Court Of King's Bench, We...
LAW RRPOPT. .1 lUtUUl , pu.uau --th. *tlI jJLUcuUI Cui fue considIer. ation of the London and ' Middlesex new trials %(KY v'. 1toWn. This was an action for ribel by tr. May, the ]ate vestry cltrk ofr Bethnal.green, against Mr. Brown, a preaheer, azid arose out of the well-known dissensions in that parisfr. At the tried before the Lord Chief Jusmice at Westminster, it was proposed on the partor the defendant to put in evidence libelou6 papers circuhlted by the plaintiff on the defendant, but not immediately relating te the papers on which the action was founded, nor directly tending to pro, yoake them. His Lordship rejected this evidence, bur aIlowed , witness to be asked generally whether Mr. blay had authorzed the diffusion of handbills defamatory of Mr. Brown, *ho answered it the affirmative. It was also urged on the behalf of the defendant, that there was a variance between the allegation attd the proof, in- asmuch as the declaration alleged that certain monies wete apuro.. priated by the parish in furtherance of the prosecutions aMainst fIr. MiSerceron and for bringing them to a successful ipue; whereas ther were not appropriated to the payment of anv expenses tilt after that peson had bten convicted and had received judgmentr It was ar_ gued, that as the libel was described not o'qlY as " of aDd condernink the p1aintiff,~' but "of and concernisg the matters aforesaid "al those matters must be strictly pTroved. *ihis objection -was, hoWever5 overrulcd,and the plainiift obtained a verdict for 1001 A rule was obtained for a new tri on the point of evidence, or for anont,;.i uii vile point ut variancet aimu ailer several recoMVnienat.i.nS frrel,~ the Court for an adjustment, tleseapointsnowcame on for argumenL Mr. SCARLtETT. Air. OutTEEy, and Mr. HOLT .shOwed cause against the rule. Or. the point ofevidence, they urged the great in. convenience which would arise from thereception of proof of many libels on an action forone: theinjusticeofallowing such documents to be read when the plaintifT could not anticipate their production - and tbe otolabsinceof anylegalanalogy which eahldsustaizltheprin- ciple set up by the defendant. On thbquestien of variance, thertlgc-, that the allegation was dihisible, and that ever if take, as entiri' that part which was disproved did notaffecttheabcaracterefthelibel. TheATTORHEY-GEXEILAL,Mr. BROUGMAM,atndIr-K'ELLy in support of the rule, on the question of evidence, relied OD the case of " Finnerty and Tipper," and on the point of variance, contende& that the cssevwas notone of averrlonit, but of description and that one libel had been alleged andoi kocter proved. The CouRT held both obSeWiosvinvalid. They considered tl,at great inconvenience wvould arice fnirn admitting thbevidencerejectedv though they were not prepared to decide that tht general evidegce should hav been received; and Sthey regarded thiave*nent as subh wit te~dfed b te plaintiff' agnt PO T he ur a te i This was an action of trover to recover two Prussian bonds pledged v7ith dthdefendant by the plaintiFs- agent. The jury at the trii4 negatiyi'the suggestion of fraud, and found a verdict for the ae- fcndst~t)-.ubject to the question whetherthe bonds could be pledged; snd ibis-question now caine on to be argued. Mfr. MALxYAT, Mr. Gu3twzY, and AMr. POLLOCK cotendel that Ptuesian bonds, being like Exchequer bills, might like theig begle8ged, as they were transferrable from hand to hand, and pay- T Sbearer. Thae ATTOXXIZY-GEXERAL and Mlr. JoiEs, on the otherside likened these bonds to India bonds, anti contended that tbey cotuli not be pledged, and therefore that the plaintiff was entitled t the verdict The COURtT held that as these hondst purported to be payable to bearer, conrenience required that they should be likened to bills of exchange, endorsed in blank, or to Bank notes, and that any perros possesing them sould confer a title to any other to whom he might deliver them, nd wrho might honestly receive them. They there. foewstai.nd the verdict. THE EIN*G V. TIMdStiY POWELL, ES5. The ATTORNET-GENERAL mentioned the case of this defend- ant, who was found guilty at the last sittings for Middlesex of per- jury. He was instructed to move for a new trial, but as it was too. late to-day, perhaps the Court would allow him to move when the defendant should be called up to receive judgment. The COURT acceded to this request. observing, that as this was ,w ceiminal case, the party might have the benefit of any suggestion wthich would arise when the report should be read. COURT OF KING'S BENCH . ESTRiNSTER JUNE 2;