Star.
London, England, 1806-03-08 00:00:00

~~

examined by Sir V. 011ie!, frroi-eci the letteic of
which Mr. (least:JP/ had feast the above upsets. to
.be his brother's h ind.ws iting. The letter was read ;
it contained the above pafrages, and many others M-
r, i”ns to she Plaintiff's charafter, and others of the
Defendant's family; it was fent by the Defendant
tram London to his brother, Mr. Matthew Atkinf'n,
at Kingfton, in Jamaica. in July 1804, of which he
fent a duplicate and triplicate, left it might rnifearry.
Ti. this letter Mr. M. At kinfon returned an anfwer
full of gond
,fente,. bearinfr ample tellimony to the
hominy of Mr. Clayton, and affuring the Defendant
of the interelk he took in the welfare of the family,
l gently Awing the Defendant his mind had been poi-
! limed by Tome mifreprefentation, and that he law
the condue of Mr. Clayton through the medium of
prejudice, dec. To which there was a reply from the
Drlenclant full of anger, and confide• ing his brother
as an accomplice in a confpiracy to defraud him of
his property, ice.
Sir Francis Baring, Baronet, examined by Mr.
Gallant:l)w.
Q._ I hellcat Sir Framis, that to coacquenee of your connexion
in Witt India matters,which we all know to be molt estentive,on
the asth of the late Mr Richard Atkinfoe, you .hatted In the
management of his affair+ 'Co a certain degree, by advice.
Q Had you, in confequence of that, frequent communleption
with Mr. Clayton, the Plaintiff 1., this mule ?—A. Frequently.
Q. Wcre Mr. Atlantan's concerns In a coniderable degree con-
ned ed with Welt I ladle property Very much, if not entirely.
Q._ll believe the affairs of Mr. It Aikidos. bad great eauplcaity
about them ? A. Very much indeed, they were very complicated.
Q. A great number of perforts claimed under his will f A. A
great many.
i QI believe it became neceffary to advance money for the relict
of we eft.ite from cinbatoefintent, particularly on account of the
claims of Mr lienfieldl A. Mr. &afield bad ademand of about
136,0001 on the effete ; it was propofed by Mr Clayton and thole
who reprefentert the family, to purchafe Mr. Benfield's right, for
the purpofe in the fir& inflance, of liquidating the commutate of the
diem, and in the fecund if any benefit strafe from Itgeignusbale,
that hene fit was to be divided among the family, net hsalleidually
to Mr. Clayton, hue to the family at large.
IZZ, I believe, air Francis, that on that ccsallin you mrelleilla good
as to make a eonaderable advance I—A. I advanced flood
Ct. Did Mr. Clayton make cooLiderable advances elf° for the
fame purpofe I—A. He advanced himislf Apo& for the fame
Purport..
Q., I will take the liberty of troubling you with airily one more
ke, kir Dandy-Prue' the frequent opportunities of Intel,
courfe you had with Mr.Claytos .did be appear to you to castled
Matfett with seal and integrity in that cafe ?—A. I have had ire.
writ opponent ties of knowing Mr. Clayton for many years, and
in all the tranfadions which 1 have listed. and whirs echo ire to
the
Here Mr.DA LLA °bladed, that thee tratilAil sM gem' untie esi
donee, and fil. Loitifhlti ruled ternrdingly.
Mr. GA ow—QWas Me. Claytoint mai& Alt which you,
• Sir Frauds, approved of, as being fortlietieseitlel elae-fainUy
, A. Entirely fo.
Here the Plaintiff's cafe ended.
Mr. Dat.t.as (poke for the defendant in his moat
elegance of (lyle, and contended that this was expn.:
fang unneceffarily the fecrets of a family ; that the
Defendant, whom he did not jullify, and who upon
refleftion was alliamed of this letter, had afted tinder
mirapprehenflon, and that therefore this was not a
cafe for ferious, but moderate damages.
Lard ELIANISOILOUGH.-••" This se an a.eion for
a libel- The letter certainly contains expreflions ex.
tremely injurious to the charafter of the Plaintiff,
who is reprefented as one of the hafell of mankind..
Some men potrefs a habit of eootnefs and deliberit-
inn. ethers are given more to the expreffion of the
indignant feeling. Whatever may he the phlegmatic
difpolition of this Defendant, he feems on the pre-
fent oceafinn to have ii,dolged the malignant palfions,
and to have fent duplicates and triphcates of a com-
munication that ought never to have appeared, di-
retting )41G1 this ebullition of rage againa the very
mother from whore womb he (*prang. The Letirned
Countel tor the Defendant has erdeavoured to hew
the extent of the provocation, or rather the degree
of difaNiointment to which his client had been es-
; larded, and on this ground, he contended, that a fort
of tempo: ary infantry had been produced, which.
would fornah an apology, if not a jrillifteation of
his conduit. I am afraid of giving way to this ar-
gument. Here we can know no diainaions but
thole of a ming of found mind and a madman ;
ihofe who ofcillite between the two extremes would
be the moll dangerous members of twiety, if they
' were permitted to give way to the indulgence of their
extravagance with.impunity. In a cafe of this kind,
you are not merely to confider the degree of injury I
received from defamation, any more than in an attion
for an affault, you are to align your damages in ex-
aft proportion to the corporeal fufferin,y., of the plain.
tiff. You are to take into account the vexation he has
fuffered, and the intuit he has received. This perfon
appears to hold a retpettable fituation in his prole .
lion, and in a profeffion in which lie is liable to fum•l
mary punifhment if he aft wrong : he ought therefore
to receive peculiar encouragement if he aft right.
He is a father of 1 t children ; his charafter to him,'
and to them, is of great importance ; and I am not
aware, how he could effeftually retrain the malignity
of she defendant, but by bringing him to the bar of
his country. Yrni have heard the care. and you will
give filch a ineafure of damages as befits your good
genre and dircretion —Verdi& for the plaintiff moo'.
noart.oca,
•V. strxxert, ash
This was an aftion to recover damages for a breach
of contraft. The plaintiff was a banker at Cambridge,
and Receiver General of the County. and the de-
fendant one of the Commitlioners of the Cullom'.
The defendant had agreed, to fell the plaintiff an
ell:Ite in the neighbourhood of Cambridge for 26,5001.
and he received a depofit of 4,9751. Before the con,
seyarce was completed, the pidigtiir enntraarti to
retell the ellate to different purcimiers in parcels, the
putchafe money of which, cr.lleClively, amounted to
near 37,0t01. When the defendant found this, lie
retitled to complete the Cale, anti availed liittotelf of
the identical contrails die plaintiff had entercd into
The matter ended in a compromite, by which we
uncles flood the litigant parties agreed to divide the
profit of the contrafts entered into by the plaintiff.
The amount will be about soool. a piece.—A Juror
was witbdriteen.