The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-15 00:00:00

saw Iniclitgenct.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JAN. 13.
D mmo D 7 lAANOO.- DIMS LOID CANTIZI.L. AND PAPTICNII ODLO.
SIDON WISEMAN, AND CINANIPIDN.
_ _ .

tll 411111 V. lii HINZ, Di LA 110111.--
011 ill 0101.001 CAL MUSEUM

--------
I. this cosh a rata had bus struck by the parochial au-
Mcwities of St. James's tit the Om/ogled Kumar is Jar-
myn-street, Walt which Ilk Bury De la Beebe ea behalf
St that iadittatima had ansaled, and with the consent of
IlbeACtaes the theta le see forth in a special ease for the
of thk Mud MI gaestiou whether then was
Wait a beasilami essaymelem ci the premises as would render
them liable to be ememed Is the relief of the poor. Tee tally were beard lest Mesh eailWete et the tile. fatly
is sow esitimne. Their ledeelps took time to out-
=▪ Wets& judgment.
Led Campbell sew delivered the judgment of the court.
H. WI ON Sift wend that the property wee is thel
eulogies pemmeiss el the crows for public purposes the
court was of opiates that no sue was liable to be rated for
it. Her liajestywas seised of the property in fee simple,
Nthough by the Bre sad 9 Vie.. lOCCommissioners
Woods sad Fosts wen entitled tot
take and au the
property, they could only do so for the purposes
of management, and net kw the pimp° es of oceans-
Um. Undoubtedly the land might have been so occupied
as to reader somebody liable, but in ibis cow there was an
oceupet•on by certain persons with the sanction of the Lords
of the Treasary, under the authority of parliamest, but
there was no beer ficial occupation in soy one. The case
said that the rats was to be affirmed if any one was in the
beseficial occupation of the premises, and therefore it was
locum be nt on the respondents to show there was such a bene-
isial occupation in some one. It was not contended that Sir
Beery de la Beebe was a beneficial occupier. The cue
as egaisst the Commissioners of Woods end Forests bad
bun very soon abandoned. The lords of the treasury could
mot be shown to be inch in fact, Der could any isfereacs of
law to that effect be supported. The principal reliance of
the leorned counsel who appeared kr the respondents was
ma the supposed occupation of the professore, but they had
so ouspation beyond that which was necessary for the de-
livery of lectures. It was true the protezeon were allowed
to receive fees for their lectures, but as they wero only per.
mined to occupy the buildin4 for the purposes of instrno-
ties they had really no more occupation than the pupils.
They were only allowed to come at specified hours. Then it
was said that the beusekerper was the ()Aniline; hut the
ere bead she had no more occupation then wee abso-
lutely necessary for the discharge of the duties imposed
es ler by the government. In point of tact,
there was no distinction between this case and that of the
British Museum, or between this and that of the Royal
Academy, when the latter was properly explained. lir.
Janke Coleridge, who had concurred in the judgment in
the case of the Royal Academy, had explained that the
judgment in that ease really proceeded on the ground that
the building was crown property. The case of the "Queen
v. Temple" did not apply ; there the property was vested in
Mr. Keys lihnttleworth, though as a trustee, and besides
than was a very beneficial occupation. The can of " Gam
bier v.Lydfcred" had been much relied on byths respondents,
but in that cue the farm had been taken on lease, and there
was a beneficial occupation of it. On the whole the court
was of opinion that there must be judgment for the appal-
Mat.
Judgment for the appellant accordingly. .
sea 4171111 O. TIM 'VATIC= AND TRIASIIIIIN DP TES
NAST SIDING OF TORIUNION.—ANNUITY.

In this cue • rule had been granted oiling on the ho-
lden and treasurer of the East Riding of Yorkshire to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue to the treasurer,
commanding him to pay the Rev. William Hildyard the
sum of 601., being four quarters of an annuity granted to
him by the quarter 1141111i01111 as • retired chaplain of the
House of Correction at Beverley. By the 4th rho. IV ,
c. 44, wit a chaplain became unable, " from age and
infirmity," to discharge his duties, the justices of the
peas* had the 'power to grant him an annuity propor-
tionate to his time of envies oat of the rates ap-
plicable to the building and repairing of prisons, provided
that such annuity did not sicced two-thirds of the salary of
the succeeding chaplain. Mr. Hildyard hid discharged his
ditties with great Seel and efficiency up to the period of his
resignation. In 1850 additional duties were imposed on
Dim, and he was obliged to obtain the assistance of another
clergyman. The justices objected to this, and said that if
the duties were too much he had better tender his resigns-
tioe, and be accordingly did resign in 1852. It was not,
however, until October, 1863 that he memorialised the jus-
time for the retiring pension on the ground of age sad in-
firmity. The sessions to which the application was made
granted it; but a future sessions reseiaded the order, and
the t,euurer refused to pay the amount. Hence the present
application.
Sir F. Thesiget, Mr. Watson, and Mr. P. Thompson
showed cause against the rule, contending that the resigna-
tion was attributable to pecuniary difficulties, and not to
ago and infirmity, for which alone the act provided. They
also urged that the order of sessions was had, as it stated
"age or infirmity," instead of "age and infirmity."
Mr Bramwell and Mr. Hawking, in support of the rule,
submitted that tlio sessions had to decide whether Mr.
Hildyard was entitled to the annuity ur no,, and they had
done so.
Lord Campbell thought that u it would be desirable to
bear (watt arguments on the subject, the rule would be
made absolute.
.Rule absolute.

TU2 QUITE V. TILE 111111111 OT WAIL,
TEM TOWIN COOK IL 02 81211.1201111.74.

SUERITT.

ICICSIIIRS ♦IID
.DLTTINS or •

- -
This was • rule for a certiorari to bring up • certain in-
q•isition before the Under-Sheriff of Warwickshire, with •
view to its being quashed. By a local act for the improve-
ment of the town of Birmingham, in which is incorporated
the Lend Clauses Act, the Town Council have the power to
require every prop trot of • hoar in the borough which
projects, to set it beck, making compensation to the owner of
the property, and, in the event of there being any dispute as
to the mount of compensation, then the Town Council are
to true their warrant to the sheriff, or other wpm officer,
to summon • jury te arm such compensation in the manner
provided for by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. In
this case the Town Council required Mr. Richard Lunt to
met back his h..use. Mr. Lunt being dissatisfied with the
amount of compensation offered, required the Town Council
to issue their warrant " to the sheriff or other proper officer"
to summon • jury to assess the compensation. They ac-
cordingly Owned their warrant to the high sheriff, and an
inquisition was taken before the under sheriff, when the
compensation was amused at 2391. Mr. Lunt was still dire-
Belied, and having eearnined the rate-books, discovered
that the high sheriff (W. C. Alston, Esq.) was a ratepayer
fa the borough. The rule wee subsequently moved for on
the ground that the sheriff being • ratepayer, was au in-

•
termed patty. -
Mr. Mellor and Mr. Field contended that the interest of
the sheriff was no disqualification to the warrant.
Lord Campl,ell (without calling on Mr. Bovill on the
other side) said that the rule must be made absolute. By
the 14th atelier' of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act,
under which the proceedings in this ease were taken, if
sheriff were interested in the malt of any inquisition to be
taken under his set, the warrant to summon the jury was
to go to the coroner and not to the sheriff. It was clear
the local set did not take away the disqualification of the
sheriff in this ease. If the legislature intended to do so,
the high sheriff's name would have been mentioned as well
as the pastime and the under-sheriff. The inquisition in
this cue might have been taken with perfect fairness, but
the law said that in all these eases where the sheriff was in-
termted he mast not set. This was a principle of jarispru-
denm which it was the bounden duty of the court to uphold,
and therefon the rale most be made absolute.
Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT.-JAN. 13.
00700-al AT 1011 PIITL-110010 11/16 JVATICI 1110 AIM 0
AMIS.

At the @Mimi of the Court the teamed judge stated that
in future, in all undefended causes when the parties
applied for lllAClitioll in four days, it would be leased, but if
immediate emmituon were required, the application must be
made on &Merit.

CAIIIIIIS.

1113111NRIVI 07 TIM 00V1T.

His lordship inqsired of the bar if it would be incon-
venient to them to remove the bumbles. of this court to the
Court of Chancery, which a mach larger court, and, u he
thought, better fitted for c.ondueting business at nisi pries.
Mr. Chamber and Mr. Edwin James expressed their
opinion that this would be an improvement, and tot the
bar would be much obliged to his lordship for suggesting
the change.
The nisi pries businees of this court will therefore in
future be conducted in the Court of Chancery.

OLASIIII V.

Mr. Malone and Mr. Lush were counsel for the plain-
tiff; Mr. E. James end Mr. Hawkins represented the de-
fendant.
The plaintiff was an auctioneer and surveyor, and brought
his action to recover 601. for work done under contrast for
defendant, the proprietor of some property at Paddington.
It appeared from the plaintiff's cue that the defendant
asked him to procure 6,0001. for him on the mortgage of his
property, and that he agreed to get the money, his charge
being 11. per sent. He had been at great trouble in pro.
curing the money, but the negotiation went off, as he
alleged, through the acts of the defendant. The plaintiff
had been subsequently employed by a former mortgagee of
the property to sell it under a foreclosure, end although he
did not proceed to a sale he charged 2421. for hia services,
which wee reduced one half by the Muter, which sum the
defendant bad pail.
The ease for the defendant wee that the plaintiff had
agreed not to sake any charge if he did not procure the
money, which he had failed to do, unless the def. ndant
agreed not to great lease. The defendant had made great
pecuniary easuillees to obtain the money; he had paid
3.,0001: se eats, and had sold property to the value of 14,0001.
V. The plaintiff had always urged the defendant
property.
• nursed a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—JAW. 13.
VANCO.-HIPONI CNIVP SINTWA ASITID. NIL IVITION
ONIDDIWILL, AND VA, MST= WILLIAM..
NZ 111C/L—P1.01413111021.
Serjeant Atkinson moved for a prohibition in thi'
iss prevent the Improvement Commissionen and the
Searborough, from farther adjudicating en, or

!Or 750747
to seU the pa
The jag a
COUBI
1111111111.1 II 1
Mr. SOfilt4
likt er, to pi
31eyor of SJ