Lent Assizes.
The Times, 1824-03-26T00:00:00

* NS:k5RtrUS. UOsURT_CBef,rc Mr. Juslzcj PAstx. TItEBLE V. CAULFIELDl. - ir. RUSsrIL stated,.tfiat this action was brought to recover a .rompensation in-damages for words of slarnder, spoken by the de fendant of the plaintift; in the way of his trade. The defendant pleaded. not guilty." Mr. CA'iTP1sLL.stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff, wliom he deseribedas a respectable wine-merchant and chvmist, atPern- broke.: Mr. Caulfield, tbe defendant, was an auctinieer carrying on business in the same place, and vossessed of considerable property. On the fitb--of June last Air. Caulfield to three several-persons stated, or insinuated by signs which could not be misunderstood, that Ilr. Treblevwaa insolvent, and that bailiffis werein possession of his goods. - One of the persons to whom this unfounded representa- tion,was -made wias the conductorof the. Bank at Pembroke, where Mr. Treble had an account, - and where a report of his insolvency was peculiarly calculated- to injure him. Mlr. Tieble was so far frotrLdesiitng to isit evil,with evil, that he' sent to AIr.Caulfield before he commenced his action, to request an apology, with wbich be should be perfectly satisfied, and repeated the offer even, after the attion was brought; but Mlr. Caulfield gave an express refusal: Under these- crcumstances; Mlr. Treble was compelled to bring his case befire thejury, ttusting that they would shotv by-theirverdiit their -conviction tbat the imputation wai grouddles--; and that the chamrter of a tradesman, on which 'his livelihood depended, iws ittliy of full protection at their hands.: -.1r. Daniel *Tiomas saida_ am manager of a bank at Pembroke. 3lr. Treble ha-fodr. years cariedton the business of a wine-mer .chant and drugksstat that lace. Mr. Caulfield is an auctioneer, in- the.same town. On the 6th ofJJdnelast I ivas.riding down astreet in Pembrokes-andlpasied the defendant, wlio wai; on foot. He call. edafterme, 'Ht, M&rThomas! Hiaveyou heardanvthingupstreet 51' I.said, '" No, notanything,exceptat TomGeorge's,"vwhoseefThcts were thei' expsed'ta sale, under ani execution. 'To this inGCab]. field- replied ," That-is not what l; Allude to; there is somethfng highersipstreet than that." I.a4ked, '4Where?" Hesaid,--"No rRtttr. 1 wont tell you; but it is between thi5 azid y0ur heute.8' lwas-about to ride:on and .aid,- " It is hiselesstoraisetmye uriosi. - vr.withoutgratsfyingit-.? Hc1tien. said; " elll it is -atT R. B. 1D S., stating the letters singly. I replied,: " Impossible, at XTreble's" hfe noddefi his head, and said," I It is but too true, the sheriffs--baili?i6 there, I expect hih at-my honse this evening: to make atrangements. At thls, time, Mr; Caulfield was . acting as . 44uctoneer it the sale of Georgestffiects. The placeof tbe conver. satiois'wad half-way betw7cen myhouse- aznd.:.Mr;.Treble's. lr. - Treble:hadan account at- the blkof wvhich I amra manager. At first I:wSSaFde uneasy4 and vent the.next morning to look at his acconnt, .*bich J- found good. I heard the report- afterwards frbm othere. andA hen communicated it to the plaintiff.: Grv;^examed..I UYe ia 'rcmbroklz The convensation was aVter four in the afcernoon. X proceeded to take mv ride ard did not look at the account till the nextmornins. A wzee'k eiapsed be- fore I mentioned the report. Mr. Caulfield is married, and has children. I waited on him with theoplaintiff, the day I first men- tioned it. Treble then asked him what he had said ? Caalfield, who was in bed, said he was too ill to go into themerits of the case then, but referred him to a man nraed Snath;. Ie referred to Smith as tlhe author of the report..- Re.examined.-The -day I told tfne plaintiff fie had sent for money, on which I seat for him, in consequeuce of finding the re- port increasing. lMr. Truewrit said-Tn June last I. carrEed on trade as a mereer nearly Opposite to hIr. Treble. On the 6ith of that month A2r. Caulfield, about noon came into my slhop. He asked me if I had heard-anv thing over the way; and nodded his head towards the plaintiff's house. He then said, " I saw the sheriff's officers go in to T. R. B. L. E." I asked if there was any thing amiss? H9e said, " It is concerning a bill." I heard it reported afterwards; I had never heard it beforc. llMr. Benjamin John,who also kept a shop at Pembrooke, said hMr. Caulfieldcalled on him in the afternoon of thesame day, and said '"Do you kcnow w hat the officers are doing in town * it is- resoecting a returned bill, with T. R.'s name to it ?" I, thinldng these were the initials of both names, replied, I did not know what it was. Be said, "The letters belonged to the last name altogether." I ask- ed, "Do youc meart Mr. Treble a" Hie made no reply, but nodded his head. Cross-examined..Mr. Caulfield said he had heard ii. r hid niot. lir. George Rowling. iun., the son of the plaintiff's attorney, proveds that before the action was commenced, he went to the de- fendant, and told him that 'ir. Treble would be perfectly content if he woulti contradict in the paper the reports wbich had been spread about the town, that was aTt he asked. fr. Caulfield positively refused to do any such thing. fr. Rowling, the rather of the tast witness, proved that after the acton was brougght, he appliea to iMr. Caulfield, proposing to com- promise, only rePqiring bim to contradict the reports, and showing the case and opinion he had taken; and the defendant positively re- fuised. MIr. Caulfield was an auctioneer in considerable nractice, and had property in lands and houses. Mlr. PHILLIpS addressed the jury-for the defendant, admitting that a verdict must pass against bis client, but contending that it should be for the smallest possible damages. He urged, that the eause had been removed from the great sessions of IVales, where it might bave been tried inaplace where both parties were known, and at small expense; that the defendant had given up th ! name of his autborl and thatthe plaintiffhad sustained noactali damage. Mlr. Treble was not only a wine.merchant, but a chymist-an unlucky combination of tradesc but his customers might fear, lest some of the drugs should find their way into the wines, ard the cellar do as nitch mischief as the shop. (A laugh.) lWhen all attempts to prove Mfr. Caulfield a man of. prnperts had failed, 'the attorney was called, as might have been expected, after the fashion of a;a Iinsh solicitor, who was accustomed to put at the end of his briefs, " If these wit- nespes shouild not come up to the mark, call my clerk, Terry O'Tar- raRhan, who will swear any thing." (Much laughter.) In trutl, his client's only iranimate property was his hammer, and his only live stock, four chldren, andawife'about to bring hiba fif.h,whom the plaintifF souiht, by this action, to bring to ruin. Mlr. Justice PATX told the jury that he thought the case was not one of a trifling nature; for the calumny had been repeated, and reasonable satisfaetion refused. As a man of feeling and honouir,. the defendant was bound, when lie discovered that the reports were false, to counteract the mischief he had done bv declaring - them to be groundless. There was not the smallest ground for imputation on the attorney or his son, who had conducted themselves with "per- fect propriety, ijnd who had made offers which thc defendant ouglht to have embraced with pleasure. The jury found a verdict fer the plaintiff-damages 501. LEVY ASS'ZE&. - - 11BIE FORD, TUESfDAY. MIARCH 23.