The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

APPEALS.

Their Lordships sat this morning to hear appeals.
Tile Peers present wire Lord Truro, Lord Bough-ar,
Lord Torrington, the Bishop of London, and the Bishop
of S ilisbury.
GOSLING V. VELEY (THE BRAINTREE CHURCH-PLATE
CASE).

The Judges attended to &fiver their answers to the

qa,-stions which had been put to them in this case. This
ease, under the name of the Braintree Church Rate, has
been so frequently before the public that it will be
scarcely necessary to reiterate • the circumstances. The
parish of Braintree has long been celebrated for its re-
inset to pay church-rates, and has been 'involved in se-
veral suits before the Consistorial Court in consequence.
The present case dates from the year 1841, when, in
consequence of a monition addressed to them by the
Consistorial Court of London, the rector, churchwar-
dens, and parishioners, assembled in vestry, for the
purpose of making a rate to repair the church. At that
vestry an amendment was moved, rejecting the proposi
tion for the levying of a rate, which was carried by a
large majority. Upon this the delendent, who wee then
churchwarden, conceiving that the supporters of the
amendment had abandoned their functions, made a rate
of 2s. in the pound, with the usual formalities, in spite
of the protest of the dissentient parishioners. To en-
force the payment of this rate a suit was commenced by
the churchwardens against the plaintiff in the Consisto-
rial Court of London, before Dr. Lushington,
who decided against the validity of the rate.
The churchwardens then appealed to the Arches Court,
and on the 25th March Sir H. J. Fust gave judgment
against the plaintiff, reversing the judgment of the court
below, and pronouncing in favour of the rate. The
plaintiff then applied to the Court of Qison's Bench,
which refused the application, and tdeciued in favour of
the rate. From this court the case next came before
the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which in 1850
affirmed the judgment of the court below. Three courts,
therefore, out of the four before which the case had
come, decided in favour of the rate, and the case was
now brought before their Lordships on a writ of error.
The Learned Judges then delivered their opinions,
Mr. Justice Talfourd, Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Jus-
tice Maule, Mr. Baron Platt, and Mr. Justice Coleridge
being in favour of the validity of the rate; and Mr. Jus-
tice Crompton, Mr.Barou Martin, Mr. Justice Williams,
Mr. Justice Erle, and Mr. Baron Parke being of opinion
that the rate was invalid.

The opinions of the Learned Judges are, therefore,
equally balanced, five in favour of, and five against the
rate.

On the motion of Lord TRURO the opinions of the
Judges were ordered to be printed, and the further con-
sideration of the case adjourned.

ELECTION OF SHERIFFS.

Yesterday was the day appointed for the election of
Sheriffs of London and Middles, x fur the ensuing year.
The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor presided in common
hall, there being present several of the aldermen and
common councilmen, amongst whom we noticed Alder-
men Wire, Carter, Duke, M.P., Sir George Carroll,
lint., Challis, Sidney, M.P., Salomons, Moon. and
Finnis; Common Councilmen John Wood, H. L. Taylor,
Godson, De Jersey, Heaps, Deputy Holt, Barnard,
Maugham, Dakin, Osmond, Deputy Lake, M‘Gregor,
Blake, and several others. The sheriffs, Messrs. Cotte-
rell and Swift, and the under-sheriffs, Messrs. Millard
and Hopwood, were also present.
• The hall was well filled, but the proceedings were not
of that interest which is usually felt upon such occasions.
After the usual preliminaries, the choice of parties for
sheriff took place. Several gentlemen were ,nominated,
but the choice of the citizens fell upon Mr. Alderman
Carter and Mr. John Hulbert, a merchant of high stand-
ing in the City. The former gentleman, however, de-
clined to serve.
Deputy HOLT then called the attention of the Hall to
the election of auditors of the, City accounts for the en-
suing year. He moved that Mr. T. Woodsell Booth, of
the Distillers' Company, be one of them.—Agreed to.
Mr. James Gardiner was also elected.
The following report of the auditors was then agreed
to:—

" We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, elected
by the Livery of London, in Common hall a,liembled, on
the 24th of June, 1850, and 24th June, 1851, auditors
of the Chamberlain's account of the Corporation and
Gresham fund, and of the bridge master's account of the
Bridge-house estate, do report as follows:
" That the account of the receipt and expenditure of
the Corporation of the city of London, laid beiore us
to audit, was the seventh report of Anthony Brown,
Esq., chamberlain of the city of London.'"
The report gives the cash account from the Ist of
January to the 31st of December, 1850. Subjoined is
the abstract:—Balance on preceding account, 12,8131.
17s. 4.-td.; receipts of the year 1850 (including the sum
of 70,0001. for building the new House of Correction at
Holloway), 257,4004 10s. 101c1.; expenditure, 247,931/
14s. 24d.; balance of cash upon account on the 31st
December, 1850, 22,2821. 13s. Hid.
In the Gresham account the following results ap-
peared:—Balance in the hands of the Chamberlain,
3781. 6s. 11d.
Bridge-house estates, balance in hand, 651. 13s.
The hall was then dissolved.