The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-08 00:00:00

COVRT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.

QWSBN V. THE CHURCHWARDENS OP STEP-
NET.— MANDAMUS TO INSPECT THE MINUTES OP •
VESTST-111ETING. This WWI a rule that called on
the churchwardens of the parish of Stepney to show
cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue,
commanding them to show to the prosecutor the
minute, of • vestry -meeting held for the purpose of making
a church-rate in obedience to a monition from the Bishop of
London. The rule had been obtained on affidavits which
showed a written demand and a refusal, and stated the ob-
ject of the prosecutor to be, to inform himself for his guid-
ance, es a rated parishioner, what rate had actually been
made. Sir F. Thesiger, Q.C., showed cause, and read affi-
davits which stated that the prosecutor, after a church-rate
had been voted on the occasion referred to, had entered the
vestry, whither the rector had been obliged to adjourn the
meeting on account of the disturbance which the announce-
ment that the rate was carried had elicited ; had planted
himself by the rector, who was entering the proceedings ;
had insisted on following the rector's pen while he was CO en-
gaged, and had, in fact, read the entry. The learned coun-
sel, therefore, insisted that the prosecutor did not stand in
need of the information which he sought by this writ to ob-
tain i and that his affidavits ought to have disclosed • specific
legitimate object to be secured by means of this writ. The
Attorney-General wm about to reply, but
Lord Denman said : The books ought to be shown ; and
we hope that they will be shown without making return to
the writ. Role absolute.

—ta6I4;II7EETT;.gAiNPT AND OTHEIIB.—CONSPIRACT TO
stop IRON-sronia.—The defendants were convicted at the
lout assizes for the county of Lancaster on an indictment
which, in 26 counts, substantially charged the defendants
with combining, confederating, and agreeing, by divers indi-
rect means and practices, to impoverish Mews. Jones and
Potts, and to prevent and hinder them from using, exercising,
and carrying on their business of ironfounders and engineers.
One of the counts charged the defendants with conspiring to
prevent Jones and Potts from taking apprentices; two,
founded on the 6th George IV., c. 129, charged a con-
spiracy to prevent the workmen and apprentices of Jones and
Potts from continuing in their employment; and other
counts charged a conspiracy to limit the number of appren-
! tices of Jones and Potts. The judgment of the court having
been prayed on the defendants, Mr. Knowles, Q. C., on be-
half of the defendant Selaby, now moved for a rule to show
caws why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground of misdirection ; and also why the judg-
ment should not be arrested. He contended that as the
judge had not directed the jury as to the particular counts
which, in his judgment, had been legally proved, but had
left it for the jury to say generally whether the defendants
were guilty, there had been a virtual misdirection. lie urged
further, and in arrest of judgment, that the charge had been
stated with too much generality ; that the overt acts were so
stated that they either did not form part of the charge, or
applied only to some of the defendants; and that 'as to the
conspiracy to commit the offence named in the 6th Geo. IV.,
c. 129, the only remedy was by the special proceedings under
that act. Mr. Baines, Q. C., and Mr. Watson, Q. C., made
similar motions on behalf of the other defendants.
The Court took time to see the learned judge, by whom
the indictment was tried, and to consider whether the N-
all,
cation ought to be granted.

BAIL COURT.
Diane Mr. Just!. Wightmay.
PATE' V. BANK OP ENOLAND.—.TVDOMENT OP Noe-
PROS FOR NOT OITINO SECURITY FOR CoBll.—Sir J.
Bayley moved for a rule calling on the plaintiff in this cue
Ito show cause why judgment of non-pros should not be
entered unless he gave security for costs within a fortnight.
The action was ►rought by a foreigner against the Bank for
the detention of a 5001. note, which the plaintiff alleged he
had been robbed of abroad, and which they had stopped at
the request of a person who stated himself to be the owner.
The action was brought in 1843, and an order had been made
by a judge at chambers that the proceedings should be
stayed AMR the plaintiff gave such security for oasts as
' should be satisfactory to the Muter; and the Muter fixed
the moue} at 3001. Since then the plaintiff had not given
the necessary security, and is consequence the present appli-
cation was made.—Rule greeted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
hitting* in Basso.
ALDEn r. BOYI.E.—CLUaIeaL AGENCY.—Thie was an
action brought by a clerical agent, residing in the neigh-
bourhood of Ereter Hall, against the defendant, who was
rector of Freshford, near Bath, to recover the amount
of his commiadoe es agent, respecting the sale of the
advowsons of the Freshford rectory, and that of Little
Kimble, Bockinghamshire. The claim consisted of com-
mission on two separate sums of 1,0001. and 4,6001.
It appeared that the defendant had signed a con-
tract, to the effect that he agreed to pay to the plain-
tiff, " the agent in the transaction, the stun of 1001., one-
third down, and the remaining two-thirds when an abstract
of the conveyance is drawn out." One of the parties to
this contract was the Rev. Wm. Browne, the rector of Little
Kimble. No abstract in respect of Little Kimble had been
delivered but it appeared that an abstract of the title of
Freshfortl rectory had been delivered without objection. The
defendant had paid one-third of the 1001. commission, and
at the trial, which took place before Mr. Justice Williams, at the
presentterm sittings, the jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Berj. Bytes timed today for a rule to set snide that
verdict, and to enter a verdict for the plaintiff for 661. 13e. 4d.,
and the simple question raised was, whether or not, in order
to entitle the plaintiff to recover, he should have proved
either a delivery of two abstracts of title or the deeds of con-
veysnoe themselves ?
The court was of opinion that it was necessary for the
plaintiff to prove either a delivery of two abstracts of title, or
the deeds of conveyance themeelvess. It might admit of
some argument as to which alternative should be adopted,
but, for the purposes of the present action, it was sufficient
so say that neither had been proved.—Rule refused.