Star.
London, England, 1802-02-20 00:00:00

'

then up. He further Rated, that Tebbshad taken
...arrant of Attorney for the lag money he lent
h; m, n pon which he had entered up judgment, and
t ,ken rut execution on the 16th of July lag.
Mr. Gists reprobated this form of adinn as an
innovation of the law, and an evafion of the Sta
• tire of Frauds. He contended that the Defendant
hail been guilty of no fraud, as it appeared he had
Wraith. united Stebbins to the amount of tool.
after he gave him a charader to the Plaintiff, and
therefore he did not recommend to another what
he would not do himfelf. He was not bound to
hate all he knew of Stubbins's circumfiances, for
if men were bound to do that, it mull end in the
ruin of all mutual confidence among tradefmen.
Mr, Judice Gass obferved, that this fort of ac-
tion had not been known in Weßminner-hall'many
years. He perfonally had objeded to its intmdue.
ion, as evading and trenching upon a moll whole-
tome Ratute, (the Statute of Frauds). Higher
authority, however, thought it a fit One to be fup-
ported, and he bowed acquiefcence. He (Wed
this to the Jury, that they might be aware of the
bias which poffibly might hang upon his mind.—
His' Lordthip then went through the evidence, and
obferved, that the moll material allegation in the
declaration, relative to the acceptance and pay-
ment of bills by Stebbins, remained totally with-
out proof. With refped to the reit, it teemed that
the reprefentations made by the Defendant to the
Plaintiff were all true—and a moll material coati-
deration was, that the Defendant himfelf trolled
Stebbins, after he had recommended him to Tay-
lor, the Plaintiff. As the ground of this action,
as teemed to be agreed by the majority of the
Court in a late care (Haycraft and Creafy) was
fraud ; and no fraud here appearing, he thonght
the Plaintiff had not made out a cafe which enti-
tled him torecover.—Verdid for Defendant.
THIS KING V. lINV/TON.
An anion was lately broil:11A againn a gentle
. man of the name of Richardfon for the board and
lodging of his wife, from whom he lived feparate.
His defence was, that his wife had been living in
a date of adultery, which divefted his refponfibi.
lity ; and Mr. Newton at the trial fworo many
things, which, if tree, Mewed her to be a woman
of the mod profligate and abandoned charader.—
Upon his evidence the Plaintiff was nonfiiited. But
the lady thinking that he had unjuftly traduced
her, preferred againft him an indictment for per-
jury, which was found a true bill by the Grand
Jury,.and cape on mow to be tried.
Mr. ERSKINE was for the Prolecutor, and after
having opened his cafe, was about to call Mrs.
Richardfon to !peak to her reputation, when an
error was difcovered in the pleadings. In the cafe
in which Mr. Newton appeared as a witnefs, the
adion was trefpafs In the cafe, and it was Rated
in the indictment to have been for money had and
received. .
Mr. Gamins-, fir the Defendant, faid, he was
afraid his Lordniip would think he trifled with the
Court, were he not to take the objection; but in
no criminal cafe in which be had been retained,
had he ever done fo with fuch reludance, as, had
the trial gone on, it •would have appeared that this
profecution sots the molt grouudlefs and kausia-
kw that ever was ;aka: ta.
The Jury were then told to confider of their vier-
did, and of courfe found the Defendant Not Guihy.