The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-23 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY )

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE took his seat on the Bench at ten
o'clock.

THE KING V. THE CINURCHWARDENS OF lIIRMINGYAM.,

Mr. "HILL moved for a rule to show cause why a writ of
mandainus should not issue, calling upon the defendants to
show cause why a Vestry should not be summoned for the pur-
pose of electing Churchwardens for the ensuing year. On
Easter Tuesday, according to custom, an election took place,
and two gentlemen, named Brown and Wingfield, being pro-
posed, the former was elected by the Rector of the parish. A
show of hands was then demanded on the other side, and the
Clergyman said he would dispense with that part of the pro-
ceedings, as he had elected a fit and proper person to fill the
office, as he was empowered under the provisions of Mr.
Stourges Bourne's Act. The election took place agreeably
to a show of hands, which could not be considered conclusive,
although it might seem as a step in the proceedings. A
great deal of excitement prevailed on the occasion, and the
Rector seeing that no vote had been tendered for the space
of a quarter of an hour, thought proper to close the poll
without computing the votes, and finally declared the person
he had proposed as duly elected. On former occasions check
c'erks had been appointed, and between 3,000 and 4.000 rate-
payers had voted, and the Rector allowed the election to pro-
ceed ; but in this case it was sworn, that the polling clerks,
vao were interested persons, were about the church canvass-
ing votes.

Mr. Justice COCERIDGE—What are the grounds of com-
plaint upon which you move.
Mr. HILL—The right was refused, which circumstance
created so much excitement that it was impossible to go on
with the election:

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Was Brown sworn in ?
Mr. HiLL—lt appears that he was, and the other individual
was not in a condition to apply to the officers of the Ecclesi-
astical Court.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—How could it be ascertained that
every person holding up his hand was an elector?
Mr. HlLL.—Suppose, my Lord, it was even an idle custom,
the voters were entitled to the right. •
Mr. Justice COLERIDGIS—Take a rule to show cause.—
Rule granted.
Mr. HILL then applied to have the writ served on Mr.
Brown ; to which the Court assented in case he had been
sworn in as Churchwarden.

The Court then proceeded to dispose of Nisi Fritts cases.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

MOON V. THE UNION OF WITNEY.

This action was brought by the plaintiff (a surveyor) against
the guardians of the poor of the parish of Witney, in Oxford.
shire. It appeared that the guardians wished to build a work-
house for the Union, by the order of the Poor Law Commis-
sioners, and had employed an architect, named Kempthorn, to
prepare the necessary plans. According to the custom of the
profession, he employed the plaintiff to prepare specifications
of the quantities. The action was brought to recover the
amount of the plaintiff's bill, which had been included in the
bill which was originally delivered by his employer to the
guardians. It was contended on the part of the defendants
that there had been no privity of contract between them and
the plaintiff, who, in point of fact, was the servant of the archi-
tect, and to whom he ought to look for payment.
Mr. Sergeant Wylde and Mr. Whitmore were'beard yes-
terday against the rule, and Mr. Sergeant Tflfourd, with Mr.
Chilton, now appeared in support of the rule.
The COURT decided that it would be absurd to suppose that
Kempthorn, whose own claim amounted to 113/., would have
accepted 801., as be had done, in satisfaction of that demand,
as well as the amount of 651., claimed by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff should be paid by some person, and the defendants
were the only persons to whom he could look for remuneration.
Rule discharged. ,

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

FOBKETH V. WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action for false imprisonment, which was tried
before Lord Abinger at the sittings in Middlesex after Hilary
term, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with 1001.
damages. In a former term, Mr. Sergeant Stocks moved
for and obtained a rule to' shew cause why the verdict should
not be reduced, or a new trial had.
The LORD CHIEF BARON now read over his notes of the
trial, and suggested that in order to save litigation, both par,
ties should agree that the verdict fahotild ho recitiped to 40/.
Mr. Berjeant STqclis, op the part of the defendants, WA4
willing to accede tq the proposition,
Mr. IiNLI4T; for the pitting could net consent. He then

proceeded to show cause against the rule. From his state-
ment of the evidence, it appeared that there waS'sorne dis-
pute as to a right of Common somewhere in Herefordshire.
The defendant obtained leave from some of the parries, cot-
tagers, to enter actions, and among others, the wife of the
plaintiff had set her mark to their retainer. Eight actions
were commenced in plaintiff's name, of which he knew nothing
until the 10th of April, 1836, when he was taken in exe-
cution for the costs. Ile was carried to Hereford gaol,
where ho was confined for two months end one day,
all of which time, from poverty, being unable to pay
for a bed, he was compelled to sleep on straw, and
during the greater part of the time, until the gaoler took com-
passion upon him, he was confined to the gaol or county allow-
ance, all of which were great hardships oa a poor old maa of
74 years of age. The defendants had admitted their error in
having gone on with the action without having a retainer. It
was therefore their duty to have taken care that the old man
should not suffer for their wrong. They must have known at
the time, for their clerk attended the taxation of costs ; they
should have paid them, and saved themselves from the
consequences of this action. No rnan could possibly say that
the damages were excessive for the imprisonment of an old
man for such a period and under such circumstances. The
Jury hid determined that the sum of 1001. was a just remune-
ration. It was a question peculiarly for them, and they had
decided it after_ a charge or summing up, to say the least of it,
not very favourable to the plaintiff. He hoped, under these
circumstances, the Court would not disturb the verdict.
Mr. RICHARDS followed on the same side.

Mr. Sergeant STocKs said the defendants were only anxious
to have the verdict reduced, because the damages were so
large as to make it appear that their conduct had been unpro-
fessional. The old man, whose case had been so feelingly
and with so much talent put before the Jury, was earning only
2s. a. day, and not in full work ; so that with the 501. verdict
be would be paid the full wages of two years : surely any man
must think that for an imprisonment of two months four years
wages was too much. The defendants had no knowledge of
the fact of the imprisonment until the 31st of May ; they
surely ought to have been made acquainted with it at first;
not only so, but the first notice they had of the matter was by
being served with a rule, which put their professional cha-
racters at issue before the; Court, as its ,)fficers ; they were
bound to defend themselves, which accounted for the delay
which took place afterwards. He trusted that even with the
chances of a larger verdict from another Jury, the Court would
grant a new trial. _ _

- Lord AI►NGER, if he had been on the Jury, would have
given smaller damages. It was a case, however, in which
liberal compensation ought to be made ; and as it was not clear
that another Jury would not give larger damages or the
same, be did not think it was worth while to send the
case to another Jury, as the defendants would have to pay the
costs. It did not appear to him at Nisi Prigs that any pro-
fessional imputation rested on the defendants, and therefore it
was that he was disappointed with the verdict. He thought
it would be foi the interest of all parties that the verdict should
remain undisturbed.—Rule discharged.
In the case " James v. Griffin" the COURT made the rule
for a non-suit absolute.