Star.
London, England, 1804-12-13 00:00:00

WEST V. SIVCLISIR.

The parties in this cafe were journeymen coopers, I
and the aftion was brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant, for defamatory words against the Plain-
tiff as to Isis (kill in his profeEnn, and as to his cna-
rafter for honelly, by means of which the Plaintiff
had loft a fiwation in the biewhoufe of Godwin and
Co. which he otherwife would have procured.
The foreman of the coopers employed by Meas.
Godwin and Co. proved that he called at the houfe
of Wilkie, where the Defendant wrought, for the
purpofe of enquiring of him a charafter of the Plain-
tiff. He did not meet with the Defendant, but he
afterwards called on the witnefs, and informed him, I
at his requelt, that the Plaintiff would do for (mall
work, making tubs, &c. but that he would not an-
fwer for cobbling butts, and other work of that kind,
having been brought up in the country and not be-
ing accutiomed to it. In confequence of this cha-
rafter the Plaintiff was not engaged. The Defen-
dant did not throw out any thing agsinli the elle-
rafter of the Plaintiff, nor did he come officiotalv to
inform the witnefs as to his pmfalional (kill, but
merely in confequence of the witness's previous in-

quiry.
If appeared, however, from the evidence of other
witnelks, on its ben•-g naentionzel to the Defendant
that the Plaintiff had applied for fuch employment,
that he had &II laid that he would prevent him from
receiving it, and attet wards that he bad done bias there,
and would do le in any other houfe in town, as he
was no cooper, and did not underhand his bufinefs.
No evidence as to any attempt to injure the Plain-
firs moral charaatr was adduced, or fo far as tried
it prove.) untuccefsful.
Mr. LP SKIM', for the Defendant, maintained, that
there was nothing here to fupport the charge brought
forward by the Plairtiti. The Defendant had not
gone out of his way to injure him, but had only, when
called on, given, as every honed man vras bound to
give, his opinifli as to the Plaintiff's capability for
undertaking a particular branch of his bufinels.—
Even if in giving this opinion, he had formed a
wrong ce.nclaion, it Nal• not a circumilance which
could attach refponfthility to him. He had only dif.
charged a duty which every perfon owed to ano-
ther, for the putpufe of enabling people in patrol to
know whom they ought to take into their employ-
ment. 'Whatever the Defendant might afterwards
thy, to any other palm, in reference to what naffed
on that °cc:llion, rn.sd never alter the terms of the
charnder then g.sell, • II %*11:Cil alone, and not on any
tuhh!o•tcnt 7uf ,rrnat. 1.. •r coriverfation, and that,tno,
betwren clvrci cnt pa:ties, the determination of the
perlon to IiILOM the ellA:aetcr Ilt•I• given mutt have
been formed.

ELLENtoitouGH laid that the eharaltey of II
the given to the foreman of Godwin and
Co.'s codpers, by the DS..nd.tnt, could oot be pre-
fumed to have h,_cr tt.unded on malice, as it was not
a tharAcr 0111(20itfly riven, lint one which bad been
mi.tired of the Dzt:ndant. The expreffions, howe-
ver, afterward. tiled by the Defendant, though to
yerf.ns, and though not immediately tend-
' it.q to deptivc I.'m or kiiiep him from pt.:scoring
I crap] .)meat, C not be viewed in 14 favourable
Al.r)lt. TLC 1)CIC! .JAIlt had g ne out of his way in
mAing t.,1 II however, they had
any aatial rneatiiiig. er th..n that in confequence
f the tail (lota:l.r he 1.4e1 given of the Plaintiff, he
1 was „„t eml.; G..slwin And Co. the
Jury would do At a:. events, nu allual da.
mAge Lad ther-by t.:;i.ltcd in the Plaimiff ; Inch
tl:c Pay would keep in mind in the verdiet they had
Ito pionnunre
'1

J.iry ravza vzrdia for tLe Plaiutif. 1)4

ag.:. i,. V.