The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-04 00:00:00

BOROUGH AND SPITALFIRLDS.

- -
Very moderate supplies of potatoes have appeared on
sale since our last report. The demand is by no means
active, yet prices are fairly supported. York Regents,
120 s to 150 s ; Kent and Essex do., 120 s to 130 s ; Scotch
do., 110 s to 1255; do. cups, 100 s to 110 s; blues, 95s to 105 s;
Lincolns, 110 s to 120 s per ton.

Mr. Unthank showed cause against a rure obtained
for a writ of prohibition against the Judge of the County
Court of Middlesex, to prohibit his further proceeding
in the case, and the question turned on that clause of
the County Court Act which excluded from the juris-
diction of County Court judges all questions of title.
This was an action of trespass, and it appeared from the
learned counsel's statement that the property in ques-
tion consisted of a small wooden tenement built on
some land adjoining Bow-road, the whole of which had
been for years the property of Bow, in right of his rec-
tory, in whose possession it had been for a considerable
number of years, and had been held by persons under
lease from him and previous rectors for more than 50
years. About Nov., 1854, the defendants Nott and
Tipper got an old woman named Palmer, who was al-
most in actreinis, to execute a-will in their favour, giving
and devising all her real and personal estates whatsoever
and wheresoever to the defendants for the payment of two
legacies of 1001. each. Being in that condition they had
to di'scover where the property was situated out of
which to get their legacies, and they went to the plaintiff
who held their property, from a person named Watkins
who had a lease from the rector (and who, the defendants
in their affidavits said they were informed by the late
Mrs. Palmer, held between her and the rector), and in-
formed him that as his time expired at Christmas if he
wished to continue in possession he must then and there
sign an unsealed document, purporting► to be a lease,
which he did, on which Nott required him to pay a shil-
ling, but not having one Nott took one from his pocket,
put it on the table, and took it up again. At Christmas
the rector of Bow made arrangements for the continu-
ance of the tenantry, on which the defendant put in a
distress, removed the goods and sold them, and for
which the action was brought in the County Court,
where the defendants without producing any documents
or proving receipt of rent set up their claim of title to
the property. The County Court Judge, however,
heard the cause, and held that their obtaining
the document in question was a fraud, and that
the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The learned coun-
sel contended the question of title never came into con-
sideration, and that the County Court judges had no
jurisdictiOn in the case.

The Court, however, considered that the question of
title rested on something more than statements, and that
the prohibition must issue.

ST. LEONARD'S, SHOREDITCH, V. THE GUARDIANS OF ST.

LUKE'S.

Mr. Pashley, Q.C., showed cause against a rule calling
on the guardians of St. Luke's, to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue against them command-
ing them to repay to the parish of St. Leonard's,
Shoreditch, 'the 'sum of 911. 16s, the amount of fees
paid for registering the births and deaths, at the de-
fendant's workhouse, which was situated in the parish
of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch. After hearing ihe
learned counsel at some length on the various local acts
with reference to the workhouse and the general acts
for the support of the poor and the registration of births
and deaths, the Court directed the rule to be made
absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco. Before the Lord Chief Baron, and
Barons Alderson,•Platt, and Martin.)
GREMR V. BROUGHTON.
The Lord Chief Baron, in giving the judgment of the
Court in this case, said. it arose upon a motion for a new
trial upon the ground. that the plea set up was proved
by admissions given in evidence. The action was
brought upon a bond ov condition for the payment of a
sum of money. The foundation of the transaction was
that the plaintiff, being a major in a regiment in the
East India Company's service, agreed to relinquish his
position or situation in the regiment (but be was to con-
tinue major in the army generally), by which means the
junior officers in the regiment would attain a step higher
in promotion, and these gentlemen agreed to give him a
certain sum of money as a consideration for so doing,
the defendant undertaking to secure it to him
by bond. When, however, the bond was asked
for, the defendant pleaded the transaction pretty
much as he (the Chief Baron) had stated
it, and contended that the agreement on his part was

illegal, and that he Nip not bound to pay the money.
At the trial the admissions were put in, and the learned
judge, who presided, thought these admissions did not
prove the plea, and some doubt was entertained by him
that, supposing they did, the plea itself was no answer
to the action. There had been a demurrer to the plea as
a traverse. The learned judge thought the plea not
proved, upon which an application was made to the
court for a new trial, and a demurrer was entered, and
both came before the court last Wednesday. The plea
professed to be founded upon the East India Company's
Act, but it did not make mention of the 49th Geo. 111.,
c. 126, by which, generally, the sale of all offices was
prohibited, with some few exceptions, and by which
also the resignation of an office for a pecuniary consi-
deration was rendered illegal. The court had con-
sidered the case, and were all of opinion that the trans-
action was illegal, as stated in the plea, and so far the
plea wasan answer to the action, but there must be anew
trial for the purpose of enabling the defendant to take the
opinion of the jury as to whether the plea was proved
or not. Assuming, however, the plea to be proved, the
Court were of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled
to recover, and that the defendant was entitled to judg-
ment on what came before them on the demurrer. It
appeared to him that this transaction was nothing more
nor less than giving to a person who held a situation
under the India Company a pecuniary consideration to
leave the service, or to resign his position. The major
of a regiment was in a different position from a mere
major in the army unattached, and although it was con-
tended that this giving up of his majority did not alter
his position at all, it seemed to the Court to be a great
mistake. The plaintiff undertook to relinquish his ma-
jority in the regiment, and in his (the Chief Baron's)
opinion, the pecuniary consideration tendered a promise
to him for that purpose was illegal—he thought it was
a resignation within the meaning of the Act of Parlia-
ment which pronounced it to be illegal. The
Lord Chief Baron having pointed out the mischief
which would arise in the public service if these
transactions were permissible by law, cited several cases
bearing upon the question before the Court, and in con-
clusion said that under the circumstances he had men-
tioned, the judgment of the Court upon the demurrer
would be for the defendant, and in regard to the appli-
cation for a new trial the rule must be made absolute.
Judgment accordingly.

Mr. Baron Parke sat at Nisi Prius from this court in
the Lords' Justices Room, and proceeded to take a
partly-heard case, Price v. Richards, involving an action
upon a disputed engineer's account, and it was expected
to occupy the whole of the day.