Court Of King's Bench, Sa...
The Times, 1824-11-08T00:00:00

A isil utnng ttle thrst day of Michaelmas Term, tih Judecs, afcer breaktaSting with the Lord Chancellor, g.npe in state to Westmlin- ster atone o'clock, 'when tnebusiness of be Court conamenced. ZrIONTAGUE V. ESPI)ASSE. ilr. Oufx}y mnoved for a rtle ttrsihow cause wly a nonsuit ehotuld not be entered, or a new trial granted in this case. The plain- tiAT, who waa a woxitng jeweller, had brouglht his action to recover the sum of 831. for trinkets sold to the wiFe of the defendant, who WaS a special pleader in the Tcrinle The cause as tried before the Lord Chief .Justice, at the last 'ichaemsS term, and the jury found a vesdsct for the plaintiff to tie extent of his demand. The ver(lict, the learned counsel contended, had been given against evidence. It Was proved, on the trial, that the plaintiff received his nr4ers for the trinkets from Mlrs. Espinasse only , and that tl.-rv wete all furnished between thel3tb of October and the 20th of December. It was also pr-ved,that the plaintiff aeverwent to receive orders, except when the defendant was from home, and that he, in the first instance, sent in his bill to IlrB. Espinasse. It was likewise proved, that Mrs. Bspinasse hadneverworn anyof the trinkets. It wvxstated at thetrial, that the articles supplie'(l were suitable to the station in life of Mfrs. Espinasse, and that therefore the defendant was liable for the a nment, even if thdy had been furnished without his knowledge. Te deferidamt, it was true, was in respectable practice as aspecialpleader but his was a branchofbusiness which wasill paid in proportion tothe 1abour performed Besides, itw-asproved, that when thetlefendantmar- ried his wi fe, three years before, he supulied hex with every article ef.jewellery suitable to her station in life. He (Mfr. Gurney) sub- mitted, that untler those circumstances, the verdict could not stand- because the evidence proved that there had been a supply of unne- cessary articles to the wife, without the knowledge of the husbaondl if a tradesman should he intliscreet or roguish enough to suipply a married lady, in the short space of two months, with jewellery to the amoumt of nearty 1O1.. wvithout taaking the trouble to a%certLin -whether her husband was acquainted with the transaction, he must ablde by the consequences. The CoUrXT granted the ruletoshow cause. _BROMWICc{ V. PROSSER. t. CAIrPUr.LT. moveid fi a rule to show cause why a new: trial whould not be irrantedf in this case. The action was brought fol galander, imputing insolvencv to the plainti?fs, who carried on the business OF bankers at Monmouth and Brecon. The cause .as triedi at the l:st asaixes for lerefotdshire, btfore Mr. Justice Park. The defelidant pleaded the general issue, and the jury, under the leamed Judge's direction, gave a verdict in his favour. The learned counsel made the present motion on two groundsp.first, that the Judge haA inmproperly seceived eiadence from the defendant; and, secondly, that he had naisdirected tbe Junry. It appeared -on the tri;d, that on the 13th of January last, at which time the slanderous words were spoken, the plaintiffs were in high credit x~s bankerg. Tht dtefertd-nt carne into the town of Bre- con, and stated that the plaintiffi' bank at J1onmoutl hald stopped payment. This cominz to the knowledge of the plaintiff's, one of their friends wrent to the defea,lant and said, - I tnderstand you a-aye said that Bromwich and Sneed's bank at Morunmou%th i: ..roeped: is it true that you said so?" The defendlant replied. " I es, t is true that I said so; it was so reported at Crickhowell." This was the proof of the words spoken, and in consequence of them there was an Immediate rttt vn the plaintiT's bank; large balances were withdrawn by customers, anti in three months their circulation of notes was reduced to 3,0001. In answer to the action (the general issue only being pleaded), the defendlant's counsel proposed to show (although there was not the slightest pretence for the inslnuation) that there was a report at the period in question that the plaintiffs' bank had stopDed. A witness was called, who proved that he heard it stated, at Crieklhowell, that there was a rrsu upon the plaintiffs' 4ank at Alontouth. He (0r. Csrnpbell) then objected, tnat this evidence was inadmissible upon the general issue: and that at all events the word " run#" was not equivalent to the word "stopped," which was the word used by the defendant. Buit the lear ned Judge overruled the ob- jection, and received the evidence. Another witness waS then called, and stated, that he, being a lhopkeeper at-Crickho well, received a 11. note of the plaintiffs' bank from the defendant, at Brecon, on the 18th of January; at the time of takine it, the defendant asIced him if he had heard of another run upon the plaintiffs' bank ? The witnes said, if there was another run, he (thie defendant) nirtst take the note back agairt to which the latter replied that he would. The learned .Judge, in his charge to the Jury, told them that the very gist of this action was malice, and as there was no proof that the words had been spoken maliciously, he was of opinion that the defendant vras not anewerable. The jury, under this direction,found for the defendant, buit expressed their regret that tle defendlant had refused to make an apology, which he had been requested to do. The learned counsel now contentled, first, that ti,e let,rned Jutige had iml,properly received the evidence above-mentioned; and, sec)nd, that the J'ury had been misdirected in point of law- for althouglh malice was the foundation oF the action, yet malice might be here inferred, inasmuch as the occasiondid notjustify the speaking of the words..The Court granted a rule to showx cause. The COURT complained of the practice which halt obtained among attoriies, of delivering iastructions to counsel for motions for new trials so late as to Prevenr them fronm being made within the first four days of term. If the practice should be continued, it would he at the peril of having the oltl rule of Court en-! forced. The consequence of the improper practice wvas, that for the first three or four days of term, the Court had comparatively nothing to do, and for several days afterwards were occupied in hlearing motons wbich eught to have been previously male. COJUR'r OF KING'S BENCH. SATTTI,A'V- N.v. fi