The Sun. — 1828-08-02 (London, England)

EXETER, JULY 30.  The commission having been opened here yester-. day, the Judges proceeded to business this morning: Mr. Justice LITTLEIMLE presides in the Crown, Court. His Lordship's address to the Grand Jury was almost a verbal repetition of his previous Charges upon the circuit. The statements are, however, of soaerreeable a nature, that they can scarcely be too often repeated. His Lordship said, that he was happy to perceive that the number of cases in the calendar was less not only than what it had been at the last assizes, but less than at the slimmer assizes in 1827. He had been happy to observe a similar diminution of crime throughout all the preceding parts of the circuit, and he had learnt that other c►rcuits exhibited similar marks of improvement. His Lordship then called the attention of the Grand Jury to the changes which had taken place in some parts of the criminal law. Before these alterations, a woman who had concealed the birth of a child could not have been found guilty of such concealment, except upon an indictment charging her with having murdered the child, and unless the child, if it had lived, would be in law a bastard. The concealment was now made a distinct substantive offence, for which a separate indictment may be preferred, and the concealment  was made an indictable offence, whether the child were legitimate or not. After a few other observations, his Lordship dismissed the Grand Jury, who returned three or four bills against prisoners, who were tried in the course of the day, for trilling offences.  92Altilltni--.-84`:/10,, V. VRIDYA UX•  Mr. BIRD having oriental the pleadings, Mr. Sergeant WILDE stated the plaintiff's case. His client was a foreign gentleman of great respectability, who had for many years resided in this country for purposes of commerce, and had for a long time filled the office of Danish Consul at Plymouth. The plaintiff and the defendant were both -timbermerchants, residing at Plymouth ; and it had unfortunately happened that in the course of their dealings a difference of opinion arose, which generated the feeling that led to the commission of the grievance which was the subject of the present complaint. The defendant being, for some cause or other, irritated against the plaintiff, applied to him on several occasions very unceremonious language. At last, upo❑ the 14th May, when both parties were close to the house of a Mrs. Moore, and in the hearing of that lady, the defendant spoke the following words, which were addressed to Mrs. Moore :—" Ore plaintiff) had brought me here, for you to hear me call him-an old thief and a cheating old scoundrel, and now I call him so : he is an old thief and a cheating eld scoundrel." Mrs. Agnes Moore deposed that the precise words quoted by Mr. Sergeant Wilde had been addressed to her by the defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, and in his presence. Mr. Justice PARK told the Jury that abusive language could not maintain an action unless it imputed to the person to whom it was addressed that he had committed an offence for which he was liable to be punished by the law. This was clearly not the case in the present instance, and he would therefore recommend the Jury to find a verdict for the defendant, which they did. The Danish Consul appeared much dissatisfied at the result of the proceedings.