Star.
London, England, 1821-12-13 00:00:00

(- - •

'1

Pt: 1 C n SEVEN-PENCE.

plied to, and be refused to have anything to do with
the transaction, and the plaintiff brought his action.
Verdict for he plaintiff--:-Daniages £96.
Fool. V. ROWLEY.
This was an action to recover damages for slan-
der. The defendant is an apothecary, and he had
been employed to attend the plaintiff's child under
the small-pox. The plaintiff, it appeared, was of
',pinion that drugs were injorimis under that disease,
and he refused wallow the child to take all the de-
fendant sent: the child died, and the defendant said,
some time alter, in the presence of several persons,
that the plaintiff had murdered his child. This was
the substance of the words spoken.
The LORD Cater Jun.= was of opinion the ac.-
don could not be sustained, there being no evidence
to prove the defendant had imputed to the plaintifr
a felonious intention.—Plaintiff nunsuited.

SMITH V. OWZN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against the Hundred of Ossul=
ston, for damage done to the windows of the plaintiff.
Mr. MARRVATT stated that the plaintiff, Lady
Smith, was a resident in the parish of St. George,
Hanover-square. On the 19th of July, the day of
the Coronation, preparations for illumination were
making at her Ladyship's house: a crowd, however,
which followed her late Majesty's carriage, took of-
fence at the sight of the proposed rejoicings, and
broke windows to the cost of £2O in the mansion.

Mr. E. LAwas watched the case, and took some
formal objections, which were overruled:
Verdict for the plaintiff—Darnages £2O.
totcestara 12.—MAY V. °WYNNE, ESQ..
Mr. SCARLETT stated, that this was an action by
which the plaintiff, a Solicitor, and late Vestry Clerk
of the Parish of Bethnal-green, sought to recover a
compensation from the defendant, a Doctor of Laws,
and an inhabitant of that parish, for a gross and slan.
derous libel, inserted in the Nea spaper called the
Sunday Monitor, intended to injure the character of
the plaintiff, and to operate to defeat his re-election
to the office of Vestry Clerk, which he had held for
30 years, preceding the year 1820. It al peared, from
the state ..ent of the Learned Counsel, that this libel
had its orig n in the parochial squabbles which have
so long divided that parith, and which led to the
prosecution and conviction of Mr. Mercer's'', the cir-
cumstances of whose case have been so repeatedly
before the Public. Mr. Merceron, who had been
Treasurer of the Poor Fund, was prosecuted for a
misapplication of the monies coming into his hands
in that character; and the present defendant, as he
would prove, was one of the most 'active in origi-
nating and conducting that prosecution; ansi, as would
appear, in hopes of displacing him from the office of
Treasurer, and becoming his successor. He succeeded
in getting Mr. Merceron rem( red ; but in his ulterior
object he failed, as the parishioners determined not
to vest the powers of Treasurer in future in any one
individual, but to place the funds in the Bank of
England, under the controul of five of the Governors
of the Poor. Just previous to this disappointment,
Dr. Gwynne, as Chairman of a Vestry Meeting, pro-
posed a Resolution of Thanks to the present plaintiff,
for his conduct as Vestry Clem k, couched in the most
flattering terms ; but, immediately after his disap-
pointment in obtaining the office of Treasurer, Dr.
Gwynne became cool in his prosecution of Merceron,
went round to the other side, and ultimately declared
decidedly against the opponents' of that individual,
and particularly against Mr. May, as being the most
active of them. Further parochial transactions were
gone into by the Learned Counsel, which led to the
appointment of a Committee to investigate the pat ish
accounts, relative to the expenses of the prosecution
against Merceron. This Committee was appointed in
September, 1819, but delayed to make any report
until just on the'eve of Eater, 1820, at which time
the Vestry Clerk is annually elected; previous to
which election, namely, on the 2d of May, 1820, ap-
peared the Report of this Committee in the Sunday
Monitor, prefaced by observations of the defendant,
imputing to Mr. May that he had been a party to
making up the parish accounts in a manner exactly
similar to that for which Merceron had been punished:
The defendant caused '2OOO copies of this Report to
be printed, and distributed amongst the patishioneras
and published a Pamphlet to the same effect ;—by
these means such a prejudice was raised against the
plaintiff, that the election for Vestry Clerk went
against him, and the party in the interest of the clea
fendant was elected. Mr. Scarlett then entered into
a long and minute investigation of the parish ac-
ccunts, to prove that there was not the slightest
grounds for the imputations cast out against the
plaintiff, whose reputation kad stood high in the pa-
rish for the.last 30 years, during which period he had
held the office of Vestry Clerk. To justify his cha-
racter against the aspersions thus cast upon him, the
plaintiff had brougbt the present action. The
Learned Counsel called witnesses to prove the facts
of his case. _ _ _

The record of the proceedings against Mr. Merce..
ron, and the indictments, were put in also.
Mr. J. Stokes, late printer and publisher of the
Sunday Monitor, proved that Mr. Gwynne, the de
fendant, applied to him to publish in that Paper the
proceedings of the Vestry now the subject of inquiry,
delivered him the manuscript, and afterwards paid
for the insertions
Cross-examined.—It was usual to insert the pro-
ceedings of the Vestry in the Monitor, it being the
Sunday Newspaper generally read in the NI
Many resolutions and proceedings had been in the
Paper, signed by Mr. May, as Vestry Clerk,'and paid
for by him.
Several witnesses were called to prove that Doctes
Gwynne was a party authorising the publishing the
Pamphlet, and the copies of the Report distributed
amongst the parishioners.
The CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion, that at this
period of the cause the proof of knowledge as to the
Pamphlet was not brought home to the defendant.
Mr. Henry Stokes, a printer, proved that he re..
ceived the manuscript copy of the Report of a.Ccw.