Court Of Exchequer, Friday, Feb. 12. (.oirlgmys rn JaGico, aoler 1-.Wary lernz, before r. 13aron PARKE, 4c. ) .ir. Baron k'AaIa delivered the judgment of the court in this case, which was argued before their Lordships on Wed- nesday last. It may be borne in mind that a rule for a new trial had been obtained on the ground of misdirection bv Lord Chief Justice Tindal. who was of opinion that the sc- tion having been brought to recover damages for a false charge of felony, in appropriating the hidden contents of a certain bureau bought by the defendant at an auction, it did not signify what passed at the sale, as,wbether the auctioneer had said be was not selling the contents of the lot but only the lot itself, in his opinion, whatever might have passed could not alter the case, there having been a voluntary delivery of the articles to the plaintiff, whick were aleged to have been afterwards stolen bv him Under this state of things, his lordship, Mr. Baron Parke, now intimated, that upon mature consideration it was the opinion of the Court that the Lord Chief Jnstice was wrong in treating what had passed at the auction as being wvholly immaterial, as nothing could make the case amount to a elonious act on the part of the plaintiff. It was, on the contrary, the opinion of the Court, that if the plaintiff was warned by the auctioneer that the contents, whatever they might be, wo.re not intended to be sold to him, his conduct in appropriating the contents to his owvn use wvas a felony. The case was one of finding, and there was no douibt but that under the old law this would not have been considered to be a felony. The old law, however, had undergone a clange in that respect; where a man found by accident a pocket book, there was no doubt no felonious act in taking it up, for that was quite consistent with perfect innocence, and an intention to find the true owner and restore the lost property to him. If, however, on searching the contents, the finder should conceive and execute the idea of depriving the owvner of its contents by appropriating them to his own use, then there wvas no doubt but that he nwould be guilty of a felony. So here, there was no intention of taking the cash and other articles in the bureau when first it came into the possession of the plaintiff, while there was, of course, no intention of delivering them to him on the part of the auctioneer or owvner, as their existence was not known to any of the parties. Knowing this fact, for it must be taken to be admitted for the sake of this argument, that the auctioneer had said he was not selling the contents, the plaintiff must be taken to haie known that the property subsequently found in the bureau could not have been meant to pass to him, and that therefore it ought to have been returned by him to the owner. Instead of this, how- ever, he appropriates to his own use the whole contents till compelled to give up a considerable portion of it. The takiig and appropriation of those contents, then, under such circum- stances, constituted, in the opinion of the Court, a clear act of felony; and as the question at the trial was in fact whether any felony had been committed or no by the plaintiff, it was most material for the * to have bad their attention dranvu to the conversation which was alleged to have taken place at the auction, in order that they might come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject. As this had been withdravn from the consideration of the jury, there ought to be a new trial. The verdict, therefore, which had been given for the plaintiff, with SOl. damages, must be set aside, and a new trial had. Rule absolute accordingly. (Sttuigs at .Visi Pries, at Ifesinsfeser, Wofre Lordl ABIs;aER and a Coammon Jury.) TILLEY V. JONE;S. This was an action for slander. Mr. Earle and Mr. Cherock conducted the plaintiffs case. Mr. Piatt and Mr. Atherton were for the defendant. It appeated that both nlaintiff and defendant were lod"in"- house keepers in Salisby.street, Strand,the former (the paie- tiff) occupying the house Nfo. 2, and the latter (the defendant) residing in the house No. 21, exactly opposite. In Midsummer last the leases of all the houses in the street expired, and be- came the property of the Marquis of Salsbury. Previous to the expiration of the leases the tenants made application for a renewal of them. The defendant, on an intervew with the Marquis's agent, stated that the plaintifflkept a disreputable house, and harboured loose female characters, and it would be impossible for her to continue the tenancy of her house if the plaintiff was allowed to continue in hers. The defendant in alettershe wrote to the steward of the noble Mtarquisstated the same facts. The letter constituted the cause of action; to which the dcfendant pleaded a justification and the gene- ral issue. For the plaintiff, the letter was read containing the slander, and evidence was given by a young woman,the wvife of a medical student, who had married her while she resided in the house, that the house was conducted in an orderly and proper nianner. HIer evidence was corroborated by her husband, There was alse testimonygiven of the respectability of the plaintiff. For the defendant, several respectable witnesses stated that in the upper part of the house in the noon-day two females were frequently seen exhibiting themselves in a state of n'udity, which left no doubt as to the character of the house; and at between the hours of8 and 10 o'clock stiight, men and women were seen together at the door previous to their entering, and such scenes tooklplace which are unfit for publication. Mr. EARLE replied at considerable length. Lord AtNGoxP charged the jury at some length, and left it to their experience to reconcile the conflicting testimony of the witnesses on both sides. The Jury, sft-. bsoifs, b-'P consultation, found a verdilet for the plaintiff-Damages, 40s. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FRTDAY FPI 19) MERRY V. GREEN. JUDGENf'T