The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUBEN'S BENCH.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Blackburn, Shee, and Lush.)
THE QUEEN V. THE JUMTICIS OF EDIT.
Mr. Poland said this was a rule calling upon the guar-
dians of the Medway Union to show cause why they should
not pay the costs of a mandamus and also the costs of this
application. The mandamus was to the justices of Kent
to compel them to eater continuances to hear en appeal
relative to the maintenance of a pauper lunatic.
The rule was made absolute on the 28th of April,
last year. The appeal was heard in the July following,
but no application was made for costs until the last day
but three of Hilary term, made returnable the last day of
term, allowing the whole of Michaelmas term and the
greater part of Hilary term to pass by without making
any application for oasts. The learned counsel contended
that the application should have been made in Michaelmas
term, and that it was too late to come in Hilary term.
Mr. Barrow appeared in support of the rule.

Rule absolute..
THE QUEEN r. SPOONEC AND A.NOTHER.
The Solicitor-General (with whom was Mr. Hannan)
showed MUM against a rule, calling upon Mr. Spooner and
another gentleman, two of the justices of Staffordshire, to
show cause why they should not state a case for the opi-
nion of the court. Mr. Baker, inspector of mines, had
laid an information against Mr. Harrison, the owner of
a colliery near Walsall, for using an engine in lowering men
without a break, whereby two of the men were kills& The
respondent contended that he had not infringed the 12th
rule of the act Zird and' 4th Vic., oh. 151, which provides
that a break shall be used on the engine employed in lower.
ing men into the pit. The magistrates considered he had,
and adjudicated and had refused to state a case. It
appeared that the engine in question was used over a
shaft for the purpose of pumping water, and the men
who were being lowered were men employed to repair the
shaft, and not colliers going to their work in the colliery.
He could hardly, under the circumstances, resist the rule,
and the question was whether their lordships would de-
aide the question of law upon this rule or upon the return
of the case.
Mr. H. Matthews appesred in support of the rule.
The court, under the circumstances, thought it would
be better to make this rule absolute.

EDMOND/4 V. GRENVILLE.
Mr. Lopez showed cause against a rule calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why four warrants of attorney and
the proceedings that had been taken upon them should
not be set aside with owls on the ground that they had
been obtained from the defendant whilst in custody under
ca. se., and without their being read over to him and ex-
plained.
The learned counsel read an affidavit denying that state-
ment, and showing that they were given freely, and that
they were read over and explained to him in the presence
of an attorney.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., said that after that statement he
could not support his rule.
Rule discharged. •
THE COMMIERIONERS OF SEWEES V. THE METROPOLITAN

Mr. J. Browne, Q.C., moved on behalf of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers of the City of London for • rule calling
upon the Metropolitan Board of Works to show cause why
• mandamus should not issue commanding them to
rectify the asceument they had made of the City of
London, by which they had raised it upwards of half •
million, upon which they had made a main-drainage
rate, on the ground that they had proceeded on a wrong
basis.
Rule granted.