Lent Assizes.
(Before Lord ChiefBaron (tRAA%r, an71d a Special Jury.) CIVIL SIDE- HAXt.Et V. THOMPSON. Mr. ADOLPH'US (witlh whloM wele Mtr, PLATT and Air. CLA- RIDGE) stated this was an. action f,r slariderous words, conveying charges of the most heinous and revolting nature against the plain tiff who was the son.of a most respectable brewver at Ctoydon. The fatlser of the plaintiff had, in a great.measure, retired from the ac. tive management of.the brewery confidingit to the care of hiS son. The defendant had for upwards of20 years been in the employ of Mr. '-armer, sen.; he'first came into the brewery sas lerk,in the counting-house, since which he rose foom one situation to -another till he filled the most confidential. In be early part of last year Mr. Thompson had been-discharged.; he had, howyever, during the long period oC his servitude, a4cquired a sufliien,c to establish.him- .elf as aprivate brewer ir the same town witl iis old emplojer For omne short period preceding the, defendant's discharge, it.liad been observed that the walls of Croydon and its neigbb6urho.d had been chalked with inscriptionsi of the most 'diabolical descrip tion, imputing to the plaintif.fconductthemostabborreni tomanly feelings. This had been observed for some time, witboout its being known howv the f-oul charge had originated, ox wvho wasAjhe concclrd assassin; atlength, the defendant.thought'propiw. to renegt,. in the most public manner, to several,persons, that the ptaintif , Charles' Harman, had been guilty of a most atrocious offcnee. It appeared that. the plaintiff's father had Cor ,ome yeaxl occupied Hale,pulc, near Croydon.. The defendant ,in. the same conversatiQns, had added, that "4 three feinalca had gone into Hale-park. twoofwhoni were found, but the. third was mur. dered-that -she was never-found ;" insinuating that the pisintiW waa concerned inthemurder. Wthen tltdete chargeswere.pulicly inade,there was but one course for the plantifftto adopt, if he me&nt to bold up bis head in society. He had,. imanediately the- author.oF these sladVfS was knwn, ealed to -y orhis gountty. The damages had heNL laid at 5,0UUL,. which nie uoightthe pleaaer had not:overrated, if the charges were irmade witla,ny foundation,, 'of. which-the jury would bsconixvncd; for'the defendw4, had therebeen the abadow of a retende for them,-wvould have. ut a justifica.tion on the record; he had, howpver, contented hiFnFelf wits3 pleading tiat hehad not uttered .tbe 'words.. The learned. counsd. concluded a most eloquent appeal to. the reason aqd..fedlings of.the jury, and celled several witnesses, who proved the expresssOn3 euput, to the defendant irL the record. ... . . .. AlIr MAIVRYATT- (with.whoni were.Mr.-GusrtIrY and Mr. Serr geant TADDY) addressed thejury. for-the defendant- eudcavoutr ing to show- that the words uttered were whsll. without .nalices an* had merely -been a repetition of what had b'een.written on the walls. The time.the fatherot' the pl'intff had continpe4 the de. fendant- in his. employ was 0sufflqient. to.provahf coul-notbethe character.new sought to.be flised to hin. . A -verdict' howvever murt- pass against' bi1m; because'-be 'wava-tAtin, a situation to dis- prove the attering the langassge,t 'The ,ircumatan,ces. if. the. de- endantwery very narrow, and he'had wife anachildreedepending on him fior sueport b he ho4edi. thexefore, the Jutry wouldl not inict on .hirn by their esedict shat must; be his -ruin-. . .* Thle. LoasO CsuEF B BUOs I uitpmea upY the. evidence, .zt4ting that it was very s-Aht indeed- a to chalking the wvall; with.xespect to the other *,"rt of-the case, no.doubt could remaib. .. Ti.e ,Jury retired. for aqgustrter of-an hoar, .ad .returned a verdict f<or the plaintiff-D.a,mages Of,;. the Foreman adAng, that -the atrocityof the conduct f tbe-defen4ant would lhave induced them to have given,a-nutih.larger stim 4but from a ,feeling fer his family* and theirignoraneoofKhit7 cixessustsneea ............. .... LENT ASSIZES.. ~~- KINGSTON, SURREY, TuX^SDAY, APRIL 1.