Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-05-06T00:00:00

This day Hilary Term began. the Judges entcred the court soon after one o'clock. Mlr. Justice LITTLEDALE entered first, and after repeatedly bowing to the bar, tcak his seat in the place formerly occupied by AMr. Justice BEST. The usual report of the state of convicts at AliUbank was read, and was filed in the customary form. WEAVER V. L.LOYD. This was an action for libel, by a mercer at Abingdon against an attorney, which was tried before Mr. Baron Garrow at the last assizes for the county of Oxford. The libel, which appeared in the Oxford IfHerald, in the language of strong indignation, imuputed to the plaintiff very cruel treatment of a horse ridden by him from Ox. ford to Abingdon, and stated " that the horse presented a shocking spectacle, one of his eyes being knocked out, and that the plaintifg locked him up in the stable, and gave instructions to the servant to allow no one to see him." The defendant pleaded two justifications; one, in detail, alleging that all the circumstances were true: and the other generally, averring that the matters contained in the libel were true in substance and effbct. The jury, after a long trial, found that all the statements justified in the 9rst special plea were true, except that which represented the eye as literally knocked out, and that which imputcd to the plaintiff that he directed his servant not to allow any one tO see the horse;* and they found the last special plea true, if the Court should think they were justified in so finding, when the two allegations above-mentioned were not proved; and sn case the Court should think they were not so justified, they then found a verdict for the plaintiff, with a shilling damages. Ir. TAUNTO2N nowv moved for a rutle to show cause why the ver. dict should not be entered for the defendant on the special pleas, on thegroundthat they were substantiallv proved. The alegationthat the plaintiff desired his servant to prevent access to his horse was not per se libellous ; and the mere circumstance that the eye was knock- ed out was not of the essence of the charge, which was, " that the horse presented a shockisg spectacle." The real accusation was, that Air. Weaver had treated the animal with scandalous barbarity. That he did so, was most clearly proved; and therefore the jurv wereright in considering, that notwithstanding the slight incorrect- ness which had crept in, the article was in substance and effect true. The COU RT were clearly of opinion that neither plea was sup. ported by proof. Two allegations in the first plea were unproved; and the second was not proved, for unless it required all the evidence requisite under the first it was undoubtedly bad. The circum- stances to which allusion {lad been made, no doubt weigled with the jury in diminiution of damages, but they conld not entitle the de. fendant to a verdict. The rule was therefore refused; and the verdict stands for the plaintiff, with Is. damages. THtE KING V. WATERtORD. Mr. BROUGstAse moved for arule to show cause why a criminal information should not be exhibited against John Waterford, a but- cher, for molesting GeneraliWharton, a magistrate for the north riding of the county of York, in the execution of his duty. Some years ago the General employed this man as his butcher but, on some occasion, withdrew his custom from him, and employed an. other. This seemed to give great offence to *lraterford, who from time to time indulged in abuse against the General, and his oppo- sition of late assumed a more grave and offensive character. In November last he assailed him in public, charging him with robbing a womtan named Hutchinson, and with letting poacbers escape; and these charges he repeated at the petty sessions on the 3fth of lle. cember last, where he had no business, but went on purpose to as. sail the General. As to Hutchinson, General Wharton had fined her, as a baker, in the lowest penalty, for not having proper weights; xnd with respect to the poachers whom he was charged with favour- ing_rathcr a singular charge against a country gentieman-.thc truth was, that thle wvitness against them refusedl to say any thing, and he was conmpelled to dismiss the charge for want of evidence. The LosBw CaE?TE JUSTICE._YOU have allowed. a term topass. MIr. BRouGsHAsV.-Only one term, mynord. The loitD C}IEF JUSTIcE.-Take a rule to show cause. MR. LECS1IEItE CHAiILTO2(. As the Judges were retiring, Mr. Edmnund Lechmere Charlton, a gentleman of Herefordshire, addressed them. Hecomplainedof the conduct of an attorney whto had put an execution into his house, and wished to move that the Sheriff should be directed to retain the proceeds of the goods in his bands. Heproduceel anaffidavit, which he wished to read himself; but being informed it was the proper course to hand it to the officer, gave it to the clerk of the papers. The affidavit was read. The substantial ground of complaint which it suggested was, that the attorney, wlho had brought an action for his taxed costs, and issued the execution, held certain deeds in his possession to which Mr. Charlton was entitled, But it also con- tained much other matter, respecting an influence exercised by the plaintiffin the suit i the disposition of the property otone of Mr. harlton'^ relatives. The COURT said they would do nothing on an affidavit contain- ing so much impertinent matter, and that the money must be paid before tbey couldinterrere. Mr. Charlton replied, that the money was not Ixis object, but the vossemsion of the deeds: the money had been, or would be, di- rectly paid. The COURT said, that if any deed were retained to which he was entitled after payment of the sum due, they would, on a proper affi- davit, make such order as thecircunmstances might require; but the affidavit must relate to that matter. and that alone. COURT OF KING'S BRNCH. Wr.FTrTrTV'R NlAY 6.