Star.
London, England, 1818-06-25 00:00:00

bring an action against the plakdiff, and would do
him as much injury as he could s the witness was
distinct in his recollection of the words. He had not
taken, and would not take away his nephew.
Mr. E. P. Fordham had called upon the defendant !
on the 9th of April last, in consequence of some re-
ports
he had heard. The defendant called the plain-'
tiff a scoundrel, a villain, and a swindler ; slid that
his school was ill conducted, that the meat was raw,
and not enough of it. The witness had sent his son
to the school three days before.
Cross-exaotined.—He had never known Mr. Oli-
veira before, but called to learn the cause of the dis-
pute between him and the defendant.
' Mr. GoittreY then offered evidence of parents and
children, to spew that there was no pretence for the
slander of the defendant. He also proposed to re-
call Mr. Byrne, even on the uncertainty of the date,
in order to shew, quo axiom, the defendant uttered
the slanders.
Mr. Justice Houtovo consented to receive the evi•
donee on the authority of a case in Strange, which
his Lordship generally referred to.
Mr.-Byrne then stated, that the defendant, with
whmn he had had no previous acquaintance, had
called upon him and said, that he had thought it
right to do, as Mr. Milius was totally unfit to have
the care of the two boys, to whom the witness was
guardian. He (Milius) was wholly unfit for his sta-
tion, and a notorious swindler, so mu. ;. so that he
was obliged to withdraw his sons. The meat given
to the boys was very bad ; and the defendant added,
in his passion, th..t they fed like swine, and that'
proper attention was not paid to their instruction.—
He then read two very abusive letters he had written
to the plaintiff; he was determined to commence a
prosecution against him, and from what he Fr:.l said
tt was the duty of the witness to remove his boys.—
The witness answered, that he was well satisfied
as to the instruction of his wards, as he had examined
them only the week before, and the boys seemed
well contented with the nourishment they received ;
however, after this strong representation, he would
make inquiries, upon which the defendant began
again with greater warmth, and left the witness very
abruptly. He made an investigation, and was com-
pletely satisfied on all points. Mr. Oliveira sworn
violently, but like a foreigner, and n ): so glibly as
an Englishman ; bat he must have understood the
force of the word swindler.

Cross-examined.—The defendant talked calmly
for the first three minutes: he went away without
even the common civilities: he seemed very much

inflamed.

.......
Mr. SCARLETT begged to be understood, that he
objected to this evidence, as subsequent to the suing
out of the writ in the cause. _ _ _

.....
Mr. SCARIATT, in his address to the Jury for the
defendant, complained that his client had been a
little hardly dealt with, as the evidence in no respect
corresponded with the declaration, particularly re-
garding the slanderous words imputed. The ce-nt
that referred to what :.ad been said to the last wit-
ness and Mr. Higgins, was framed as a special action
upon the ct.se; and the Learned Counsel submitted,
that in order to maintain it, some special damage
'ought to be proved: this too the defendant had had
no opportunity of justifying.
Mr. Justice Hotnovo observed, that the count
was in fact for words, though the general effect of
them was only stated, and to them the defendant
might have put in a justification.
Mr. SCARLETT argued, that in fairness the very
words ought to have been insetted in the declaration,
that the defendant might have been able to meet the
precise e bulge. Ile contended that Mr. Milius had
been rather too forward in endeavouring to put his
hand h.to the defendant's pocket when he had al-
ready received more money than he was entitled to;
he had contrived to get the whip-hand of the.defen-'
dant, who had naturally been extremely anxious re-
specting the welfare of his children, and who felt'
somewhat too warmly in consequence of ill treat-
ment he thought they had received. With respect to
the angry letter written by the defendant to Keating
and Co.- he submitted that it was intemperate, not
malicious; and With regard to the particular expres-
sions, the Learned Counsel entreated the Jury to re-
collect, that foreigners like Mr. Oliveira, though
they might be generally well acquainted with the
language, did not understand the precise force of
words, especially when used idiomatically. He il-
lustrated this position by two anecdotes that had
come within his knowledge: One referred to a very
learned friend, who bad Elled a high magisterial si-
tuation in India. A Pundit (so the native lawyers
were called), designing to flatter his benevolence, ad-
dressed a petition to -him in English, opening with
these words, " Well knowing your Worship to be a
most pitifnl fill:: ..t) ," &c. 11:e Pundit was far from
intending any aliuse. ht.t he had in fact grossly ca-
lumniated the Eldividual he was endeavouring to
conciliate. The second story referred to a foreigner
of high rank, who was received into the first circles.
here, and who attained so great a proficiency in our
language, that he even ventured to use proverbial
expressions ; once very unfortunately, for he had seen
at Newmarket a young Lady of great wit and beauty,
who naturally e.Kci..ecl the approbate:. and love of
all who beheld her. Now this foreigner had found
in his dictionary the phrase, "to male one's mouth
water ;" and, when he was asked how he liked the
young Lady, he thought he could use it 0 advan-
tage; but he so perverted the phrase and so mis-
placed the words, that he represented the young
Lady as having been guilty of an act of the greatest
i'ieelieacy and iinmoaesty. In the • same way, the
Le.irned Counsel submitted, that Hs client, in his
hasty wrath, had misused the were urach, which
was the chief sting of the libel: he had not meant
to attribute to the Plaintiff that ha was a wretch, in a
'sense of the word merely English, but probably only
to imply as much as the French cenieyed by their
•; word mallteureuz, which indeed was a literal trats-%
Ilation of wretch. Upon the whole Mr. Scarlott ar-
gued that this we; a case for nominal damages-, as
1 the character of ;;;:r. Milius and his school- had b..,en
sufficiently vindicated.
j Mr. Justice 140LROYD having summed up, the
Jury, after a short consultation, gave the plainsi.T a
verdict, with 12150 damages.

Saturday last as Eshelby and Jefferies, the BCW•
street alters, were keeping a sharp look-out for
thieves, among the crowd in front of the hustings at
Covent-garden, they had their , ricked of ±eir
books aul some money.