Star.
London, England, 1821-11-14 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S WENCH, NOVEMBER 13.

SWANTUN O. TARPLRY.
This was an action for a libel,. tried before Mr.
Baron GAM ROW, at Oxford, when a verdict wa.rtaken
for the plaintiff for £5O.
Vr. CROSS now applied to have that verdict set
aside, and a new trial granted, or a nonsuit entered.
The plaintiff in this case, Susan Swanton, had, it ap-
peared, lived nursery-maid with the defendant, who
is a Magistrate, but had quitted his service; and the
libel complained of was contained in the following
letter, written by the defendant, in answer to art ap-
plication made to him by a Lady for the character
of the plaintiff:
" Moire, Daventry, September 26,1820.
" Susan Swanton lived with WI as nursery-maid for more than
three years, and we have reason to believe, was, for some time,
attentive to her duty; but now she is neither honest, sober, nor
steady, and would have been turned away if she had not given
warning. Under the semblance of modesty and good conduct,
she is, in fact, a most vicious and profligate woman. It is im-
possible fot me tallescribe the gross insolence she is capable of,
and has frequently shown to Mrs. Tarpley. Wekavenndonbted
proof of her going as the man-servant's bed-room most nights,
for months before she left. No servant would or could live
wish her, and numbers left us on her account: as a proof of this,
we hart- two returning to us at Michaelmas, whom she drove
oat. lam glad of an opportunity of exposing her character, for
a more vile wretch does not exist. I know her to be u base
liar, a great thief, an inseent hussey, and to have lost her cha-
racter. The man-servant's name is David Scary, and you may
have many opportunities of inquiring about them in Oxford.—
I wish you to read this letter to her, should you see her again;
but I warn you upon no account to take her into your service.
" Your hamble servant,
" K. M. R. TARPLEY."
—Upon the evidence at the trial, the Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff for £5O. The verdict, the
Learned Counsel now contended, ought not to stand,
as at the trial no malice had been proved to have in-
fluenced the deamdant at the time of writing the let-'
ter in question; and that in writing as he had done,
Mr. Tarpley bad only discharged what he considered
a duty towards society, in prevehting an innocent in-
dividual from being deceived, as he had been, by the
veining good conduct of the plaintiff; and further,
that at the trial witnesses had been called to prove the
truth of the facts stated in the letter; and upon these
grounds, Mr. Cross contended, the verdict ought to
have been the other way.

The Cover, after hearing the arguments of the
Learned Counsel in support of his present applica-
tion, said, they were clearly of opinion that there
ought to be no new trial. • More had been stated in
this letter than was necessary as a fair answer to the
application made to him-as to the character of the
plaintiff. It would have been sufficient for him to
have said, in answer to the questions—" Is she
sober?—ls she honest?—ls she trustworthy?"—
" I do not consider her sober, honest, or trust-
worthy." He was not justified in going into other
matters, and expatiating upon them. The letter was
couched in very strong terms, and on the face of it
discovered that the defendant wrote at least under
the influence of a strong prejudice, if not under
a feeling of malice. As to the justification at the
time of the trial, the question of credit due to the
witnesses had been very properly left to the Jury,
and they had thought fit to find a verdict for the
plaintiff, which verdict the Court would be careful
not to disturb, especially as the Learned Judge who
tried the case had expressed no dissatisfaction at the
decision of the Juty. As to the preponderance of
evidence at the trial, that was a fair question for the
Jury ; and it was not at all extravagant to suppose li
that the Jury did not give full credit to the testi-
mony of the fellow-servants of the plaintiff against
her; nor was that surprising, for if they,could for a
length of time concur in concealing the conduct of
the plaintiff. supposing it to be such as they stated at
the trial, from their master, who ought not to have
been suffered to remain in ignorance for a moment,
they must not be surprised if the Jury did not give
full credit to them for the purity of their late full and
ample communication. The defendant had clearly
gone beyond the lavr, and under all the circumstances,
the Court was clearly of opinion there ought to be
no new trial.—Rule refused.
RHODES V. GENT.

In this case the question was, whether a bill of ex-
change, especially accepted, must be presented on
the day it becomes due at the place of payment,
there being no proof that the acceptor has any funds,
at the place at which the bill is made payable?
The COURT held, that such presentment was not
necessary, and was not required, by the decision in
the House of Lords of Rowe v. Young, and therefore
refused an application for a new trial.