L LAW.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL.

The sittings before Michaelmas Term were commenced at this Court on Mon-

day the 19th; day had been appointed for the trial Of actions on hills of exchange aral on promissory notes. Of these cases there were upwards of one hundred upon the list, but these tried on Monday were for the most part either undefended or unimportant.

1.3eamenAsir v. Pelon—This was an action upon a promissory note for :l75/. The defence consisted of two parts,—first, that the plaintiff had taken userisas interest from the defendant; and secondly, that the note had been given for a gambling debt, and was therefore an illegal instrument. Both parts oldie defence were established, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, liberty being given to his counsel to move the Court in Banco upon a technical objection to the evidence.

Tuesday, October 20.

SIR JAMES JELF, DART. V. ORIEL. AN U Aisornem—This was an action upon a bill of exchange [or 200/., accepted by Lord Audley in favour of the defendants, and by then indorsed to the plaintiffs. An error of form having been made in the declaration, Ma Denman for the defence contended, that the error was fatal to the plaintiff's case. Mr. Campbell hoped that, for the sake of substantial jus- tice, Lord Tenterden would allow the record to be amended.' His Lordship thought the mistake such as no pleader in his senses ought to have made, and refused leave to amend ; adding, that " the tendency of late years, in practice at least, if not in principle, was to relax general rules too much in favour of parti- cular cases ; and that he thought the interests of substantial justice would be best promoted by a more strict adherence to the rules of law in all cases." The action, hoWever proceeded upon another count in the declaration ; and a -verdict was returned for the plaintifc for 2001. and interest. Rex V. CARRINGTON Aso DEAUMoNT.—*Mr. Pollock stated that this was an in- dictment charging the defendants with a conspiracy- to defraud the proms:suture Messrs. Fergusen and Martin, ribbon-manufacturers, of a considerable sum cf money. The defendant Carrington had set up a drapery shop in Bridge-street, Blackfriars, in January 1S-a, and called at the shop of the prosecutors meet ordered a quantity of ribbons and other articles. Some of these articles lie pail for, and the prosecutors were then induced to trust him to a greater extent, till Carrington ivies indebted to them in a sum of 2181. In consequence of certain information, the prosecutors made inquiries, and discovered that Carrington was in the habit of selling their goods as soon as lie received them, not only at a lower price than lie had purchased them, but at a lower price than the manufacturer could have afforded to sell them at. On further inquiry, they found that Beau- mont, the other defendant, was in the habit of carrying out their goods from Car- rington's shop for sale its this manner, at a ruinous loss, in order to raise money upon them. Of course the prosecutors lost their money. Now, if this was a fraudulent purpose of Carrington's to get possession of tile goods of the pmsreie tors, in order tem raise money on them, without any intention to pay, and if Beau-

mont was cognizant of, and a party in this fraud, Pollock submitted that tots parties were liable to be found guilty, and punished under an indictment for a conspiracy.

Frederick Martin, one of the prosecutors, was then called, and proved the orderinrrb of the goods by Carrington, and his selling them at a great wahivalac, and the loss of their money. They were induced to give credit to Carril:4ton, from his appearing to be in a respectable way of business ; but the witness could not prove that any fraudulent misrepresentations had been made by the defe.nlaot. Lord Tenterden, under these circumstances, although he had no doubt of the im- propriety of Carrington's conduct, slid not think that the charge in the indicuneat was made out in evidence. The honest tradesmen themselves ought to be

mot cautious in giving credit without proper inquiry. It was astoeishing how negli- gent they were in this respect, considering the constant notices in tile newspapers of frauds of this description.—Verdict, Not Guilty.

ANGLE V. ISRAEL ALEXANDER.—This was an an action for compensation in da- mages for slanderous words spoken by the defendaut concerning the plaint t. The latter party is a livery-stable keeper, in Coleman-sweat, arid the hammer horse-dealer in that neighbourhood. The charge against the defendant was flan he had said that the plaintiff was a swindling thief—tIne ha would soon becomes

insolvent, and would not be able to pay half a crown i • ; that he sit' a fraudulent bankrupt-maker, and concerned in provin: dcbts under a bank- ruptcy, Sze.

Some witnessesproved that the defendant had spoke:: t;,< words in a public coffeehouse, and other public places. Mr. Denman fa tits defendant, urged that it was quite common with these lovers of prize.fighthia sports-=4.6 the par..

ties in this case evidently were—to talk to and about each other in this coarse kind of language ; and if the Jury could credit the witnesses at all. he was sure they would consider the situation of the parties, and think that a shilling, or even a farthing damages, would be sufficient. Lord Tenterden observed to the Jury, that if they believed the witnesses, actionable words had been proved ; and then it was for them to consider the amount of damages, which, he believed, they Irould agree with him ought to be moderate.—Verdict for the plaintiff damages 50/.

Thursday, Oct. 22.

Mrueav V. Hoonsost M.P.—This was an action for the recovery of 8000/. being the amount of a promissory note made by Mr. Hodgson to Mr. Rowland Stephenson, and by the latter indorsed to the present plaintiff. It appeared that tee plaintiff was in the habit of lending money to Stephenson ; and that he had upon one occasion got the note in question as a security for part of the deposit which he made at Stephenson's bank. When Stephenson absconded, Murray applied to Hodgson for payment of the note ; but Mr. Hodgson, after some deli- keration, refused to pay the amount. The defence to the action was, that the note had been given by Mr. Hodgson to Mr. Stephenson, as the purchase-money of a villa which had been the subject of a proposed contract between the parties ; but that in fact the contract had never been concluded. Mr. Stephenson had not parted with the villa, and could not therefore recover the amount of the note. It was added upon this, that the note, when given to Murray, was then due ; and tiet therefore, as in such circumstances he could have no greater right than the person from whom he received the note, and as that person had no right at all, the action could not be maintained. A great deal of evidence was adduced for the -purpose of getting at these results ; and the Jury found a verdict for the defendant. Frirray„ Oct. 23. (Special Jury.) DE LA CHAUMETTE V. THE DANK or Exasast—(New Trial.)—This was an action for the recovery of 500/., being the amount of a Bank of England note which the plaintiff had sent to the Bank for payment, and which was there im- pounded. The real defendant in the case was a Mr. George Hesleden, from whom the note had been stolen. It subsequently found its way into the hands of Yessrs. Gabriel Odier and Co., of Paris, from whom it was transmitted to the eaintiff in the regular course of business. The Batik had stopped the note at

Ilesleden's request, and the house in Paris had received it for a valuable con- e hi :elfin. The question therefore was, upon whom the loss ought to fall ; and

question being one of law, depending upon the consideration of a great num- ber of principles and circumstances, was reserved for the Court above and a verdict entered for the plaintiff, subject to the future decision of the Court. SMITH V. HESKETIL—This was an action on a promissory note for 10001. The defence was, that no consideration had been ever given to Mr. Hesketh for the rote. The Attorney-General said, that a Mr. Atkinson had undertaken to pro- cure Mr. Hesketh a loan of money from a wine-merchant, and took from Mr. Hesketh two blank acceptances to be filled up and given to the lender of the money.

Atkinson, however, afterwards pretended that he could not get the money, and tore up and threw into the fire two pieces of paper, which Mr. Hesketh thought to be the blank acceptances which he had given. This was a year before the date of the bill, and there was never after any transaction between Atkinson and Hesketh.

Atkinson being called into the box contradicted the statement of the Attorney- General in almost every particular ; and swore that he gave the money to Mr. Hesketh in three sums of 51,-3951., and 600/. Verdict for the plaintiff; for 1058/., principal and interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL. The sittings in this Court also were resumed on Monday last ; but no important or interesting case was tried on that day, or on Tuesday.

Wednesday, October 21. (By a Special Jury.) RurnEneont) v. EVANS. a clergyman.—The plaintiff, a surveyor and builder, complained that the defendant, by the uttering of certain words, and the writing ef certain letters, had injured him by procuring his suspension from the offices of surveyor, builder, and game-keeper to a society for the Propagation of the Gos- pel, called the New England Society. The defendant had pleaded several pleas ofjustification.

Mr. Sergeant Wilde addressed the Jury for the plaintiff. The New England Company hail been constituted for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts: it possessed considerable estates, and among these was the manor of Eris- well, of which place the defendant was the rector. The plaintiff had been ap- pointed surveyor and builder to the Company in that part of the country. The members reposed a considerable degree of confidence in him, and that confidence le possessed in the fullest manner at the moment of the transactions that would now be brought to the notice of the Jury. Some time before these occurred, the defendant, who was the rector of Eriswell, had appointed the plaintiff his church- warden there ; but the good feeling that then existed between them had been shortly auerwards changed, in consequence of the plaintiff having been appointed to the deputation of the manor after he (the defendant) had applied for it. They all knew that clergymen, not being always occupied, often pursued sporting with great ardour—the defendant was among the number, and had therefore applied for the deputation ; but tile Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Abroad pos- sibly thought that sporting was not the host way to propagate it at home, and they refused the deputation to the defendant and granted it to the plaintiff. The learned Sergeant having stated his belief that this was the first cause of the de- fendant's irritation against the plaintiff; then went on to detail the charges made by the defendant, as they were afterwards proved in evidence. The charges were, that the plaintiff was the most artful scoundrel in existence—that the natural punishment of the plaintiff's extravagance and misconduct was fast approaching— that lie was in every person's debt, and that his ruin could not long be delayed, and that lie was not deserving of any commiseration ; but that it was the defendant's anxious desire not to entail that ruin on another and an innocent party, and lie had not therefore disclosed the circumstances, nor would he ever disclose them to any other person. So lately as yesterday the defendant had amended his pleas, in order to withdraw one charge against the plaintiff.: that charge, like some others, had been most unnecessarily made, and showed, on the putt of the defendant, a motive which no one could hesitate to pronounce malicious. The substance of the declaration having been proved by evidence, Mr. Sergeant Taddy addressed the Jury for the defence. He said that the action was not of a common sort—an action brought against a clergyman of the Church of Eng- land by a man who sued in the character of a gamekeeper to a company for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England and the adjacent parts in America. It would, perhaps, be curious to know whether the immense wealth of this Com- pete, had been found so far to exceed the expense of propagating the Gospel in New England and the parts adjacent, that its surplus amount was now necessarily expended in the purchase of extensive manors for the propagation,. not of Chris- tianity and civilization, but of hares, pheasants, partridges, and dotterels, The action could not, however, be maintained, as the communications alleged to be libellous were made by the defendant confidentially to the treasurer of the Com- pany, the treasurer having previously requested the defendant to superintend the conduct of the plaintiff Sergeant Taddy called no witnesses. The Lord Chief Justice left the case to the Jury ; and they, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 150/.

Thursday, October 22.

PONTIFEN. AND ANOTHER V. DUNSTAN AND OTHERS.—This was an action by extensive coppersmiths in the City, for the recovery of 260/., being the value of work and labour done by them for the Imperial Distillery Company. The de. fendants upon the record were numerous, and considerable delay arose front the difficulty of making out all the separate facts which made the defendants partners in the concern and liable for its obligations. The Jury, at eleven o'clock at night, returned a verdict for the whole amount laid in the declaration.