that of libel, it had unquestionably been proved. The publication of the pamphlet was an offence against the laws which could not be defended; and so far the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict. It would be for the jury to estimate what degree of damage the character of Mr. Wyatt was likely to sustain from the publication of that pamphlet, always bearing in mind the manner of its publication, and its very limited circulation. The jury then retired for a short time, and gave a verdict of 3001. damages. Gloucester Assizes, August.— Carter v. Thomas.-The plaintiff was a Mr. Carter, who had been living in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, about 15 months, in a style calculated to convey an idea of his being a man of fortune and respectability. The defendant was Mr. Thomas, jun. son of a silversmith in the Strand. The action was for a malicious prosecution from a warrant issued from Bow-streetoffice, and for verbal defamation. The damages were laid at 50001. It appeared by the evidence and cross examination of the witnesses produced for the plaintiff, that Mr. Thomas, jun. in consequence of Mr. Carter's having obtained goods from his father's shop in October last, obtained a warrant from Bow-street for his apprehension, on a charge of obtaining goods under false pretences, followed the plaintiff to Matson-house, his residence, in "the vicinity of Gloucester, and by means of stratagem, contrived to regain possession of the articles of jewellery, under the promise of returning them the following day, when he had given Mr. Carter reason to suppose he should bring with him the plate, which he had ordered to a considerable amount. Mr. T. returned to Gloucester with the intention of taking legal advice as to the most effectual manner of exposing the character of the plaintiff, who, Mr. Thomas ascertained, had but two months prior to his taking up his residence at Matson, in a ready-furnished house belonging to Lord Sidney, been discharged from the King's Bench prison, under the Insolvent Debtors' Act; his debts, according to his schedule, amounting to 12,000l. and the assets to liquidate those debts being only 191. 6s. 6d. Mr. Thomas was passed by a gentleman in a tilbury, who the sheriff's officer who accompanied him informed him was Mr. Stephens, a magistrate and banker in Glou cester, (a material sufferer by Carter,) and that most probably he was going to dine with Mr. Carter: this immediately determined Mr. Thomas to return to the house and expose Mr. C's true character before Mr. Ste phens, as a magistrate and a person who had, together with many others of the greatest respectability, become dupes to the specious and plausible manners of the plaintiff: he accordingly did so, and entered a drawing-room in Mr. C's house, where the party were assembled, and told them that Mr. Carter was a notorious swindler. Much altercation then took place, during which Mr. Carter struck the defendant, who, after the plaintiff's counsel failed; and those counts relative to the malicious prosecution were set aside, as no evidence was adduced to disprove the accuracy of the information on which the warrant was granted. Mr. Thomas had no occasion to call any witnesses; and after Mr. Baron Richards had summed up, the jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant. MISCELLANEOUS. PROPERTY. V. Chelmsford, Friday, March 15. (Special Juries.) — Sutton Barksworth and another. — This was an action of a novel sort. It was brought against the defendants, as owners of a vessel called the Gunson, for salvage of the lives of five seamen, and also a very small part of the vessel. The defendants had paid 501. into court. The plaintiff, Sutton, is resident at Colchester, in this county, and is owner of a small vessel called the Success. The master of the vessel gave the following account of the transaction after having convinced Mr. Stephens and others of the accuracy of his statements, left the house, assuring them that he should go to every respectable shop in Gloucester and make known Mr. Carter's character; observing, that although he had outwitted him in recovering his jewellery, yet he considered he had an important relative duty to perform to society at large. Mr. Thomas, as appeared by the evidence of many witnesses, did go round to the tradesmen of Gloucester, and in the most undisguised manner, with honest indignation made known to them the real history of Mr. Carter, who, at that time, was considered a man of immense property, and had incurred debts with various tradespeople to a very considerable amount; in fact, such was the high opinion entertained of him, that the freedom of the city of Gloucester had been presented to him. Carter left the neighbourhood the following morning, and had since been living at 57, Nelson-square, Blackfriars-road; and, from the cross-examination of his wit--That on the 6th of December nesses, it appeared, that none of his numerous creditors had been paid, except one person, who was paid a small sum, in order, as Mr. Dauncey, the counsel for the defendant, observed, that a larger might be contracted. Such were the grounds on which the action originated; and although the declaration contained counts, only one could be proved, which charged Mr. Thomas with having spoken the word "swindler," which was admitted not to be actionable, unless special damage could be proved, in which 13 last it was blowing a very heavy gale of wind, with a rolling sea, and there were several ships in the offing making signals of distress. He went out with the intention of assisting a large Russian vessel on the sands, when he perceived the Gunson lying on her beam-ends, and some men sticking to the wreck. He immediately turned his attention towards them, and with great danger and difficulty saved the mate and four men from inevitable death-they also picked up a yard, a boom, and some other pieces of the vessel, of no great value, not in the whole amounting to 501. This case being proved, Mr. Marryatt, for the defendants, said they were not at all liable in this action; for with respect to those parts of the vessel for which salvage was due, the defendants had given notice to the plaintiffs that they had abandoned them to the underwriters, and therefore whatever was due on that head was due from the underwriters, and not from the defendants. With respect to the other head of claim, namely, salvage for the lives of the men, no such claim existed in our law. It was a duty of humanity which the plaintiff's were morally bound to perform; at most it could only be considered as work and labour done for the defendant's servants. And it had been ruled, that where a servant had broke his leg in his master's employ, the master was not bound to pay the doctor. The defendants, however, though they were not liable for any thing, had nevertheless paid 501. into court, which was abundant compensation for the use of the plaintiff's vessel for the day which it was occupied. Mr. Justice Abbott said, that this action was the first instance he had ever recollected of a claim being made for saving the life of a man. There could not be any salvage for the life of man, for salvage was a reward proportioned to the value of the thing saved; but the law contemplated the life of man as above all measure of value. It was considered in law as inestimable, and although no recompence could in this case be legally demanded on that ground, he was sure that the humanity of British seamen would always be equally exerted on behalf of their fellow-creatures in distress. With respect to the articles of the vessel which were saved, and for which a salvage would be due, the defendant had disclaimed all title to them, and therefore they were not chargeable on that head. The only way in which the defendants might be at all chargeable in this action might be for work and labour, and saving the servants of the defendants for the plaintiff's benefit. The measure of this sort of benefit saved to the defendants, would be the value of the services so saved. The jury would on this head consider whether the 501. paid into court would satisfy this part of the case.-Verdict for the defendants. John Bennet, Esq. and others, v. The Rev. Thomas Prevost.-The plaintiffs in this cause are owners and occupiers of lands in the parish of Tisbury, in Wiltshire; the defendant is vicar of the same parish. It appeared, that in the year 1801, a bill was filed by the vicar in the Court of Exchequer, calling on the plaintiffs to account to him for the tithes in kind of the following articles :-cows, calves, heifers, eggs, poultry, and gar dens. The plaintiffs in their answer insisted, that there were in existence, in and throughout the parish, the following moduses, viz.-three-pence for a cow, sixpence for a calf, three halfpence for a heifer, one penny for eggs and poultry, and one penny for gardens. On the hearing in the the Exchequer, the Barons directed issues to ascertain the validity of such moduses, and the same were now tried before a special jury. The evidence on the part of the parish consisted of the testimony of many old persons, with receipts given by different vicars, all of which concurred in showing that the moduses had never varied, and had been in existence from time immemorial, except that, during the incumbency of the Rev. Mr. Nicholson, (who preceded the present vicar, the Rev. Mr. Prevost) there were a few instances of 3s. having been paid for each cow, and this sum had also been paid by two or three small occupiers to Mr. Prevost. The vicar relied on these variations, coupled with the circumstances of the augmentation made to the vicarage, by the Abbess and Convent of Shaftesbury, in the year 1360, and of two terriers remaining in the Bishop's registry. In the former is a grant to the vicar of "Lactagium seu Lacticinium," In the latter is mentioned a "Cow White;" and these words, it was contended meant the tithes of milk. Mr. Sergeant Lens, on the part of the defendant, insisted, that vicarial tithes were justified by the common law of the land; and that, although moduses were taken by the late Rev. Mr. Nicholson, it formed no rule for the present vicar, Mr. Prevost. It appeared that in the present case various modes of payment had been made in the parish, both for cows and for gardens; and he contended, that unless payments were unvaried and invariable, the modus could not be established. Mr. Prevost, he said, had certainly, on his first coming to the vicarage, acquiesced in receiving the modus; but he was not on this account shut out from his claim for vicarial tithes : no documents of a date antecedent to the year 1781 had now been produced, and an usage, like the present, of 40 or 50 years, was not sufficient to set aside the general rule and law of the land. Mr. Sergeant Pell, for the plaintiff, contended, that the modus, in this state, was fully established by the evidence of the various witnesses who had now proved its having been paid for a great many years; and he insisted it was a circumstance which greatly strengthened his case, that none of the books of antecedent vicars, proving the vicarial tithes to have been paid, had now been produced. The learned Sergeant then animadverted severely on the two miserable witnesses (as he called them) who had proved their having paid for the last few years, to the present vicar, the sum of 3s. per cow: one of those witnesses, when repeatedly asked why he had paid 3s. knowing that the other parishioners of Tisbury only had paid 3d. declined giving an answer; and when asked by a gentleman of the jury if he would have paid! more than 3s. if demanded, said he begged to be excused answering. The learned Sergeant concluded with impressing on the minds of the jury the great importance of the decision which they were called upon to make in this case; and which decision would, would, if given in favour of the defendant, most seriously affect the value of estates, not only in the parish of Tisbury, but in every parish throughout the kingdom where a modus in lieu of tithe was paid. Verdicts were found in favour of the parishioners, and in support of all the moduses except that for heifers, which was not insisted on, as being considered to be included in the modus for cows. Wilts Assizes, July.-Lord Rivers v. Thomas King and two others.This suit was instituted to ascertain the boundaries of the Chase of Cranborne; and involved, on one side, the most extensive royalty that was ever claimed by any subject, or perhaps by any sovereign prince; and on the other, the independent enjoyment of their property by all the owners of the soil throughout the range of that wide domain. The pleadings were shortly explained by Mr. Baily, who stated, that it was an action brought against the defendants for entering Cranborne-chase in a certain part, within that county, called Trow-down, and with their dogs, against the will of Lord Rivers, chasing and hunting his deer; which trespass the defendants had justified, on the ground that Trow-down was the freehold estate of the defendant King, that the deer were wrongfully eating his grass there, and that he and the other defendants, his servants, with his dogs, drove them off his land; to which plea the noble plaintiff had replied, that Trow down was part of his Chase of Cranborne, and that his deer were lawfully feeding there. Mr. Sergeant Lens, in an eloquent address, explained to the jury that the question upon these pleadings involved the right of Lord Rivers to exercise the privilege of his Chase, not only upon the land in which the defendants in this case were supposed to have trespassed, but over a very enlarged tract of country in the three counties of Dorset, Wilts, and Southampton, in all of which, during the lapse of many centuries, far beyond the reach of memory or tradition, the noble lord, and all those from whom he claimed, had exercised those privileges. He said, that the rights of the forest and chase, now to be exerted over this vast district, however obnoxious they might be to the feelings of those whom they affected-however injurious to the interests of individuals— were grounded in the ancient constitution of England, and were protected by that law which held every right as sacred, and would never permit the irritated feelings of men to justify the invasion of any right. He said, it was without dispute that Lord Rivers was entitled to the ancient royalty of the Chase of Cranborne, and that within that Chase, however straitened or extended, his deer were entitled to run without molestation; that the only question to be now determined was that of boundary; that all objections to the oppressive nature of his right, and all clamour respecting its origin, or the detriment which others sustained from its exercise, would be misapplied to the case. The jury had nothing to determine but |