The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-12-11 00:00:00

ARTI NPIRE C. !LACK 1T •Nl) N IFE.

Mr. A notenrs stated, that this action was brought
by the. plaintiff, a young woni.en :15 years of age,
against the defendants, Heneral Mackay and his lady.l
to recover a compensation of damages fur injurious'
words spoken to Mrs. Mackay, for which the (letter:ll
was answerable. The experience the jury must have
bad in courts of justice hail no doubt taught them that
ar:ions for slander varied more or less, according to
the effect and tendency of the words spoken. There
w.,s one class of words which went to destroy the es-
timation of character, anti prevented persons obtaining
confidence and employment. In such cases he had
never found a jury backward in redressing injuries,
by giving damages. The case he had to lay before
them was of iihe latter class. It was one in whirl, the
character of a poor bat honest young woman had been
destroyed by the riot and powerful. The plaintiff was
servant to the person who tittered the slander, and it
ay.'s almost miner e s aaa y to tell the jury that a young
woman so treated by her master and mistress would
nimott find it impossible to get her bread in the world.
The plaintiff bad been in the sister k:ligthim in the
a-rvice of a baronet. She there married the butler,
i•et discovered soon after that her husband was married
t another woolen. She came to England with her
n:other, anti had a child. She then went to the see-
irre of Mrs. Mackay, and remained there until the
19tb of June. when she considered it advisable to give
retice to quit At that time there had been some talk
is the family shoot property stolen ; but nothing was
said to the plaintiff; she was told her wages 'would
not then be paid; she must call again. On the Sun-
day following, when she went to get her wages and
ler trunk, she was told she was accused as a thief;
at" family had been robbed at divers times, anti she
was the thief. When her trunk was delivered
tin, Mrs. Mackay examined it, and Said, " I have
.) doubt you have stolen a mast deal of property,
and here is a handkerchief I eau almost swear
btiongs to a lady who visits me." She detained the
barikereliief, hut sonic time after it was delivered up
to the attorney in the cause, there being no pretence
for it ithholding it. The plaintiff was hired as servant
bi another lady, Mrs. Lavie, who having occasion to
make sonic clkniunnication to her, sent nt to
Mrs. Mackay to inquire where she was to be found.
Mrs. Mackay, on that occasion, told Mrs. Larie's ger-
cant to tell her mistress Mary hlartinere could not go
into the service of Mrs. Earle ; she was a thief.
Mrs. Lavie having received that communication re-
fnsrd to take her, and the young woman was deprived
of getting her bread. After the action was brought
for the slander, the defendants did not venture to jus-
tify the words, lint merely denied they had said the
words. The individual who add d the jury knew
nathirg of the parties. Mrs. Adolphus gave the plain-
tiff a character: and, however disagreeable it might
be for ladies to come into a court of justice, he had
considered it his duty not to withhold them from do-
ing that which justice required. Mrs. Adolphus was
in attendance, and the defendants were at liberty to
call her into the witness-box. When the jury bad
heard the facts stated by witnesses, they would, no
Doubt, consider it a ease for damages.
Mary Jones said she was lady's maid to Mrs. Li-
vie, who resides at West End, Hampstead. She took
a note to Mrs. Mackay's from her mistress. It was
from Mary Martinere. She asked where Mary was
to he found ? Mrs. Mackay said, " I tio not think the
yaung woman would suit your mistress; I have miss-
ed different articles—wine, cambric, &c." When the
witness returned, she told her nsiatress what had pass-
ed. Mary was not hired.
Mrs. Levi', wife of a Solicitor, said she had
known Mary klutinere. In September last she in.
enired her character, and finding it satisfactory en-
ga{ed her at 14 guineas a-year. In consequence of
wuas Mary Jones told her, she did no! take the plain.
tiff. She received the character from Mrs. Adolphus.
She did not learn from Mrs. Adolphus that the plain-
tiff had gone by the name of Cunningham ; that she
was a married woman and had a child.
Henry Martinere, brother to the plainiff, went with
bis sister to the house of General Mac'ety on the 4th
of October. They went into the parlour. Mrs.
Maelkay said his sister was a notorious thief. The
words were—" I have missed 10 ponds' worth of
thins since she has been in my service ; I have lost
bye pounds worth of cambric, and fire pounds worth
of other things. I will call the men-a-srvants, and I
dare say they hare some of my property in their
pockets." a. •
Thet;mpones, servant to Thomas Winter. Esq., 34,
St: Janwelatreet, deposed that he went fur the plain-
ihrs trunk. He saw it opened, and Mrs. Mackay

TL E :ez7

took notice of a pair of silk storkings. She said it
a•as no wonder Mary hail such tine things. If Ow
robbed every person u she had robbed her, she might
get them,
The handkerchief was detained as the property of
a Miss !Ireton.

The plaintiffs Attorney stated, that the handker-
chief was returned to him by the defendants.
Mr. Danstax addressed the jury for the defendants-
The circumstance of the plaintiff having had a child
was not communicated by those who recommended her,
and suspicion was naturally excited. Confidence with
regard to the characters of sen ants was always neces-
sary. In this instance Mrs. Mackay was led to sup-
pose she had in her service a young unmarried woman,
and it turned out that she was a wife and a mother.—
It nimbi have been no inure than fair if Mrs. Lavie had
waited on Mrs. Mackay to hear the cause of suspicion.
She would then have found, perhapea that although
3lrs. and General Mackay were not able to justify their
assertions, there were groundsof suspicion to convince
every h 66666 inrable mind that the words were uttered
ler a conscientious feeling. The defendants wet*
bound not to suffer a person whom they suspected of
dishonesty to enter the service of another, without
communicating those suspicions. 'I he learned gen-
tleman concluded by cnlliug
Miss Breton, who proved that the plaintiff in a con-
versation she had with 3lrs. Mackay in the kitchen,
admitted that she received some tea and a bottle of
wine from another servant in the family, named Ann.
The wine was drank among the servants in the kitchen.
Mr. A lumen t s replied with s asperity, and after
the learned Judge had ably charged the .Inr, they re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 30f.,
costs

Ki‘li r. purr.

Mr. Grit:VEY stated this vase to the Jury. It was
an indictment against the defendant for an as,tult
antler the followint,• cireunistanees:-.--The defendant
was the occupier of some premises in Adans-street.
Ailelphi, belonging to a person named Allatits. Adonis
became a bankrupt, and 3lessrs. 3l'Leod anti Enna
were appointed his assignees. l'ittler their authority
a distress fur rent was delivered to Sitew, a broker.
to execute. Skew, ac Eanied by assistants, went to
the house of the defendant, and took possession in the
defendant's absence. Mr. Pitt, on his return, turned
the un•u into the passa4e, and shut a glass dour upon
them. Shea• was attempting to force open the floor,
is lien the defendant made a push at hint through the
gla!,, with an iron crow. Spew avoided the blow, and
sent for constables, and ultimately got access to the
I eby another way, wizen a struggle ensued ail!'
the defendant before they could disarm hint of the
crow-bar. IN being disartued, defendant said, " By
liod, if I had lead a pistol 1 would have shot you."
These ell ctimstauces constituted flee assault, and
formed the subject of the present prosecution. Mr.
Gurney called Slsew, and a tonnber of other witnesses,
to support his statement.
Alr. Pitt, who conthic.ted his own defence, contend-
ed, that the prosecutors were trespassers on this occa-
sion : that the authority ander which they entered
was irregular; that they took possession of parts of
his premises not comprised in the demise from Dlr.
Adams, and therefore that he was fully justified in his
resistance to their taking possession. '1 he Ju►}• found
the defendant Guilty on 'N.,/ counts out offifieco.