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

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS BAY.)
APPEALS.
_

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-
aideration of the case adjourned.

ELECTION OF SHERIFFS.

Yesterday was the day appointed for the election of
Sheriffs of London and Middlesex for 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,
'Rut., Challis, Sidney, M.P., Salomons, Moon, and
Finnis; Common Councilmen John Wood, H. L. Taylor,
Godson, De Jersey, Heaps, Deputy Holt, Barnard,
'Manglattna, 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, acre 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-
alined to serve.
Deputy HOLT then called the attention of the Hell 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 ono 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 assembled, 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 bridgemaster'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 before 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, 12,813/.
17s. 4id.; receipts of the year 1850 (including the sum
of 70,0001. for building the new House of Correction at
Holloway), 257,4004 10s. 101 d.; expenditure, 247,931/
14a. 21d.; balance of cash upon account on the 31st
December, 1850, 22,2821. 13s. Hid.
In the Gresham account the following results up-
Peered :—Balance in the hands of the Chamberlain,
nal. 6s. 11d.

Bridge-house estates, balance in hand, 651. 130.
The hall was then dissolved. •

COURT OF ALDERAIEN.
Yesterday a Court of Aldermen was held. The
sheriffs and Common-Sergeant appeared in court for the
purpose of making the return of the gentlemen elected
to the shrievalty for the ensuing year.
The names of Alderman Carter, citizen and clock-
taker, and John Hulbert, Esq., citizen and grocer,
having been accordingly returned, the usual forms were
'observed.
Sir PETER LAURIE took occasion to observe that a
Mistake had been made with respect to the company to
Which Mr. Hulbert belonged. In the printed paper,
which he believed had been issued from the Town
Clerk's office, it appeared that Mr. Hulbert was stated
to belong to the Girdlers' Company, which designation
Was perfectly correct; but in the paper containing an
. account of the return of the sheriffs that gentleman was
called a grocer. That was, he apprehended, an error
fatal to the return.
The Court took no official notice of the error, which
to doubt will be corrected at the proper time.
The City chamberlain and the bridge-masters for the
Year ensuing were sworn in.
The Court then proceeded to consider, with closed
doors, motions proposed by Alderman Wilson connected
With certain pribileges of the corporation.

Their Lordships sat this morning to hear appeals.
Tee Peers present were Lord Truro, Lord Brougham,
Lord Torriogton, the Bishop of London, and the Bishop
of Ssiisbury.
GOSLING U. VELEY (THE BRAINTREE CHURCH-RATE
CASE).
The Judges attended to deliver their answers to the
stions which bad been put to them in this case. This
case, under the name of the Braintree Church Rate, has
been so frequently before the pasha that it will be
scarcely necessary to reiterate the circumstances. The
parish of -Braintree has loeg been celebrated for its re-
tusal 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, !Ind 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 defendant, who was 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 Cousisto-
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. Fast 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 Qaeen'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 tho case was
e now brought before their Lordships on a writ of error.
The Learned Judges then delivered their opinions,
13r. 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. Baron Martin, Mr. Justice Williams,
• Mr. Justice Erle, and Mr. Baron Parke being of opinion
that the rate was invalid.