Star.
London, England, 1826-06-29 00:00:00

HAWKINS, IN THE SCATTER 01 HOWARD AND CMS.

Mr. TRULOVZ, in this case, applied to the Court on
behalf of the assignees, to expunge proof of a debt to
the amount of 4,2001. made under the commission by
Mr. Hawkins. The money, it appears, had been in-
trusted to the bankrupts for the purpose of effecting
annuities with the Duke of Marlborough. The creditor,
Hawkins, not satisfied with the disposition of the money
made by the bankrupts, had, in 1822, brought an action
against them for lathes; which action was compro-
mised between the parties. It was now contended' that
Mr. Hawkins had no claim upon the estate of thebank-
rupts, his real claim being upon the Duke of Marl-
borough ; and the whole matter in differenteaiving
been settled by the compromise of a suit at law.
Mr. DICKNRSTZTiI and Mr. Rout, for the defendant,
Hawkins, submitted, that the whole affair of the annui-
ties was a piece of fraud on the part of the bankrupts,
by which their estate under the commission was
rendered liable. The annuity deeds were mere waste
paper, and the money of the defendant was in reality
applied by the bankrupts in part liquidation an debt
due to them by the Duke of Marlborough.- At the
time that they made these annuities, they must have
known that there were judgments against his Grace for
487.0001.

The Vice CHANCELL,OIt was of opinion that the proof
must be expunged as prayed. In bringing his action
for lades, the claimant had made his election of the

_.
annuity deeds, which he could not now repudiate for
the purpose of transferring the debt to the bankrupts'
estate. Besides, it did not appear that, at the date of
these deeds, the bankrupts were creditors to the Doke
of Marlborough to the amount of one shilling. His
Honour said, that he would look carefully through the
papers, and give final judgment fo•morrow.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wzreinenza, Jim SS.
LOCE V. MOAST. •

Mr. COMTE opened the pleadings. This was an action
by the plaintiff, a surveyor of the King's warehouses in
the Custom-house, residing in Webb's County-terrace,
New Kent-road, to recover from the defendant, a sur-
geon, residing in the same place, a compensation in
damages, in consequence of the defendant having writ-
ten and published a false, malicious, and scandalous libel
of and concerning the plaintiff and his wife.
Mr. SCARLET? stated the case to the jury. The plain-
tiff in this case complained of an injury inflicted by the
defendant, who had been by him employed in a confi-
dential situation; and he (Mt. Scarlett) was happy to
say such complaints were not of very common occur-
rence. The defendant was a surgeon and apothecary
living within a few doors of the plaintiff; and when the
libel wairead, it would require no comment to shew
with what feelings it had been put loath by the defend-
ant. The plaintiff, a Gentleman advanced in life, had
married a Lady between twenty and thirty years of
age ; but because there might be some disparity in their
ages, the jury would not consider that for that reason
' the defendant had a right to exhib:t to the public those
-circumstances with a view to make him ridiculous,
which he had become acquainted with by visiting at the
plaintiff's house, by dining at his table, and by being
consulted as his medical adviser. It bad been said by a
great philosopher, that a young man married for a mis-
tress, a middle-aged man for a.companion, and an old
man for a nurse; but iu whatever way a man might
connect himself, still a friend, a neighbour, or a person
confidentially employed in the way the defendant was,
was nut warranted in holding up any person to the con-
tempt and ridicule of his neighbours. The plaintiff had
been married three times; but because he had been so,
he (Mr. Scarlett) did not think that was any proof he
had been a bad husband, or was likely to be less happy
in his fourth choice. Soon after his marriage, anony-
mous letters had been sent to his wife, and the libel
complained of was stuck up in the immediate vicinity
of his residence and circulated amongst his neighbours,
printed, but without a printer's name, and the defendant
was discovered to have been the author of it, in conse-
quence of a copy of it having been enclosed to a young
Lady, a teacher at a school, where the plaintiff's wife,
previous to her marriage with the plaintiff had also-been
a teacher. From them eit was traced to the printer, to
whom the defendant had sant it for publication by his
own shop-boy. By the primer it would be proved that
a hundred copies of the libel in question bad been struck
off; and although it might be of such a descriptionls to
excite laughter, still the plaintiff was not less entitled