The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-10 00:00:00

Kano inteUtgente.

EQUITY COUItTB.-YESTEHDAT.
Derma Vies-Cawicauoa Sit W. Pain WOOD.
ATTORNEI-GEN SW. V. COUPORATION OF PLTMOUTII.
This was an information at the relation of Messrs. Ken-
ney and White, two of the ratepayers of the borough of
Plymouth. It stated that the corporation was prevented
by the Municipal Corporation Reform Act (4 & 6 Wm. IV.)
from applying a fund, arising from certain corporation
property, called the borough fund, to any purposes except
the purposes there specified, unless in the case of a surplus
—but that no such surplus existed—on the contrary, the
corporation was alleged to be indebted to the fund. The
information proceeded to allege that under the authority of
a statute, 27 Elisabeth, the then corporation had about 300
years ago constructed a description of waterworks such as
the then state of engineering science suggested, in the shape
of a ditch " myned and digged," seven feet broad
and leading from the river Mewe, otherwise Mewye,
now known as the Plymouth Lest It then alleged
that the corporation were quite unnecessarily proceeding
to prosecute a bill for improved waterworks, and applying
part of the borough fund money for this purpose, not being
one of the purposes to which, by the Municipal Corporation
Act, the borough fund was to be applied. The relators
declared that the Plymouth Leat-ditch was a good, excel-
lent, and sufficient stream for supplying the borough of
Plymouth with water; and prayed an injunction to restrain
any application of the funds to such a purpose, or any of
thi rn, and that the corporation might be held to make good
what they bad already wrongfully expended, and to prevent
the corporation from ever applyirg for any fresh act.
Mr. Follett and Mr. Gill appeared for the motion for the
injunction.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Charles Hall opposed on behalf of the

I corporation. _ _
At the conclusion of Mr. Rolt's address, the cue was ad-
journed till Friday.
The statements were of course very contradictory. The
case for the corporation being, that they were compelled
under a late act to supply the town, dockyard, and Beet with
good and wholesome water; that the supply afforded by the
med,arval ditch, so vaunted by the plaiatiffe, was miserably
small in quantity and detestable in quality, and in fact the
prime cause of the frequency and intensity of epidemics—
and that they could not provide • proper supply without ob-
taining due powers by a special set of parliament, such as
that which they were now promoting.

COURT OF QUEEN'SBENCH.—YEsTERDAY.

SPRINGS IX 13,411C11. —Berms LOID CAXPIOX.L. NIL 'POT=
Clor.►aloos, Ma. Jrinca Eat; mn, Me. Jorrica Csairros.

THE QUION O._FILILINOTON AND ANOTHI

OHDES..-)11111111ED WOMAN.

This was a tale calllag upon the defendants, two magis-
trates, to show cause why they should not issue a distress
warrant against Patrick Maclure, to recover a sum due
from him for arrears of moneys payable under an order of
bastardy. When that order was made, the husband of the
mother of the bastard child was in Australia, under sen-
tence of transportation. In November, 1852, the husband
returned to England, and, upon his coming to reside with
his wife, the putative father discontinued the payments
under the bastardy order. Upon the case coming before
the magistrates they declined to issue a warrant on the
ground that the putative father was not liable after the
husband came back to reside with his wife.

Mr. Pashley, Q.C., showed cause against the rule. He
contended, in the first place, that the magistrates possessed
a discretion in these cases. Secondly, that whin the order
was first made it was only justifiable on the ground that
the woman was then, in effect, unmarried ; but by the re-
turn of the husband she was put again into the position of
a married woman, and hence, by the very terms of the
statute, the allowance ought to stop. His third ground was
that the order upon the putative father was void ah initio,
the statute not extending to married women. lie admitted
that this argument was -directly contrary to what had been
decided in " The Queen v. Collingwood ;" but he ventured
to submit that that decision was contrary to the law.
Mr. Bodkin, in support, was not called upon.
Lord Campbell said that this rule seemed to turn upon
the case of the " Queen v. Collingwoad." If that case could
be supported then Mr. Pashley's argument entirely failed.
Now, although the court was not b and to adhere to that
decision if contrary to law, yet he was of opinion that no
ground had yet been adduced sufficient to overthrow it.
The earlier case of " The King,. Lough" had settled that
in certain cases a married woman, for the purpose of the
acts relating to bastardy, might be considered as a femme
sole. Indeed, it would be strange if the large class of
bastards which were known to exist should be left to starve
or go upon the parish while the putative father was
able to contribute to their support. Thinking, then, that
the court was entitled to consider a married woman as •
single one, his lordship was of opinion that the order in the
first place was good. Then, in relation to the refusal to
issue the distress warrant, there arose the question of the
discretionary power of the magistrates. There was no
doubt that the magistrates did posses a discretion, and
if they had exercised it in this case, the court could not
have interposed. But the fact was, they had not exercised
it. From the affidavits it appeared that they had not gone
into the circumstances of the case, but had declined to
issue their warrant, upon the ground that P. Miense was
not liable to pay the sum directed by the order of bastardy,
upon the meth Question of law. That being to it was fur
the court to consider whether their view of tie law was
right and his lordship'. opinion was that it was wrong, be
cause the return of the husband was an event wholly
powerless to change the force of the order made upon the
putative father, during the husband's &been°. in Australia.
The rule must therefore be made absolute.
The other learned judges concurred.—Rule absolute.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-I(EsTriDAT.
ernmos u BAmax—Bssoss Caw Roma Jeans, Ma. Juan=
MALLS, NZ. Jcaees CMINNWSLL. AND MR. JVITICI

WilmsAx v. Ass.—LIBEL.

The plaintiff in this case is a gentleman living at Peck-
ham, and some time ago the defendant, who is 82 years old,
went to live in the plaintiff's house. Afterwards he left,
and then he wrote a letter to the plaintiff's wife, in which
be accused t►e plaintiff of having taken his memorandum-
book, and also some rece;pts for board and lodging. This
was the libel complained of, and at the trial before Mr.
Justice Williams daring the present term the jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff fee 20s. A rule, however, was ob-
tained to enter a verdict for the defendant, upoa the ground
that the letter was a privileged communication, and that the
sending of it to the plaintiff's wife was not such a publica-
tion as would support the present action. This rule to-day
came on for argument.
The court was of opinion that the communication was not
privileged, and that the publication was sufficient.
Hale discharged.