LAI+ INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. 1.111EL.-JONES v. STLPIIENS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff. who is an atto ney. to recover damages from the defendant, who is a law bookseller, for a libel published by him in a pamphlet. The daniasta were laid at 10001. Mr. Jervis stated the case. The plaintiff was a gentleman carrying on the busine a of an attorney at Hanley, in Stafford • shire; and the defendant was a respectable law stationer and bookseller, well-known to the profession, and carrying on busi ness in Bell-yard. The libel in question, which had been pub lished and extensively circulated for the last two years, was con tained in a pamphlet addressed to the Master of the Court of King's Bench. The subject was some fancied abuse which was stated to exist in that Court (the Court of Mixchequero and the most respectable individuals, the Clerks of that Court. were made the subject of the attack. They were charged with filing decla rations on unstamped paper, charging the duty to the client. as ii it had been paid , and putting it into their own pockets; thus defrauding tha 'subject or the revenue. In the course of this hitch which was written under the assumed name of Paul Wil kinson, and went on most wickedly to villify the learned Judge of that Court, as well as the clerks; allusion was mode to a case, where a party having entered into a bail bond, by some neglect himselland his two bail were fined, and in consequence three declarations were filed against them, or. in other words. separate actions were commenced against each of the parties, and the ori ginal debt being but 131. taxed costs to the amount of DI. were accumulated upon it. and the Court refused to give relief to the parties until these costs were paid. This, which was a common course of proceeding in other courts, the author of the libel had used as the ground-work of his accusation, and burst out with Know, learned reader, that the attorney in this case was Thos. June:, of Hanley, in Stafffirdshire," and went on to say that his character and conduct might be learned from his neighbours, but that, according to his own account of himself, he was a man more Armed against than sinning." The libel went on at considerable length, in a strain of affected irony, to accuse the plaintiff of being a disreputable practitioner of the law. The earned counsel concluded by making an appeal to the Jury as o the value of character, and particularly protaaaional character, and it would be their duty to give protection and compensation to the person who now appealed to them, by inflicting most exem plary punishment on the purse of the defendant. The publication of the libel was proved, and in the course of the evidence it was also proved that the three declarations filed in the actions on the bail-buns were without stamps. In the taxed bill of costs was one charge of t ts. SJ. and another of Hs. 7il. for duty, of which no stamps were shown. The Clerk of the Warrant of Attorney-office was called to prove that the plaintiff had been, and was now, regularly enter das an attorney. On his cross-examination it appeared, that between the years 18t3 and 1814, and from November to February last, no entry was made in the books of the defendant's being certificated. Mr. Brougham here submitted, that the plaintiff must be non suited, as it had been averred in the declaration that he was at the time of the publication of the libel an attorney. It was neceisary to prove the avemnent. and to show that he was such attorney at the time of the publication; but by the evidence which had been put in to prove the declaration, it was shown that the plaintiff wits not legally entered as an attorney. A penalty of 101. was annexed to the offence of practising as an attorney without a due entry. As die admission of an attorney was no thing without his certificate, so the certificate of his admission was nothing witnout the entry. A long argument ensued on this objection, which Baron Wood ultimately overruled, observing, that in the whole course (Allis practice he had never known of a case of the kind, and would not venture to stop the cause upon the objection, of which the plaintiff might derive the benefit her:after. The point was therefore reserved for the Bench. Mr. Brougham addressed the Jury for the defendant. in reply to Mr. Jervis, and said he should give them proofs of the truth of the assertions contained in the pamphlet respecting the conduct and character of the plaintiff, and consequently of the defendant's right to publish those truths. It had been admitted that the plaintiff had in his practice on the occasion spoken of, brought on one bond three actions to increase the costs, when one action would have otherwise sufficed. He cited the case of Kay v. Hill, where three actions had been instituted to recover treble costs, when Chief Justice Abbott characterized the case as one which did not often come, but which always demanded the marked censure of the Court as most improper. The learned counsel asked why the action had not been brought in Staffordshire, where the plaintiff had pracisad, as Hanley well knew, and where, it' he durst, he would have brought the action; for there it was known, whether he was or not a respectable practitioner, useful or tolerable to his neighbours. Why had he proceeded against the publisher, when the author was ready to meet him, unless that he found it more safe to contend with one who did not know tine, than with one who did ? These facts alone, the learned counsel contended, ought, if the case went no farther, to cut down the damages to a farthing. But he would go farther, and show that every line of the alleged libel was true, and would prove that the plaintiff carried on a most flagitious practice of erect ng offices at two places, at one of which lie put up a man of straw, whilst his clients could only have the benefit of his AO and experience in another. The learned counsel said, he rested Mr a verdict on the proof of the truth of the mutters alleged, and to which pitiot he requested their MMOSI attention. Sonia witnesses were called, of whom it was tried to extract evidence of the general character of Jones, but the Court would not suffer such a course of examination. Mr. Brougham said, that if the Court should afterwards coin cide with his Lordship, in declaring such evidence inadmissible, it would prevedt any one from pleading in justification. It. Jones. a grocer, deposed that he had employed Hammond in a suit at law which he understood on the toms of " no cure no pay," and that no costs should be paid if the suit were lost. The suit was lost, when the plaintiff; Mr. Jones, scr.t hint in a bill of costs. and on his refusing to pay, he was arrested, and after considerable imprisonment for it, got out by taking the benefit of the act. Another witness, a grocer, deposed to the saine effect. It was proved that after Ilarnmond quitted Jones, each issued an advertisement cautioning their connexions against paying their respective debts or bills to each other. A variety of evidence was ufiered fir the purpose of justifying the detailsof the libel, but declared to be inadmissible, and the above was all that went to the Jury. Mr. Jervis replied at great length, and ascribed the conduct of the witnesses who had come forward against the plaintiff' to a groundless ill-will towards that gentleman. He contended that the libel had been by no means justified. Mr. Baron Wood, in sommitig up, said it was for the Jury to pronounce whether the libel, which lie believed to be a most scandalous one, had received a fair justification. The Jury retired for a short time, and returned a verdict for he plaiotiff—dartuiges 501. WEDNESDAY, SAY 29. 31ANNElt LreAs. This was an action brought to recover damages for slander and defamation. The damages were laid at vuol. Mr—lervis said, the plaintiff: Mr. Francis Manners, a res pectable tradesman in the city, proceeded against his son-in-law, the defendant, not to recover damages, but by the verdict which lie sought from t h e Jury, to put a stop to the course of abuse which lie had received from his son-in-law, in return for the sup port, assistance, and benefits which his kindness had bestowed upon him. The defendant, who is a young man of about six-and-twenty, THE NATIONAL REGISTER was in Court for the purpose of pleading his own cause; but Baton Wood interrupted the counsel for the prosecution, and asked whether the case, which as between members of the same family must be a peculially painful one to enter into, could not be settled out of Court? Mr. Jervis said, if the defendant would make an apology in the Court for his conduct, and promise as publicly that it should never be repeated, all the purpose► of the prusecution would be answered. The learned Judge advised the defendant, that he could not get off mote advantageously than by making the reparation demanded. The defendant, after a short consideration, expressed his son ow and repentance for the conduct he had pursued, and promised that it should never be repeated. A verdict for the plaintiff, damages •os. was then taken ; but it was promised that, so long as the defendant kept his word, the payment of the damages and costs should nt t be enforced. Baron Wood gave an eloquent admonition to the detendant, ' on the folly and wickedness of his conduct; particularly ani madverting upon the situation in which bath conduct placed his unbrtunate wife towards her parent. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. WEDNESDAY, MAY 29. THE KING V. NIARSIIALLANDANOTIIER. This was indictment against the defendants, charging them with conspiracy to gist a false character to persons, who thereby obtained goods trout the Loudon Gas and Tar COlll - It appeared in the course of the proceedings that tire person% who aloud in the situation of prosecutors, were not sufficiently vested with the property belong ing to the company to ausintaio the prosecution, and the defentrants were acquitted. HITCHCOCK V. 141tolV N. This was an motion to recover 151, for board and lodging furnished the defendant. The plaintiff kept a public-house at Southall, and Brown lived with her. The question was, whe ther he was eating Sind drinking at her house as a working man getting his living, or as a servant? It was alleged that the de fendunt bargained to pay 12s. a week; but the defence was, that he worked as a servant, drawing beer, and attending as hostler in the stable. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 151. ht sPiai P. %ATVs. This action was brought by the Chevalier Ruspini, against the defendant, who was one of the assignees, under a com mission of bankruptcy against him, to recover the value of some goods which were alleged to be improperly sold. Mr. Gurney stated, limit the plaintiff's father, by will, left annuities to his wife and sons, which were secured upon the house nod furniture, in Pall Mall. The property was vested in the plaintiff as executor of his father's will, yet the defend ant proceeded to a sale under the following circumstances : A commission of bankruptcy, was taken out against the plain tiff, under which Mr. %Watts was appointed assignee. The commission was finally superseded , but whilst it was working the assignees heal taken possession, not only of the plaintiff's roperty, but the furniture which had been left by his father to secur.. unnuities. Mr. Watts employed an auctioneer to sell it, minder circumstances, as alleged, of ;Jest disadvantage.— The learned counsel said, he should call the auctioneer to prove lie acid it under the order of Mr. Watts, and be entitled to recover the value. Mr. Davis. from the Prerogative Office, produced the will of time late Mr. Ruspini, the probat of which was granted OD the 11th of July, list 1, to the plaintiff. The testator gave annuities to his widow and sons, and los furniture in the house in was vested in trustees for the purpose of the will. The Lord Chief Justice observed, after the will had been read, that the property was vested in trustees, and not exe cutors ; and lie could not see bow the executor could sue. Mr. Gurney was unable to satisfy the Judge that the plaintiff could support the action, and he was nonsuited. TIIL KIM) Y. THATCHIth. This was an inTictuie;tagieitisiiltedefendant, one of the select vestry of the parish of Paddington, fur an assault no a pauper, named John Child. Mr. Bollsod stated that the prosecutor was a poor disabled man, with a large family. Ile applied some time ago to the churchwardens for relief. His wife was lying-in tat her fifth child, and lie could obtain no relief. He ass told he must get a note from Mr. Thatcher. Ile accordingly applied to the de fendant, who struck him. The learned toil/Isel called several witnesses. Mr. Reader, as counsel for Mr. Thatcher, said, on the day when the assault was alleged to have been committed, the man went for the purpose, not of obtaining relief, but to insult him. The learned counsel then called Mr. Butler, an inhabitant of Paddington, was in Manor place on the day the dispute took place between Mr. Thatcher and Child. The witness was talking to Thatcher alien Child came up. Ile said, Tom Thatcher, how dare you call me a pauper l" Thatcher said, Go about your business, Ibis is my private road." His reply was, I shad not, Tom Thatcher." He doubled his list, and ran his elbow into Thatcher's side.— A scuffle then took place between them, sad Child threw Thatcher twice. Child put his fist in his face, collared biro, and threw him down twice. Child was nut thrown at all. Cross examined by Mr. Bolland.—He said Thatcher did not use any improper language, nor did he kick the man. Mr. Bolland, in reply said, much was to be allowed for irri tation on the part of Child, who bad been denied relief with tit e starving children. It was not be believed, that a man wanting assistance would conduct himself as Butler described. The Lord Chief Justice left the Jun to decide who had committed the first assault. If they believed the first assault was committed by Child, in a state of drunkenuess. The Jury found the defendant not guilty. T111 , 11%1Y, MAY SO. NlCllultio4 o. SMITH. This was an action by Messrs. Nicholson, who are distillers and reetilim aof British sp . ' , against the defendant, a licensed victualler, to recover 1151. for stock transferred. Mr. Brougham stated, that the pliuntitia were respectable spirit dealers, who had been in the habit of supplying the Dun Cossack public-house, at Norton Folgate, with liquors. The house was in the possession of a person named Coventry, who left it, and the defendant being desirous of carrying on the bu siness, obtained a lease. Ile then applied to Messrs. Nicholson tor a transfer of the spirits. The custom was that the outgoing tenant transfers to the in-comer the residue of his stock, and the distiller accedes to the arrangements. Mr. Smith was ac cordingly debited with the amount, which was WI. and be signed what is called a transfer, acknowledging that he owed the amount to the plaintas. Ile was told the defendant had paid the money to the out-going tenant, but lie shunt(' prove the defendant acknowledged the debt, and the Jrny would have tan difficulty in boding their verdict for the plaintitt The Common Sergeant then addressed the Jury for the de fendant, sod observed, that they could not help seeing his client hail been sued in a stay most oppressive, for, in fact, he had paid the money for as !11.11 this action was broiight. The quest' was not whether be was to pay Me.,..as. Nithult9o tito bombed 171 and forty-live pounda, hut %Whet he wan to go to gaol, Slid remain (Juin.; life. These goods were sold to Coy entry , who could not be divested of them without some set of his own.— There was no evidence to sheer Coventry sold them to any person; Coventry was, however, paid by Smith, and the fair inference was, that the goods were sold by Coventry to Smith. The Lord Chief Ju►tice left the Jury to say, whether it was made out that the defendant acknowledged he was debtor to this plaintiffs. If be did, they ouzht to give their verdict for the plaintiffs. The Jury found fur the plaintiffs —Damages SUM. FRIDAY, MAY 31. CHAPMAN AND ANOTHER e, srvouso._ This was an action by the treasurers of a Benefit Societe, called the Society of Ancient Britons, to recover the SUM of 101. which they alleged the defendant had withheld from a suns which lie was hound to pay over to the officers. Mr. Chitty having opened the pleadings, Mr. Gurney stated the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. He did not wi..6 to im pute intentional fraud to the defendant, whom be understood to tee a respectable man, but would rather believe he had made some mistake as to the sum which he produced, and that he afterwards was ashamed to acknowledge his error. Mr. Smith, the secretary of the society, stated, that on the 7th of September, 11520, the defendant had to pay the sum of 1401. 14s. 1041. to the treasurers. Ile came accordingly to the jublic-house where the meeting was held, in South Audley street, laid down • number of notes on the table, and demand ed 2d in change, which Mr. Constance, an acting member of the committee gave him. In twenty minutes or half an hour after, • sum was paid to the landlord, and it was now disco vered that the money on the table was 10f.less than that which the defendant ought to have paid. On being addressed on the subject, he said that lie had laid down two Dotes of 204 each, two of IV. and six notes of 101. He was reminded that this would leave ten pounds short, when he said he had made a mis take, as he had brought seven notes of 101. each, and net six only. He said one of the notes was marked with the name " Brewer," which name was to be found on one of those paid ; others of them lie had taken at Esdailes and Co. Ininiry was made at Esdailes, the next day, where it was found that he bad received six notes then, all of whieh were paid in at the club except one, which was No. 18,092, and which, being stopped at the Bank of England. wan found in • very tattered condition, with a large blot of ink at the back, which might conceal any name which had been written on it. When the deficiency was discovered, a search was proposed, to which all present sub mitted, but two persons had left the room before the proposal was made. On the defendant were found three notes of 51. each. Mr. Rcarlett add d the jury for the defendant. contend ing that the condition of the note proved it bad passed through the hands of a party who had improperly substracted it, rather than that it was withheld by Mr. Siurling, to whom no fraud was imputed. Mr. Gurney replied n, the whole case. The Lord Chief Justice summed op the evidence. Ile ob setved that the case was a distressing one, arising, as it did. among parties who were admitted to be hitherto of respectable character. The Jury deliberated fora few minutes, and found • verdict far the plaintiffs—Damages 101. MARSH ANU ANoTHER V. FRASER, GENT. Thin was an action agsinet the defendant, a clerk in the Ceort of Chancery, for • false representation respecting the interest of Colonel Hippisley in certain monies which bad been the sub ject of a suit in that court, in consequence of which the plain tiffs were induced to make advances to Colonel Hippisley. It appeared in evidence that the defendant bad, since 1817, managed the suit of Colonel Hippisley, as clerk in court. In August 1820, Mr. Cooper called on him from the plaintiffs, to inquire into the truth of a representation made by Colonel Hippisley, that he was entitled to 1,1001. 3 per cent. consols, standing to the credit of a cause " Hippisley a. Western," an order for the payment of which would be obtained as soon as the ohhices were open after the long vacation. Mr. Fraser re plied, that he had no doubt suet assertion was perfectly true.— In consequence of this answer, the plaintiffs advanced 2001. to Colonel Hippisley, and :ook his order for the payment on the defendant nut of the proceeds of the cause. These, however. were not forthcoming at the appointed time, and, after various delays, it was discovered by a reference to the bill and answer, that Colonel Hippisley had not, at most, any right to more than the interest of the money for file, and that he had been discharged in 1809 from prison, as an insolvent debtor. Mr. Taunton, fo: the defendant, reminded the Jury, that this action could be sustained only on the ground of fraud, and that therefore they nisot be persuaded that Mr. Frazer knew that the assertion he was making wes false. Now he was not the confidential solicitor of Colonel Hippisley, hut merely the clerk in court; who was, no doubt, better employed than in reading all the hills and answers in ev ery suit, the mere for mal part of which he conducted. There was no imaginable motive for the fraud imputed to him ; indeed, all his interact was against an advance to be repaid out of • fund, to which he must look for his own charges and if a mere casual conver sation like this could charge a disinterested party with a dela, the lips , if every Englishman must remain hermetically sealed, lest he should litid an attorney's clerk in a casual inquirer, and make himself liable to • debt by • few loose winds. Tilt. laird Chief - Justice assented to the law as stated by Mr. Taunton, and left it to the Jury to say, on the whole evidence, whether the defendant was aware that he was giving his sanc tion to a falsehood. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages 2001. sVICER v. HROTHERg AND ANOTHER. This was in action against the defendants, who are army agents, for a penalty of 501. incurred under 54 Geo. 111. c. 28. by their default to render, on oath, an account of all monies received by them under powers of attorney, within two calendar months after a precept from the commissioners of the army. The precept produced required an acconat generally of ell monies ever receised to he given to the under - Sem ice was proved on one of the defendants, Brothers, only.— No account had ever been given. Mr. Marryalt submitted to the Court, that the act tended to require an account of all monies received during • man's life, hut that come individual transaction must be speci fied; and also that, under the act, the commissioners had no power to direct an account to be rendered to the nadtr-treasu rer, or to any but themselves. The Lord Chief Justice over-reled both objections ; and the jury, nnder his directions, found a verdict against Brothers for 401., and a verdict for the other defendant, who was sot show• to have personally received the precept. Mackerel sold at West Bay, on the mast of Dor .;etshire, on Wednesday list. At one penny per doz. the boa's having r.t.ight so immense a quantity the previous I