Star.
London, England, 1826-04-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

YORK, Arm 3.
SMITHSON V. LEATHAM.
Mr. Seantarr stated the case to the Jury. The
plaintiff was a Gentleman-of respectability residing at
Pomfret, and practising the profession of the law. f he
defendat was a Gentleman of property residing in the
same place. During last year, it had been rumoured
that a General Election was about to take place.—
Pomfret returns two Members to Parliament, and Mr.
Smithson was the agent and friend of Mr. Houlds-
worth, one of the present Members. Mr. Leatham,
who had espoused the interest of s >me other candidate,
conceived the idea that the best pl in to paralyse the
exertions of Mr. Smithson, on behalf of his friend Mr.
Houldsworth, would be to get Mr. Smithson elected
Mayor, and returning officer of the borough. The
plaintiff having heard of this intention, waited on the
defendant, and requested I.e might not be put in no.
mination, for in the event of his election, he must forego
all his attachment and exertions for his friend Mr.
Houldsworth, and would ir, t alter all escape the sus-
' picion of having acted with partiality towards
On this acc. unt alone he pal ticulaily wished to decline
the office, and especially as he was the youngest of
'several Aldermen who were more fit for the station.;
After this explanation, lie was surprised to find, timing
Ibis absence fet zab home, in the m •nth of September

last, that he had been elec:ei Ntrynr of Ikrntefract.l
According to the custom of the place, the lOwyor was
never well elected until he had regaled the electors
with a collation•; his ah,ence from home had therefore
prevented the completion of this importaht ceremony,
which rendered his election imperfect; but on his re-,
turribe was told it was not too late, they could st 11
breakfast with hi n ; but he declined the office, aced
stated that be was not qualified, as he had not taken
the sacrament within the time prescribed by law. 11 •
then applied to the Court of king's Bench to be dis
charged from the office, and a mandamus was granted,
directing, the election of a new Mayor. At a meeting
of thirty-seven of the electors for that purpose, held on
the Bth D cemher last, the defendant took the chair,
and a Mr. Cluff acted -as clerk on that occasion. Mr.-
Freeman, the former Mayor, was requested again to
accept the office, but he declined the proffered honour.
The defendant then, after• a flaming speech, reflecting
on the con _filet of Mr. Smithson, offered to contribute
501 to compel the plain.iff to serve the office ; and
findi rg that that had.no effect on the me,ting, he took
fr••m his pocket-bJok a card, and teed the following
Resolution :
" Resolved unanimously, that the conduct of Mr. Smithson, in a-
spect to his election to the Mayoralty of the Borough of Pontefract,
has been extremely exceptionable, and that hr has amply merited
the censure bf his fellow townsmen."

lle then proceeded to put this Resolution to the vote of the Meet.
ing,—five or Fix individuals held up their hands for it, and without
putting the question the other way, he declared it to have passed
unanimoirily. lie then caused it to be published in five of the
Papers circulating in the neighbourhood, as the unanimous Reso-
lution of the Rlectors of the Borough of Pontefract. The plaintiff,
on being apprised of the way the Resolution had passed, wrote to
the defendant, demanding as public a retraction of the libel that hr
had circulated, hut up to this day the defendant had not taken the
slightest notice of the application.—Tbe fact being proved in
evidence—

Mr. BWOUGHAM, for the defendant, contended, that never was
there a case where cenblire had been conveyed in slighter words tbau
those used on the present occasion.
Mr. Justice Hart.cir having recapitulated the evidence, the Jury
found for the plaintlif—Daniages 20/.

WALTON ti. BRAILSNALL.
Mr. PoLtoce opened the pleaiangs, and Mr. &Alwyn stated the
nature of the slander to the Jury. The case will best appear In the
esamination of the plaintiff's son.
John Walton examined—lle is the ion of the plaintiff; his
tither has twelve children. On the 12th of December last he was
in company with his brother; he was walking in a close—a field.
By the Jaime—lt was in Dec. 1625, he met the defendant, who
said " that I wanted to tie a thief like my father." My father said
he seam] some person to kiss his —. (Great laughter.) lie said•
" his father was a whoring, lying thief, and that he had proved
himself one at the bottom of the town, and lie (witness) wanted to
be a thief toe." I said to the defendant, 4 You have proved your
self a thief, for you tank a load of wheat from my father on Fri-
day." (Great laughter.)
Mr. Justice IlayLey—ls not a shilling damages sufficient?
Mr. Monogram, for the defendant—My Lord, I go for damages.
(Repeated laughter.) What a hopeful son !
Mr. Justice BATLEY-111as there never been an action brought
for calling a person a thief? (Rene wed laughter.) You had better
withdraw a Juror, and undertake to bring no action. (Con.
tinued laughter.)