Star.
London, England, 1828-11-11 00:00:00

WADIES V. ILEUM.

This was an action for libel, and tried at the last
Suing' at Guildhall, before the Lord Chief Justice
Barr, in which the verdict was for the plaintiff, with
4001. damages.
Mr. Sergeant TA DDY moved the Com t for a rule to
show cause why this verdict should not be set aside, and
a new ttial granted, on the grzund of the reception of
evidence by the Judge, at the trial, which ought not to
have been admitted. 1 he parties were both sail-makers,
living at Ratcliffe, and tf.e plaintiff was at the time of
the publication of the libel, in January last, a candidate
for the office of an tide: Blocher in the Trinity House,
to ss hich office he was afterwards elected. The libel was
cont lined in two tenets affecting the plaintiff; the objec-
tionable evidence was that of Mt. Abhton, who deposed
to a conversatiorrbetwern himself and the defendant, at
Lloyd's Coffee House, in which the latter threatened to
thrash the plaintiff within an inch of his life whenever
he met with him. This testimony was received by the
Learned Judge as evidence of goo animo; but he sub-
mitted that it was only evidence of an intention to com-
mit an a .sault, and had nn bearing on the lih,l whatever.
He bad also to move on the ground of the damages
being excessive, since the libel had a t effect on the
plaintiff's character, as n as proved by the result of the',
election.

lhe Loan CHIPS JUSTICE was clearly of ..pinion that
there was no ground for a new triel, and in this the
( they Judges concurred.—ltule refused.
Agreeable to ancient cu tom, the LORD NIATOR ap-
prated in Court. and invited their Lardships to the
banquet at Guildh..ll.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 10.

Wigiant Edward Holloway, who was remanded on
Friday last to this day, t receive judgment, a ,%pearrd
' befure the Court, wLeis Mr. Colimisstoiser H A UR'S said
he had received a letter, which t.e Inuit characterise as a
most improper one, coming, as it did, from some pet-
;nn in connection with the insolvent. consequence,
he should postpone his judge art to a future day.
The insolvent here earnestly denied any knoa ledge of
the letter, and

Mr. Comte, his Counsel, prayed the judgment of
the Court ; hoping, as the Learned Judge had merely
glanced at the letter, it might not be taken into con-
sideration.

Stibsequently the insolvent was exiled up, when
Mr. Commissi, net -HARRIS proceeded to pass sen-
tence, and observed that the case had excited the greatest
interest, and had occupied much time; indeed, it other
cases extended to the same length, the business of the
Can't could not he gone through. The Learned
Ju.lge then stated the distinction between the cases of
Giant and of Walker. In that of the former, atter has
agreement with the i ►solvent, wages had been paid lot
toor months; but the Insolvent received money of
Walker, while he wa, in danger of arrest, and knew he
rood not perform any promi,e in money transact ons.
T..is, added to the fact that the lusolsent's schedule
was dated only a few days after his arrest, showed
clearly his intention of taking the benefit of the Act of
Parliament, and therefore ',rusted he could not perform
his agreement w ith Walker. This the Court could not
pass over. Much had been said of servant,' offices and
establishments similar to that kept by the Insolvent at
Ludgate hill, but many of them were highly respectable,
and berefitted the commodity. Tate Learned Commis-
sinner, alter some Wither remarks to we same effect,
•entenced the Insolvent to eight moutheimprisoament,
at the suit of Peter Walker.