He promised us a very exemplary deportmentbut we soon found that he was constitutionally imprudent. Notwithstanding all our advice, and entreaties, he soon got himself into little troublesBehold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth. —James iii, 5. These little things were communicated in whispers; myself, and a number of others, followed after him, and for a time, could reconcile and silence uneasiness: Mr. Barclay had prosecuted Doctor Cook in the Common Pleas of Somerset County, for defamation; and on trial obtained a small judgment against Doctor Cook, The defendant being dissatisfied with the judgment, in consequence of his most important evidence having been overruled by the court, (thereby preventing him from proving the facts that the plaintiff, [Mr. Barclay] had charged him with) Doctor Cook moved the cause into the Supreme Court; and the judgment obtained against him before the Common Pleas was reversed: at length Judge Pennington's Reports of the adjudicated cases in the Supreme Court, came into the congregation, where it was laid down at considerable length, and was a heavy stroke on the character, as well as the usefulness of Mr. Barclay.—The following is a Report of Judge Pennington's, Febuary Term, 1807, page 169.

THE defendant in error, the Rev. David Barkley, brought an action for words in the common pleas of Somerset, against the plaintiff in error, Doctor Ambrose Cook. There were three counts in the declaration :

The first charged the defendant below with falsely, maliciously, and wickedly speaking the following false and slanderous words of the plaintiff below: "He was ketched with Mrs. Cain by the board fence, and had to do with her and I can prove it."

The second count charged these words: "It can be proved, that Mr. Barkley was ketched with Mrs. Cain and had to do with her." The third count charged the following words: "He is great with Mrs. Cain, and hath committed adultery with her, and I can prove it," with the proper inuendoes.

The defendant plead the general issue, not guilty to all the counts. With this plea he gave notice, that at the trial he would give in evidence, that it was reported that the plaintiff had been guilty of the charges contained in his declaration. On the trial of this cause, in January, 1805, the plaintiff, Mr. Barkley, gave in evidence by one Jeremiah Fisher, that in a conversation which the witness had with defendant Doctor Cook, after the sessions of the church had met, the defendant said to the witness, it was now said, the plaintiff had been ketched in the fact of being with Mrs. Cain at the board fence, and had to do with her. The witness asked how it could be proved? The defendent answered it would be proved by Howell's boys. That a number of persons belonging to the Plaintiff's congregation had left it, and would not attend his preaching; that the defendant further said to the witness, that it was a scandalous thing for a minister if true. The witness further said, that from the declarations made by the defendant, the impression on his mind was, that the plaintiff had had criminal conversation with Mrs. Cain. On cross-examination Fisher said, that since the meeting of the sessions of the church, a number of the congregation had not attended the duties of the church. On a question from the plaintiff's counsel, he said, that he knew of no other reason but that they were dissatisfied with the conduct of the plaintiff'; that the declarations of the defendant were made two or three weeks

after the sessions met; that the conversation took place in Robert Hughes' hatter shop; the said Hughes being present. On further cross-examination, Fisher said, that if it was followed up, it could now, and would be proved.* The plaintiff farther gave in evidence by John Harriot, that the said John Harriot was a member of the ses- · sions in the plaintiff's congregation; that bad reports had got into circulation against the plaintiff; that he had endeavoured to discover the truth of them by inquiring of several persons; that the sessions were called and previous thereto he accidentally met with the, defendant, when the defendant told him that something ought to be done respecting the plaintiff, and informed him, that he, the defendant, had been told that there was a woman in the mountain who knew a good deal about him, and was told that she would swear that she caught him in the very fact; that the witness did request the defendant, being one of the members of the congregation, and having a seat in the church, go and take what she could say on the subject in writing, and hand it to him, which the defendant did, and delivered it to the witness, who returned it to the defendant; and it was afterwards produced to the sessions by him. The plaintiff further gave in evidence, by Nancy Sebring, that meeting with the defendant, the defendant told her that the plaintiff had tried to injure him all he could, and that the defendant said, I will try to hear all I can against him. The plaintiff farther gave in evidence, by James Little, that the defendant came be fore the Presbytery, who asked him if he came as an accuser? That the defendant said that he was appointed by a committee. The witness did not know that the congregation appointed a committee on the business. After which.

to

The defendant gave in evidence, by Robert Hughes, that he was present and heard the conversation alluded to by Fisher, at the hatter's shop, and that the defendant then said, that he had heard that the plaintiff was seen by the board fence and had to do with her, and that a man told him that he would swear that he saw him there. The defendant farther gave in evidence, by John Van Vleet, that in a conversation between the defendant and Fisher concerning the conversa

* This is not altogether intelligible, but is so in the bill of excep. tion; I presume it is meant that Fisher said that the defendant said So at the hatter's shop.

tion at the hatter's shop, he heard Fisher say, that he had never said, that the defendant said that be could prove the charge against the plaintiff, but that it was only so said and reported. The defendant further proved by Tunis Ten Eyck, that in the conversation between the defendant and Fisher, concerning what had passed at the hatter's shop, that Fisher said that defendant had said that, that there was a witness he believed would prove that plaintiff was in the barn yard with Mrs. Cain; that this was stated by the defendant as a report. On cross-examination, Ten Eyck said, that he had heard it reported that the plaintiff was great with Mrs. Cain, that he had a seat in the church and left it, but not in consequence of any thing said by defendant.

The defendant further gave in evidence, by David Kelley, Esquire, that there was a terrible report against the minister; that a meeting of inquiry was appointed by the sessions and trustees; that the sessions met, and called for a person or persons to come forward; and that the defendant was among a number of others, and that the defendant handed the examination of Mrs. Cave; and the result of the meeting was, that the witness was requested to inform the congregation that there was no foundation in the reports, but as they could not regularly set as a sessions, the pastor being accused, and having no other clergyman to preside agreeably to the rule of the sessions, and not having gone into any evidence on the subject, a part of the congregation was dissatisfied; and it was agreed by the congregation and the plaintiff, that the Presbytery should be called; that the plaintiff published the meeting and the object of it in open church; that at the meeting of the Presbytery, they publicly called for a person or persons to come forward as accuser or accusers against the plaintiff, when the defendant offered to make verbal charges; but he was informed that verbal charges could not be received by the rules of the church, but that the charges must be in writing, and that it required two witnesses to support a fact in the ecclesiastical court; that the defendant then withdrew, and after some time returned with a number of charges against the plaintiff, subscribed by the defendant as an aceuser, representing the committee of five persons appointed by a meeting of part of the congregation; that the accusers were a reputable part of the congregation; that the defendant brought the charges forward, and they were heard; that the defendant had a seat in

the church, and that his wife was in full communion. The defendant farther gave in evidence, by several witnesses, that it was a reputable part of the congregation, and the principal supporters of it, who met and appointed the defendant as one of the committee of five to appear before the Presbytery; that the committee on the day of meeting, appointed the defendant to bring forward the charges; that the writ in the cause then under trial was issued previous to the meeting of the Presbytery.

The defendant did then offer to prove that certain persons had declared that the plaintiff was ketched with Mrs. Cain by the board fence and had to do with her; and also, that the plaintiff was great with Mrs. Cain antecedent to the speaking of the words sworn to have been spoken by the defendant; and that those persons have sworn to the same before the Presbytery, and are now ready to swear the same again, which evidence so offered was over-ruled by the court.

The defendant then offered to prove, that when he went before the Presbytery, he took Ann Cave as a witness to prove the charges made by the defendant against the plaintiff; that the witness swore to the fact there, and is ready to do the same here. The court agreed that the said Ann Cave might be examined, to prove that she was sworn as a witness before the Presbytery but no further.

The defendant then offered to prove that the said Ann Cave had informed Jacob De Groat, Esquire, of those facts, which have been offered to be proved by the defendant: and that that information was the cause of the meeting of the Presbytery. This the court over

ruled.

The defendant then offered to prove that long before the meeting of the sessions, and before the words were spoken by the defendant, that the plaintiff had acknowledged that these reports were in existence, and that they originated in the family of the plaintiff, which the court over-ruled.

To these several decisions of the court, the defendant took a bill of exception; and after verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the court below, the defendant below brought a writ of error to this court.*

* The whole of the proceedings on the trial in the common pleas is reported, that the opinion of the judges may be the better understood.