Star.
London, England, 1802-04-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APRIL 2L
BILOOILI W. CUT.

This affirm was brought againft the defendant
for having com pored and-publiihed a malicious libel,
tending to defame the plaintiff, and to hurt him
in his profeffion. The declaration Rated, that the
defendant, in a certain paper, which he had pub-
licly diftributed, had affirmed, that the plaintiff, a
(worn broker of the city of London, aeting for Mr.
Manuel de la Torez, an importer of Spanith wool,
had charged Mr. Warrington, upon a large quan-
tity of Segovia wool, ad. in the pound more than
the price agreed upon, with his principal, and that
he never accounted for to him : and in another
count, that the defendant had here affirmed the
plaintiff in felling fome-wool for Mr. M. de la To-
rts to the houfe of fluth and Company, to have
changed the invoice into his own name, and when
he received the money to have applied it to his own
ufe. Thejdefendant pleaded, &It that he did not
publifh this paper ; and fecondly, that if he did; it
contained nothing but what was true, and that the
plaintiff thus had no right to maintain his ation.
Mr. Ensues, leading for the plaintiff,
in the courfe of a very long and eloquent fpeech,
obferved, that his client having by his inchntry
amaffed a confiderable fortune, was fired with the
honourable ambition of reprefenting his country
in Parliament, and offered himfelf as a candidate
for the borough of Chippenham, in, Vs'iltfitire. He
met with a very favourable reception from the
generality of the freemen, but the defendant being
an the intereft of another candidate, had attempted
to impede his (needs by afperfing his charater.—
The words flared in the declaration were contain-
ed in an addrefs which the defendant had fent to
almoft every inhabitant of Chippenham. Mr.
Erfkine allowed that when general refleCtions were
caft upon a man, it was much better to overlook
them. An honeft man fhould rather rejoice in be-
ing called a ruffian, as it bet pectic to enquire into
his char-after, which the more it was underftood
would be the more revered. But when a fpeci-
fic charge was brought forward, it was incumbent
upon a man to meet it, or to allow it to be jult.—
Great liberties were to he tolerated on the occalion
of an elettion, and writings, which at other times
Thould be punifhed as libellous, mull then be over-
looked. But though it might be laid that one of
the candidates was a blockhead, was a fool, was a
courtier, was a timeferver, was a demagogue, it
never could be permitted that a man of an noble.
miffied reputation firould be accufed of aas of foul
and deliberate fraud. If it fhould be proclaimed
through the ftreets of Portfmouth that he was, a
fenfelels declaimer, who had for twenty years been
conftantly fpeaking in the Court of King's Bench,
without ever uttering a fentence deferring the at-
tention of the Court, or of the Jury, his peace of
mind would not be much difturbed, and at any
rate he mull quietly fubmit to the imputation of
imbecility. But if any one flioulel atfirtn, that hold-
ing
a brief in a cattle, he had corruptly betrayed
his client, he would inflantly appeal to the laws of
his country, and they would not fail to give him
inftant retirees.
After the plaintiff was proved to have been ad-'
mined a broker in the year 1782, the bond he ex-
ecitted and (wore to obferve was read. Among
other things he here engages never to buy, fell, or
barter goods, wares, or merchandizes on his own
account, and never to take more than the eftahlifh-
ed brokerage. The publication of the libel was
clearly proved by a freeman of Chippenham.
Don Manuel de la Torez was then called, and
examined by an interpreter. He fluted, that the
contra& for the wools in queition with the plain-
tiff was in the rate of 4s. Bd. and it appeared that
the plaintiff had actually fold them to Warrington
for 4s. rod. But he laid that he had received
one pound and a lbw (billings more than the price
agreed upon, and accounted for this by fay:ng
that the plaimiff had liberty from him to felt! rtf-

ferent parCels at JiErent pliers, In that be actually
got upon the whole 2s. Bd. a pound. From his
croft. examination it appeared that Mr. Brooke
had, mitt at y to his duty AS a broker, bought large
quantities of Spanith wool on his own rieconnt.
Mr. Warrington was likewif. called, and laid
that he was no-fatly fatiitied with Mr. Brooke's
condaa in this alEtir. He allowed that Mr. B.
had often fent him wool Without . naming any
principal, but whether the wool, was his own he
would not tar.
A witnels was likewile called, who gave a fa-
tisfitaory account of the affair with Bufh and
Company.
Mr- GARROW addrefred the Jury at very great
length, and with great animation, in favour of the
defendant. He contended that his cafe had been
fully made out by the plaintiff himfelf. Every
affertion in the fuppofed libel had turned out to be
true. The tranfaairm, to be five, had been at.
tempted to be explained away, but no evidence had
been given to prove that the defendant was aware
that it admitted of being thus explained, and the
plaintiff had undertaken to prove that he aced
wilfullY and malicioully. Mr. G. laid very great
!refs on the circitmaance of Mr. Brooke having
been in the praftice of trading in wool on his own
account, and fill more upon feveral pant of the
addrefs, in which he is treated more feverely, be-
ing pallid over in filence. In one part he was
charged with having fent over a perfon to Holland,
to rails: the market in London, and having bought
up all the trafh in the !hope of wool that he could,
to change the marks into chafe affixekl upon the
packages of the fine! Spanifh wool, to which, from
the known honour of the Spanifh nation, implicit
credit is given. Yet this imputation. which might
fo eafily have been proved falfe in faa, he tamely
lfubmitzed to. Would this charge hurt his cha-
racer lets upon the Exchange than that of de.
frauding Mr. Torez or Mr. Warrington ? The
Learned Counfel expreffed great furpriae that fuch
an aaion fhould have been brought, and predided
. that it would do little in furthering the attempts of
the defendant to become a fenator.

The Learned Judge laid, that this was certainly
a libel, and put ►t to the Jury whether the jullifi-
cation had been been made out?

The Jury, after retiring for about a qnarter of
an hour, brought in a verdift for the defendant.—
The Court was very crowded, and the caufe, we
underfland, has made a great noife in the City.