The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-31 00:00:00

DEAN V. LADY KIRKWALL.

Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case. It was an
action to recover arrears of rent of a house, and the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant on the ground that Lady
Kirkwall was of unsound mind. A rule for a new trial had
been subsequently obtained, but the Court having consulted
with Mr. Justice Patteson, before whom the case was tried,
was of opinion that these was no ground for disturbing the
verdict, and therefore the rule for a new trial must be discharged.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—THE QUEEN V LYN& AND OTHERS.

Mr. THESIGER stated that in this case Mr. Kelly had ob-
tained a rule for a criminal information against the defendant
Mr. Lyne and two gentlemen named Dalmano, for sending
a hostile message to a gentleman named Warde. It had
been ascertained that Mr. Warde was no party to the letter,
which had been written by his wife, and under these circum-
stances the defendants having retracted the offensive expres-
sions, and expressed their regret for having used them, he
hoped no objection would be made to discharging the rule
with costs.

Mr. KELLY expressed himself satisfied, and the rule was
discharged.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

This being the last day of term, the Court gave judgments
in several eases, among which was

FE' TOR V. BEACON-TN RE THE MAIDSTONE ELECTION.
The LORDCHIEF-JUSTICE (suffering, we were sorry to ob-
serve, under a severe cold), requested
Mr. Justice VAUGHAN to deliver the judgment of the Court
in this case. A rule had been obtained for showing cause
why judgment should not be entered up, upon Mr. Speaker's
certificate, for the costs incurred by Mr. Fector (the present
Member for Maidstone), in defending his seat on a petition
against his return, which petition was declared by the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons to be " frivolous and vexa-
tious." To this application three objections were made; Ist, that
upon the facts disclosed in the affidavits, the Speaker had no
jurisdiction, because the name of Mr. Fector nowhere ap-
peared in any document before the Court, till it appeared in
the Speaker's certificate ; the original application having
been made, and the reference to have the costs taxed by the
examiners, in a Mr. Hart's name. But the Court were of
opinion that the costs being all through designated as the
costs incurred in defending the return for the borough of
Maidstone, the costs of Mr. Fector and of Mr. Hart were
substantially the same. This first objection, therefore, could
not be allowed. The second objection was that the Speaker's
certificate included the costs of a Mr. Binstead, who, being an
elector, had been E4itnitted by the House a party to the de-
fending Mr. Fector's seat; and it was contended that the
Speaker had no authority to include these costs in the certificate.
The Court, however, consit:f red this objection obviated by the
6th section of the 9th Georg!, IV. (the Act uuder which
the application was made-)—whiels ens:seted that the Speaker's
certificate should he, conclusive as, to the ant of the costs.
The last objection was that the plaintiff's demant: should be
made jointly against all the parties to the petition and th..l se-
verally against one. No doubt was entertained by the Court
on the contrary, that under the Act the party could demand
costs, under the Speaker's certificate against any one of the
parties to the petition. The rule for entering up judgment must
therefore be made absolute.