Star.
London, England, 1828-01-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAIIVAIT

• IN RE QUltltten coLztaae, CAMBRIDGE.
This matter stood over for the production of certain
Statutes relative to St. Catherine's Hall. Mr. GARRATT
and Mr. JACOB were to day heard until the rising of
the Court. The reply of Mr. KING, on the part of the
Fellows of the College, was fixed for to-morrow.
• His LORDSHIP was engaged in his private room for
nearly an hour with the ATTORNZY-GANERAL.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Jan. 21.
(Laißd,.r *tines before Lord TgIITIZDIN and Common Juries.)
' Os ICBCHA)IOZ..--ATTWOOD B. WOODWARD. _
Mr. CAMPBBLL (With whom was Mr. CHITTY)
also
that itil'Was an action on a bill of exchange, and so
for' goods sold and delivered, to the amount of 41
i
The plaintiff was a window glass manufacturer, tt Lop-
dim '; the defendant a publican and builder, at Wey-
nitinth. Isaac Hardy, who had been a traveller for a
benne in London, which dealt largely in cement, bad
often got orders from the defendant for that article, and
the defendant bad punctually paid him. Hardy after-
,Ards became traveller for the house of Attwood, the
III: trail"; 'Mid having communicated that circumstance
td the defendaht, the defendant said that he had set up
iota id business as a plumber and glazier, and that
his-10'4641d give him an order for the plaintiff. The
lialhen called in, and did give the order, and then
the defendant said to the traveller, " The business is
Cit own, and i will see you paid." This order was
stunted; and the defendant paid for the goods sent by
die plaintiff to the son. After this several other orders
of the same description were given and executed; but
for these the son, having been unfortunate, could not
pay, and then the traveller, Hardy, applied to the father
upon his undertaking to see him paid. The father re-
fused to pay, and said that his son only was liable. The
action was*then brought against the father.
Isaac Lardy was then called, and proved the case as
stated. 'the defendant said, " the business is my own,
and I will see you paid." He had applied for payment
to the son, and when be could get nothing from him
he Applied to the father, and said to him, " You ought
to pay, for it was to you that I gave credit."
Mr. N'tur.lams, for the defendant, contended that the
An only was liable, and had been so considered by the
plaintiff himself. Thp father had no concern whatever,
With-laft'son's businesk, except that he advanced money
sat Men egoing, which the son had afterwards re-
It was, therefore, very unlikely that the defen-
d& dsbuld Have said that the business was hit own.
hilSaying that he would see the traveller paid,
that applied only to. the first order, for which the dPfen-,
de it had in fact paid. Several letters had been sent
1 the plaintiff, addressed to Henry Woodward, glazier,
'Weymouth, urging the payment of the money, which
shined that the plaintiff considered the son as his real
debtor.
Lord TENTERDEN—NO doabt the son is liable. The
question is, whether the father is not liable also ?
The letters were then put in and read, and
Henry Woodward, the younger, was called, and stated
that his father had set him up in business, but had him-
self no concern with that business. He had been unfor-
tunate in business, and had been imprisoned in Dor-
Chester Gaol-, and had not yet taken the benefit of the
Ait. Mis debts amounted to from 200. to 3001.
• Mr. CAMPBELL, in reply said, diet the father did not
appear in a very honourable light, when he, being a
wealthy man, allowed his son to lie in prison for such a
sum. It was clear, from the evidence of Hardy, that the
father was liable as well as his son.
• Lord TRNTERDSH-11 is not to be said in a Court of
law, that because a father sets up a son in business, he
•is therefose bound to pay his debts nor is it to be said a
'father acts a dishonourable part, who, when a son has
been imprudent, chooses to let him feel the smart of it.
The whole of this case turns upon one expression men-
tioned in the evidence of -Hardy—that it, the father's
staying, " the business is my own." If the lather really
said so, whether. it was true or not, be was liable. But
:is this transaction took place in 1825, you may perhaps
think that Hardy's recollection cannot be safely relied
on: Without this expression, the father's saying that he
'et dtdd-ste the travallet paid, will not make him liable,
by the Statute of liana, verbal declarations of this
kind ire bot bindings. That the son is liable is certain.
The only question for your consideration is whether the
fattier is not also liable.
. TbeJury immediately fon nd a Verdict for the defendant.
COURT-OF COMMON FLEAS. JAIL 21.
Adjourned &Maass:ter Nialwebass Tern, before the Lose
Cann Jammu and a Special Jery.
natant WILLIAM.
This was an action of libel. The defendant pleaded
era the general issue, and afterwards several pleas of
justification. It appeared that the plaintiff was an at-
torney, filling also the situation of clerk and agent toa
tOarpany formed for the purpose of making a new toad
from Uattle Bridge to Holloway. The defendant was
art arch itect, and had. within these few years, mattied
a Miss Horsefallrwho, with her sister, inherited a cow.
iicietable portion of the land through which the pro:
.posed new road was to run. .Previous to his marriage,
Ake-Company had entered into an agreement with these
ladies, by which they consented to the road passing
through their estate. The defendant, however, after
lies marriage, inding that the road would be injuri-
ous to the property, and that the agreement between
thecompany and the two ladies was expired, refused to
allow the road to pass through the land unlest he re-
ceived an adequate compensation. The subject gave
rise tat •Many afisostea, but it was at length determined
to brink it before a sheriff's jury, under a writ of in-
:qatiry, sliteeted to the Sheriff of Middlesex, by which
he was directed to inquire into and assess the value of
Abe property in question. Previous to the execution of
ihis'yryt of inquiry, an act of Parliament had been ob•
VAifte# by the company, authorising them to make the
...priii!osesiro'ad, and at the inquiry in the Sheriff's Court
the plaintiff was examined an the pan of the company.
The object el the questions thee put to him was to as-
certain Whether the defendant had dissented to the road
before or lifter the act of Parliament had been obtained ;
and it was from the answers which he gave to those
Lq4istions that had led to the publication of the alleged
lth'el- the inquisition took place on the 3d of October.
1826, lad on the following day an abridged report of
it appeated in the Morning CAronids, which was etipiii
edinto the Observer of the following Sunday. This
account met the eye of Mr.ltoutledge, the defendant's
• ettattaity,,ivho immediately addressed a letter to the
igairereeilthe paper, complaining that there were many
ileraii4fifotnissi• ns in die report which he had published,
at..dte Came time supplying those omissions, which al-
.f_terirpitds appeared in the paper. In this statement Mr.
Wondege accused the plaintiff of having given his tes-
however, no notice was
talaely. Of this tier,
:taxies', and in this state matters rested until March,
7127", when the defendant, in order to get payment of
,40 iYOt awarded to him by the Sheriff's Jut y, Addressed
7p3efter tri.erame of the members of the Committee of
roesriany. in which he spoke of the plaintiff as one
who stood accused in a public print of having been

•
guilty of perjury—a charge which he repeated crud
confirmed.
Witnesses were called on the part of the plaintiff,
who proved the-various disputes between the parties,
and also stated that at the inquisition the plaintiff said
the dissent was not made until after the Act of Parlia.
meat had been obtained.
For the defendant witnesses were called, who stated
that the plaintiff first said the dissent was made atter
the Act of Parliament. but. that he afterwards contra-
dicted himself, and said it was before.
The newspaper and letter having been put in and read,
The LORD CRIER JUITICI observed, that the first
report printed by the paper was a perfectly innocent
one—a report which could give offence to none.
The Gentleman who made this report was called for
the purpose of proving whether the plaintiff had made
the contradiction or not, but his recollection was not
sufficiently distinct to speak positively to the fact.
Mr. Henchman, the Under Sheriff, said, that from
what he could recollect the plaintiff did afterwards
contradict himself.
The LORD Cats? &ISMS, in summing up. said, that
the alleged libel did not appear to him to be a privi-
leged communication. The defendant, in addressing
the company, had no right to make an attack on any
of those connected with it, unless he had the most clear
and precise grounds for so doing. In the present case,
his Lordship did not think there was any ground for
the charge which the defendant had chosen tamake on
the character of the plaintiff. Indeed, he thought Mr.
Routlege had acted very improperly in making the
statement he had done in the newspaper. The report
which had appeared before that statement was sufficient
for every good purpose, and a person attacking the
character of another under a plea of correcting such a
report, could only do so maliciously. His Lordship
was of opinion that the letter in question was a libel,
and was inclined to look on it in a worse light than he
might otherwise have done from the allusion which it
made to the statement which had been published in the
newspaper upwards of a year before, and which he
stated now made a ground of his present charge, when
it appeared that that statement emanated from himself
or his attorney. If, however, the Jury believed from
what they had heard, that the plaintiff was guilty of
the charge of perjury, then their verdict must undoubt-
edly be for the defendant. If, on the contrary, they
thought there was no ground for the accusation, then
it would be for the plaintiff. .with such moderate da-
mages as they should think the nature of the case de-
manded, at the same time bearing in mind that they
alone were the persons who could put an end to slander
of this description.
The Jury having consulted for a short time, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.