury.
I4e contended, that this act on was brought for the
bole purpose of getting a divorce, so as .to bar the plain-
tifts site of her dower, and to enable him to dispose pE
it without her levying .a fine. The Learned Counsel
then strongly remarked on the te•ndittt of the plaintiff
in suff:ringthlt wife to rema.n so many years without
either allowirg her a sirpence fur her suprort, or ever
enquiring after hlr, even wttsn th s supposed adultery was
discovered; and of his hirdheartednes3 in starring his
child to go to'the parish; and, finally, con ended, that
the only question WA', whether there shotild be a were
dict for the defendant or a shilling damages?
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICZ charged the Jury, that the adultery
was made out, but left the question of damages to the Jury.
Verdict for the plaintiff-43=meg 501.

WILLOUGHBY V. FLETCHER.
This was an action by Mr. Wi:lnugliby, the keeper
of the Royal H..tel, Chester, ag .inst Mr. Fletchet,'Who
is the printer and proprietor of the Chester Chroiticle,
to recover a compensation in damagei for a libel in the
above paper, which the plaintiff complained of as being
libellous, and injurious to his character.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
The libel was an article which appearel in the Chester
Chronicle of Friday, December the 4.h, 1824. The

plaintiff had taken the Royal Hotel, at Chester, of Lord
Grosvenor, and in consequence of a seizure made by
Mr. Crosby, Lord Grosvenor's agent, Mr. Willoughby
applied for an injunction in Ch.ncery. When the an-
swer was put in, the injunction was dissolved, and Mr.
Willoughby NA the rent due to Lnrd Grosvenor. In
consequence of the proceedings in Chaicery, the article
was published which became the subject of action.
The writer stated, that reform in Chancery was neces-
sary, because Mr. W Hiatus (the Counsel) and Mr.
Willoughby were diisatitfied with the Lot d Chancellor's
decision. It went on to say, that the affidavit made
by Mr. Willoughby was considered an incredible tale,
thereby imputing perjury, and concluded by adding;
" Oaths are words, and words are wind,
Two feeble instruments of mind."

Mr. SCARLITT, who was for the plaintiffltnade some
severe allusions to inaccurate reports, and the injury
individuals might sustain by making the Lord Chan-
cellor pass censure on the conduct of suitors, when the
obs( rvations of Lord Eldon, it fairly applied, would
convey no such censure. He considered this the worst
of calumnies.

• The Learned Counsel caned witnesses, who proved the publica
tion of the libel, and the circumstances of his case.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL for the defendant, con-
tended that Mr. Willoughby had commenced the cone
troversy by sending articles to the Courant. The de-
fendant who was a Gentleman and a scholar, was not
the writer of the article, but was certainly respoasible
for the insertion. He called upon the Jury to consider
this a party dispute, which had happened at Chester,
where the plaintiff might have tried it without putting
the parties to the expense of coming to a London Jury.
The Loan Come Jussleit said the plaintiff, in law, was entitled
to a verdict. It was fur the Jury to say what damages he ought
to receive.
The Jury retired from the box, and on their return found a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 3001.
ROBSON AND ANOTHILR D. SIR CHARLES awn, lAN?.
The plaintiffs, who are corn-lavers, brought this
action against the defend-nt, as the acceptor of 'a bill
of exchange for 44001. da:e.l the 2.1 March, 1823, and
drawn by Josiah Rowe.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and pee notice to the
plaintiff to prove the consideration given fur the bill.
After the acc ptance had been proved, the Arrow.
NEY GENERAL put in an agreement between t:le t!e-
fencl.nt and Rowe, by which the defendant agreed t
a.cept four bills of exchange for the purpose of raising
a sum of 2 5001. which was to he paid to the defendant
witOia a given time, Of the bills were to be returned.
Rowe did not pay the money, nor return the bills.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, under the above facts,
contended that the pla.ntiffi ought to shew how the bill
came into their possessisa ; secondly, that they could
not recover, as no considerat 1041 had been given for it.
Mr. Guaisair, in s.eply, produced witnesses,. who
proved that the hill in question was paid by Rowe to
Messrs. Myers and Co. and by them to the plaintiffs, as
security for any loss they might suatain by the sale of
a cargo of slover, which had been consigned to them
by Myers and Co.
The Jury, under all the circumstances
diet for the defendant.
The rest of the day was occupied in the trial of goestion of
bankruptcy.

of the ease, found aver-*