Court Of King's Bench, We...
S IIIS was an intictment tor obstructing an archway, leading from Sidmouth-street into James-strect. which was stated to be a public highvray for horses, cart;, and carxiages. Air. Debney wvas the last occupier of the house over the gateway, and Air. Lyon preceded himn; and both were charged with stopping the thoroughfare, to the injury of the public. Themain question of fact in the case was, whether there had been a dedication of the way to the pulblic, and an acceptance by the pub- lic of the way. There was also a question of law, whether, sup. posing the way dedicated to the public, it shouhl not have been spe- cially described in the indictment, as only the passage below the arch was claimed as dedicated and uccepted. AIr. justice LITTLEDALE, who sat for the Lord Chief Justice, inclined to think tbe description wrong; and that there was no evi- dence to affect MIr. Lyon. Under his directions, the jury acquittd Alr. Lyon, and found MIr. Debncygailty, subject to a point of law. PARTINGTON V. WORTTI. This action was brought by AIr. Partington, fornerly a draper in London, and lately a tradesman at Billingborough, in Lincolnshire, against hMr. Worth, an attorney, to recover a compensation for da- tnage sustainedl by slanderous wards. The woris were not action- able in themselves, and therefore thc special dam ye laid in the declaration constituted the foindation ef the claim of the plaintiff to recover. The imputed slander wal, In substance, that the plain- tiff having disposed of part of his business in town to a Mlr. Leishman for 501., afterwards carried on the trade himself, and procured the customers to whomi he was by contract to introduce Air. Leishlman to continue their dealings with himself; and also that he had acted disihoncstly towards a Ar. Alansfield, withi whom he had been connected in the country. The special danage alleged was, first, that Mlr. Abraham, an attorney, engaged to conduct a reference oni the part of Air. Partington, re- fused to proceed without an advance of nionev; and second, Lhat the Directors of the Beacon Fire-ofhce disntissed hinm from the ap- poiatment ot agent to that institution. To support the first part of the case, Mlr. Abraham was called; but tihere was no legal proof of the existence of the action out of whicli the reference arose2 and consequently this part of the case failed before any exanmination of its merits. In proof of the second cause of action, Mlr. Laing, one of the Di- rectors of the Beacon, was called, who proved that Mlr. lVorth used the expressions alleged as to the affair with AMr. Leishman, in consc- quence of which he ordered Mlr. Partington to he diemissed from the agency. On cross-examination, however, he stated, that a similar com- munication had been made to him by iir. leishman himsell, which had. operated considerably in inducing hint to procuire the plaintiff's dismissal. There was also no proof of the plaintiff's appointment, except the books of the office; antl as the clerk who made the entries was not present, these amounted to no evidence at all. The case having thus failed on both points, the plaintiffwas non. Baited. - I CUUKT OF KING'S BENCH. WATI Tr-ri nv, R THE KING V. T.YONf AwN n-fRtv.v