Star.
London, England, 1807-05-16 00:00:00

LAIV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY ta.
calFrirna, ATTORNEY, v. nt.ana.
This was an adion of Dander. It appeared that
the f'Lsintiff was an Attorney of this Court, refitting
at Newport, in the Ifle of Wight, where he followed
his profetlion with credit and refpedability, haying
previoufly foaled his Clerkfhip in the refpeftable
Office of Meffrs. Warton and Co. in the Temple.—
He was-employed by a Mr. Philip George Dodd, in
his profeffional capacity, refpcding a difpute betweea
him and a tenant of the Defendant, about a mill.
comic', and having met upon the fu!Jjed, Mr. Dodd
told him be could no longer employ him, as the
Defendant, Mr. James Ruffin Blake, had• told him
that he was incompetent, the words charged in the
declaration being, " Why do you go to fuch a petty.
flging fellow as that ?" (meaning the plaintiff);
4t Why don't you go employ fome refpedable man,
who knoo-s his battlers ; as to him he knows no-
thing about Winer. ?" The Learned Counfel for
the Plaintiff here obferved, that there was a cafe is
the honk', where an Attorney of the Court obtained
a verdia againft a perfnn who called him a daffy-
down-dilly, the Count conceiving that this epithet
meant to convey fomething injurious to the Plaintiff's
charader, but the phrafe of petty.fogger did not re-
quire any tranflation, being already well known to
the world in general. In confequence of there ob.
fervations of the Defendant, Mr. Dodd entitely with.
drew his bufinefs from thy management of the Plain•
tiff, to his confiderable lots and injury, and this adioa
was brought to recover compenfation,
The ATTORWAY GENERAL, on the part of the
Defendant, (when the Plaintiff had proved his cafe)
obferved, that no man refpated the charader of an
Attorney more than be did, but the fad in this cafe
was, that Mr. Dodd was the real Plaintiff, and nut
Mr. Griffiths. Dalt had had a difoute with a miller,
a tenant of the defendant, about cutting down a mill-
bank, which was a great lots to the poor miller, and
, Mr. Blake wanted Mr. Dodd to give up a leafe he had
of their: premifes over the miller, in order to pre-
vent further difputes or difagreements, but this he
do, and in revenge determined to throw
rmefrn.feßdlatokeu
upon the Attorney, by imputing, theft
expreftions to him. If, he cohtinned, any one of the
Gentlemen of the Jury, wh• !elided in the City of
Lo 'don, and whore mercantile tranfadiong were
folely confined to the metropolis, bad been afperfed
and calumniated, it would he thought a molt ridi-
culous thing were he to ptilifh a vindication of I,is
cl'arafler in Yolkfhire, in order to clear himfelf
from inch imputations in the eyes of the pe,,ple of
York. So it was in the prefent cafe, for the Plaintiff;
wholly unknown in this city, had braoght his aftioi
here, when he fhould have tried it in Hampfhire,
where he and all the other parties were known, and
to which place the whole of his profeffional pradice
was confined. The faa, however, was, that the venue
was originally laid in Hampfhire, and the Plaiatiff
difcontinued that adion, and commenced the prefent
one in. Middlefex. Under all the circumftances, he
nulled the Jury would be fatbfied it was not a cafe
which called for more than nominal damages.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH obferved, that the words
being aOionab!e, and proved to have been fpoken by
the Defendant, the queflion was' whether, in confe-
quence of there words In fpuken, Dodd did withdraw
his bufinefs from the Plaintiff, who thereby fuftained
a fpecific tors ? But if the Jury believed that Dodd,
being irritated agaitift Blake, did thus put him in the
hands of his attorney, and that be had fullained no
lofs by this constellation, then could negative the
fpecial damages, and give fuch as they thought him
entitled to.--The Jury found a verdict for the Plain•
tiff, one !billing damages.
MAY 16.--LLOYD 9. LAME.
This was an aslion brought by the Plaintiff, s
bookfeller, in Harley•ltreet, against the Defendant,
a medical man in the fame neishb-urhond, for 33
nights hire of a trinsferable ticket to Diury.lanc
Theatre, at the rate of four (billings each night;
together with the value of the Myer ticket, effimated
at 31. 6s. It appeared, that the Ddendani hired two
tickets on the 26th of November fall, and only fent
one back the next morning. The omiflion was not
dircovered till 33 nights after, when the Plaintiff de-
manded his ticket. Tile Defendant fail it had beta
ltopped at the. Theatre; hut, on enquiry, that not
appearing to be the fad, the prefent adion wto
brought. The Defendant called a. Mrs. Afiley to
prove that it had been (topped •at the Theatre; bet
the croved, that the went en the Bth of December
with a Mr. Allen, at wl<ich period it was ItoPPedf
and net on the evening of the 26th of November.
Lord ELLENBALOUGh laid the cafe was Cometrhat
confuted ; but fo much was clear, that the ticket wail
hired on the 26th of November, and that the Bth
of De.-ember. the Defendant ufed it ; fit that he had
la right, at leaft, to pay for the interval.—The jury,
however, after consulting together for fome time,
found a verdid for the Plaintiff for 33 nights, and
the value of the ticket, as it had not been returned
, up to that period ; amoun;irt altogether to 71. tic

NEW PARLIADMEA►T

MEMBERS ELECTED.

Tarr/asp—Lord W. Pittway and T. Cranny, Bk.
gym/t—Sir T. C. Banbury, Ban. abd T. S. Gooch, Efq.
y.HUNIINODON COUNTY—Lord Hinehinbrooke; and
Fellowes, Efq.
Moussoarn C00trrv.....1..0rd A. Sosnetfet and C. Morgan, Efq
ANCILZSCiIIiOO. Berkeley Paget.
Scamp:novas—Major General Phipps and C. M. Sutton. Efq
Sr. Mawas—Clot. Colonel W. Shipley and S. Bernard, Efq
NOTTIMONAM Covlrre•-•Lord Newark and A. Hardolph
lyre, Efq
Bacentoiaw—Right Hanoarrabk T. Grenvine, and Honour-
able R. Neville.
NOITAAMPTON CourtrtvLord Vifcount Altborp and W. R.
Cartwright, Efq.
Es 16.—W. Manning. EN. and Sir M. Lopes, Bart.
Davousuas—Sir L. Palk, Bart. and J. P. Baftard,Efq.
HUNTINGDONSUI as—Lord Hinchinbrook and Mr. Feliowes.