chamber vers Robinson disapprove beardmore v Carrington will in action for a  malicious prosecution a advertisement put in the paper by defendant pen the  indictment be evidence though a information have be grant for it barn b r SC  but not S p action lie for malicious prosecution of a have indictment bull l n  p wicks v Fentum term Rep S p in a action for a malicious prosecution of a  indictment for perjury the chief justice allow the plaintiff to give in  evidence a advertisement put into the paper by the defendant of the find the  indictment with other scandalous matter though a information have be grant for  it as a libel not as he say that the jury be to consider it in damage but only  as a circumstance of malice upon the trial it appear the perjury be in assign  so that the now plaintiff can not have be convict and that exception be take  to it by the judge and he be acquit without examination of any witness but the  chief justice hold the action lie though it be a faulty indictment rely upon  the case of Jones v gwynn where the distinction in salk be deny and hold by  the whole court that the action will lie though the strange indictment be bad  a have indictment serve all the purpose of malice by put the party to expense  and expose he but it serve no purpose of justice in bring the party to  punishment if he be guilty whereupon the jury give the plaintiff damage and  the next term the strange report er p defendant move the court for their  judgement upon this point which be save at nisi prius and for leave to move  for a new trial after the court have give their opinion be grant and as to the  point of law the court make with the case of Jones v gwynn and the defendant  counsel the reason and authority of that case be to be shake then the  defendant move for a new trial on account of the excessiveness of the damage  and the court say it be but reasonable he shall try another jury before he be  final charge with l so a new trial be grant upon payment of cost and a new  trial be have the same damage be give again upon which the defendant apply to  the court who say it be not in their power to grant a three trial and so be  salk the case of clerk v udal ash v ash comb hurry v Watson Tr Geo term Rep n  send for wood v gunston style burr Lord townsend v dr Hugh contra Atk Vns I to  differ Mod Mod roe v hawk lev Wezfor v Berkley burr Chum v Briggs cite ib  beardmore v a r hang n will duberley v gunning term Rep contra buller J C to  differ vide huckle v money will where a new trial be refuse on the ground that  the damage be not excessive so also Bedshaw v brook will Bruce v Rawlins will  ducker v wood term Rep Leith v pope black Benson v Frederick burr in dove v  Martin comb but in most of these case the court admit their power to grant a  new trial for excessive damage in case of tort and see the case cite in  Hayward v Newton post strange easter term george king in b r sir Robert  Raymond Knt Lord chief justice sir Littleton powys Knt sir John fortescue  aland Knt James Reynolds Esq justice sir Philip York Knt attorneygeneral  Charles Talbot Esq solicitor general