The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-12-08 00:00:00

This was an action against The Morning Meer.
ther, for an alleged libel, impnting to the plaintiff
that he had been committed to take his trial flea
fraud on his employer, Mr. Woodhead, a distiller, in
Drury-lane.
Mr. SCAIIL[TT and Mr. PULLEN were for the plain-
tiff, anJ Mr. Grafter fir the defendants.
It was admitted that the plaintiff had hatl some
disputes with his employer respecting money matters.
but that when a complaint had been made by the latter
against the former before the Magistrates At Row-
street, it was dismissed, as being without foundation.
lon the 10th of April, 1619, a paragraph appeared in
The Meriting Advertiser, under the head of " In-
teresting Intelligence," stating, as information from
Bowstrett, that on the Wednesday preceding the
plaintiff had been committed to take his trial fur.
traudulently embeszling eobey. eke property of his
employer, Mr. Woodhead, a distiller, in Druty-laneil
whereas in fact he had not been committed. For this
statement the present action was brought. There
vas no flea of justification.
Mr. t.suntras addressed the Jury in mitigation of
damages. and urged that the defendants, In their next
day's piblication, inserted a rettactation of the state-
went, with which the plaintiff had expressed himself
perfectly satisSed, and undertook not to bring any
action to prose this case.
Mr. Matthew Mills was called to prove that the
plaintiff had desired that a contradiction should be in-
serted, and that he declared he would then be sails-

Bed. On his eross-examination he stated that 7%e
Aforniw, Advertiser was supported by the subscrip-
tions of publicans---That he himself was a publican,
and bad bad an interest in the paper, which be had
assigned a few days since to another person ; the
consideration moving him thereunto was a glass of,
wine, which he took inwardly ; there was no obliga-
tion in writing ; the person to whom he assigned was
an honest man, and he rather expected a re-assign-
ment.
Mr. SCARLETT, in his reply, contended, that the
gentleman who had been called by the defendants bad
assigned his interest in the paper merely for the pur-
gose of making him a witness in the cause, and coo-
seqnently the plaintiff's claim to damages was in no
degree lessened by what was proved on behalf of the
defendants.

l'he case went to the Jury. under the Learned
Judge's directions, and they found a verdict fur the
plaintiff.-•—I/amages, SOL
--mom--

COURT OF COMMON PLF.AS. GuitonoLL. Drd. 7.
Sittings before the Lord ebb eJustice DALLAS.

Wren sAikirsost C. J. W. TARITIVP. Esq.
Mr. StrgeantVotionas stated, that the plaintiff in this
action sough: to recover the balance of wages due to
kiwi an secretary to the defendant, when Sheriff bf the
City of London. The amount he claimed was 391.
—The Learned Sergeant described the plaieliff as
eminently qualified by edeention and character. for
the station be held, nod observed, that the en-Skeriff
did not think Ito could hare .enough of theplaitetiffs
labour while be was in his serrite, for he workiel hint
harder than one of the bones in his stiteeiiriage,
and then wislidel se remunerate him at the rate oti one
Wines per we". • Ho sold be able to prom that
be leboeted 'ufgiit .o 4y. end Sundays, mil the
epturelpyjlerstio*:lllo desired was at the rate of•two
paella per week, hem tie 44 of January to :he .17th
or Meier, He bad xeceived about 401., and thenetel
eiltellemernded was the balance. . .
'Mr. W. Smith hell het* in the habit of transacting
bnid,Moaritb the Attendee' while ke was in Mire, and
he apolte.as to WeiegatkplleittOr at all times vibes he
c With reeperupt ilo%menneratioa lie &heath!.
-t=ean per woribenear4ms mush.
John Setithans examined to prove the a*Hentfilta.,
tofitite pea iggt rllitranesitiemeereitrr at the Tor 4
inillridgat-street. eliejltpleprs-Of the Yientriff;
front the month of Joinery to 31irCh; and he pined
the plaietiff was constant in his attendance from eight
°raise in the morning, until tee o'clock or there-
shimst at night.