The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-04 00:00:00

LANE V. MULLINS.

Mr. KNOWLES moved in this case, which was tried
before Mr. Justice Coleridge at the last Middlesex
Sittings, for a rule to set eside the nonsuit or for a new
trial. It was an action on a bill of exchange for 1,1251.,
accepted by the defendant. and payable three months
after date. To the first count the defendant had
pleaded specially, and to which the plaintiff had de-
murred, and on argument judgment had been given for
the plaintiff. It appeared that on the trial the bill
was put in, when it was found not to be on a sufficient
stamp, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. The Learned
Counsel contended that the defendant by his plea
having admitted the bill and the stamp, the objection
taken at the trial could not prevail.

COURT—Take a rule. -
THE QUEEN V. THE ♦ESTRY OF THE PARISH OF
ST. PANCRAS,

In this case a rule-ladbeen obtained, calling upon
the vestrymen and churchwardens of the parish of St.
Pancras to show cause why a writ of mandamus should
not issue, calling upon the defendants forthwith to ap-
point a day for holding a meeting of the parishioners,
for the election of vestrynien and auditors of accounts for
said parish for the year ending May 1840, pursuant to
the provisions of the Ist and 2d Wjll. IV., cap. 60.
Sir F. POLLOCK now appeared to show cause against
the rule. If the present application was entertained
by the Court, everything that had been since done in
the parish was improperly and illegally done, including
the appointment of directors of the poor, who were no-
minated by the vestrymen, and whose duty it was to
make rates, all of which would be deemed void, and the
affairs of the parish thrown into inextricable confusion.
The Act required that eight inspectors of votes should
be appointed, four by the churchwardens, and four by
the parishioners in meeting assembled ; and it was con-
tended, on the other side, that the Chairman had not
selected the persons for that office who had the majo-
rity of votes. The Learned Counsel proceeded at some
length to detail the proceedings that had taken place
at the election, and contended that they had been strictly
legal throughout.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS.

Mr. HUMPHREYS made an application on behalf of
a gentleman who had applied to be admitted as an at-
torney, under the following circumstances. By the
rules of the Court it is requisite that three days' notice
shall be given before the term preceding that at which
the individual seeks to be admitted. This notice had
been given in the present case, and the gentleman's
name appeared on the bill of applicants for the term.
Two day's, hootever, before the commencement of the
term this gentleman's sister, who resides at Derby,
was taken seriously ill, and he could not attend during
the present term, and he (Mr. Humphreys) now moved
that the admission be postponed until next term. The
difficulty in the case was this, whether it was not ne-
cessary that notice should have been given three days
before the commencement of the present term of the
gentleman's intention to apply next term. He (Mr.
Humphreys) apprehended the spirit of this rule had
been completely complied with.
His LORDSHIP did not pee why the gentleman could
not attend during the present Term. If only a day or
two remained it would be a different matter. He did
not think a sufficient case had been made out to induce
him to deviate from the rule, as the illness was not
stated to be of such a nature as to prevent the gentle-
man's attendance.
Mr. Humphreys withdrew the application, and said
that he would renew it at a later period of the Term,
if necessary.
His Lordship then sat at nisi Arius, when the fol-
lowing cases were disposed of :

LAMBERT V. COOKE.

The plaintiff in this case is a saddler and harness-
maker residing in Long Acre, and the defendant a
horse-dealer in Bedfordbury, Covent-garden. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 481. 2s. 6d.
!'ter goods sold and delivered.
Mr. _tionatils, who appeared for the plaintiff, proved
the delivery t.;! A variety of articles and the acknow-
ledgment of the del,: thi6 defendant, and the Jury
found for the amount claimeu.
The following cases were also tinlefended :—Wilson
v. Sherwood, on a bill of exchange, damages 361. lo..;
Barker v. Harvey, on a mortgage deed, damages
133/. 15s. ; Thompson v. Smith, on a of exchange
for 251. 10s. ; Smith v. Lindsey, on a bill of egelloge,
and for work done, damages 891. 10s. ; Doe v. 3ham-
berlain, to recover the value of the possession of the
Gun Tavern, High-street, Shoreditch, from the 25th
of March 1838 until May 3, 1839, together with the
costs of recovering possession, damages 681. 17s. Bd. ;
Haynes v. Marshall, on a bill of exchange, damages
281. 103.