The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-30 00:00:00

PRICE sd.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 29.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WILSON.
This question related to the right of the Corporation of
Leeds to alienate their corporate property. The case came
before the Courcupon three demurrers, put in by the late
Corporation of Leeds, to On information tiled by the l.resent
Town Council, for the purpose of having the declaration of the
Court that the alienation which had taken place was vgainst
the provisions of the Municipal Reform Act.
His HoNoua at the conclusion of the arguiwnts gave judge-
ment, overruling Lill hedemstrrers.

COURT OF Q UEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 29,

THE QUEEN U. THE DIRECTORS or THE POOR OF THE PARISH

OF ST. PANCRAS.

Sir P. Poet.ocx appeared on behalf of the governors and
guardians. of the Foundling Hospital, to state to the jury
briefly the case on which they were now called upon ti de-
cide. This was a proceeding upon a return to a mandamus
issued against the defendants at the suit of the governors and
guardians of the Foundling Hospital, for the purpose of com-
pelling them to maintain a child left at the g.te of that host
tal. In May last a female came to the ga'e and. rater e
bell •, when the porter opened the gate slre gave into his
hands a basket, which she desired him to take 'up 'to the se-
cretary's office. The potter went a few )'arils to the school,
to find some boy who would Carey arc basket to the office,
and when he returned he find that the basket had been
left, but that the wo-rian was gone. lie then perceived
the basket move, and 'era opening it formd a living clai
in it. This was about- ten or eleVeu o'Clieek-',n- the morn-
ing. The porter ran cut to find the woman, but she was
gone, and the men on the adjoining hackney-coach stand,
to whom he applied for information, could give him none.
The porter then got the basket and child taken up to the Se-
cretary's Office. An inquiry was made, and proper attentions
were paid to the child, which was, as soon as possible after-
wards, scnt_off to the pari-h authorities. They declared that
they were not bound to receive the child under these circum-
stances, and a mandaMus had been a; plied for, to compel them
to receive it. To this mandamus they had returned, first,
that the child WAS not found exposed and destitute within the
parish ; and, secondly, that it was not the duty of the Di-
rectors of the poor of the parish to receive and provide for the
child. The child was exposed and deserted in the parish, and,
therefore, became part of the casual poor of the parish, and,
es such, liable to be maint .ined by the parish.
Several witnesses were called to make out the case. They
proved the bets as stated by the Learned Counsel.
Sir W. FOLLETT, for the defendants, said that the groat
question which the Jury would have to determine would be,
whether this child was nett within the terms of an Act of Par-
liament to which he should shortly refer, a child exposed and
deserted, and then.the,y would have to say whether it had
not been received. as a deserted child into the Foundling
Hospital. _
.
•_ .

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE told the jury that the only question
of fact for their consideration was, whether this child had been
exposed and deseited, and had been received within the 11-.3s-
pital

The Jury returned a verdict for the Crown, thereby finding
that the child was not received into the hospital.

GEO. MACLE, ESQ ADSIINISTRATOR OF lIARDY, DECEASED,

V. LOWDEN.

The ATTORNEY- GEN Eiiat.for&plaintiff said, this was an
action brought by the plaintiff; the solicitor to the Treasury,
in his official capacity of administrator to the estate of a de-
ceased intestate, who had died without lawful issue. Mr.
Hardy had been in early life an officer in the army, and lat-
terly he had been appointed to the situation of one of the poor
knights of Windsor. He resided before his death at the well-
known bunhouse at Chelsea, The defendant was the occupier.
Mr. Hardy had no lawful issue, but he had a natural daughter
who was married, and resided with her husband in Devol-
shire. Some time since Mr. Hardy was taken very ill, and
two friends of his, two brothers of the name of Watson, came
to see him. They found him insensible, and cne cf them who
ordinarily transacted his money affairs, so far as receiving and
paying over his dhidends, asked the defendant about the
money which he knew Mr. Hardy to be likely to have in the
house. The defendant said that it was 370/., but ho after-
wards stated it at 39.5/., and stated the notes of which it con-
sisted. Mr. Watson asked for the money to be delivered up
to him, but the defendant said that he himself had taken pcs-
session of it for safe custody, and it was, therefore, allowed to
remain with him. When Mr. hardy died, as lie.died intes-
tate and left no relations that the law recognised, his property
went to the Crown, but he (the Attorney-General) could
assure the Jury that in all such eases the Crown only received
the money graciously to hand it over to those who, by natural
ties, or by the claims of friendship, might expect to obtain it.
The administration was taken out in the name of the solicitor
of the Treasury, and that accounted for that gentleman being
the plaintiff in the present case.
Witnesses having been called to make out the case,
Mr. THESSIGUR:for the defendant, submitted to a verdict for
the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

John Gould and Harriet his wife, were brought befcro Mr.
DYER for final examicati.,n, ohts.rged with having stolen up-
wards of 2501. in bank notes, the property of W. Jones, a re-
tired publican, since deceased.
The prisoners were fully committed.