The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

PRIVY COUNCIL.
SMITH, APPELLANT, V. DEIGHTON AND ANOTHER,
RESPONDENTS.

The arguments having concluded in this case,
Sir Stephen Lushington delivered the judgment of the
Council. He said the question was what was the con-
struction of the statute regulating parish vestries with
regard to public notice ? The object of the Legislature
evidently was that notice should be given to the pa-
rishioners as to what was the special business to be dis-
posed of by the vestry. The Council were of opinion
that in order to comply with this statute special pur-
poses should be stated in the notice required to be given.
The notice in the present instance was to the follow-
ing effect :—" Notice is hereby given that a meet-
ing of the parishioners of 'the parish of St. Michael,
in the town of Cambridge, will be held in the
vestry-room of the said parish on the 23d day of January,
1851, to levy a rate for the purpose of defray-
ing the expenses incurred by the churchwardens
in and about ' repairing and restoring the parish
church, rendered necessary by reason of the late fire'—
or otherwise to consider the expediency of borrowing the
amount of such expenses on credit and security of the
church rates of the said parish, pursuant to the statute of
the 58th George 111. ; and in case it shall be considered
expedient to borrow the amount of such expenses, to
authorise the churchwardens to take the necessary mea-
sures for that purpose." It was difficult to entertain any
doubt as to the meaning—the only meaning—of the
words " for the purpose of defraying the expenses of
repairing and restoring the parish church, rendered
necessary by reason of the late fire." It was to give
notice that a rate was only to be made for the purpose of
defraying the expenses " rendered necessary by the late
fire." This notice, therefore, excluded any other matter
which was not rendered necessary "by the late fire." It
appeared to the Council that upon the whole the notice
was insufficient, and that the statute regulating parish
vestries had not been complied with. The cause would
therefore be remitted to the court below ; the costs in
the court below would be allowed ; but the appeal would
be reversed without costs.
Judgment accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—Nov. 29.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
PEACHY v. ROWLAND AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff, a grocer in Marlborough-road, Chelsea,
sued the defendants, Messrs. Rowland and Evans, who
were builders at Islington, for damages done to himself,
his horse, and cart, by an upset which occurred in the
Fulham-road.

The facts were, that the plaintiff, with his wife and
two friends, were going home along the Fulham-road
in a dog-cart, between 9 and 10 o'clock on Sunday even-
ing, the Ist of August. When they got opposite a place
called Salem-buildings, they came upon a sewer which
had been filled in, but the work had been done in such
a manner that the earth projected about a foot above
the level of the road. The consequence was that the
cart upset, the plaintiff's great toe was broken, the cart
and harness were much injured, and the horse was so
hurt that ultimately it died of its injuries.
As frequently happens in cases of this kind the great
difficulty was to prove the liability of the defendants,
and ultimately Mr. Evans, one of the defendants, was
called, and lie stated that the work had been done by
over whom the defendants had no con-
trol.

The jury therefore found a verdict for the defendants,

COITRT OF EXCHEQUER—Nov. 29.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WILLIAM PRENTICE.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-General
to recover penalties from the defendant, for illegally un-
shipping a quantity of tobacco without payment of duty.
It appeared that on the 2d of November, last year, a
quantity of tobacco was landed from a vessel called the
Neptune, of which a person called Best was the master,
whilst she was lying in the river Orwell, in Suffolk, and
about 200 bales were taken to the Trimley Marshes. A
person named Farringdon, on board a vessel called the
Gazelle, lying in the same river, assisted in the landing
of the goods, and several persons, residing in the neigh-
bourhood, lent their carts fur the purpose. About 90
bales had been seized by the customs officers, but the
remainder had eluded their vigilance. The Neptune
had been condemned and sold.
Several witnesses were called, some of whom were
accomplices, and a clear case having been established
against the defendant, the jury found a verdict for the
Crown.

The Attorney-General said he would take a verdie,
for a single value-1,9601. penalty.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GEORGE ARCHER,

This was a similar information for landing tobacco at
the same place, in May of the present year, from a vessel
called the Alert, which had been employed to bring
about 80 bales of tobacco from a port in Flanders.
There were similar informations against William Ham-
mond and James Briggs, for being concerned in the
same transaction.

The jury found verdicts for the Crown, and the Attor
ney-General consented to take a single penalty of 7841
in each case.

There were five other informations against persons
concerned in the landing from the Neptune, which were
undefended, and in all of which verdicts were given for
the Crown, with heavy penalties.