The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-08 00:00:00

IN RE ASTON UNION.

Mr. CtituroN moved for a rule to show cause why an
information, in the nature of a quo warranto, should not be
issued to eighteen persons, calling on them to show by what
authority they claimed to exercise the office of guardians of
the poor of the Aston Union. This Union was extremely
extensive, and the Poor-law Commissioners had allotted to
the parish of Aston eighteen guardians, to Kirkton one, to
Latton Coldfield four, and to \Vishaw one. It was part
of the regulations respecting the election of Guardians, that
the voting papers should be left with the resident rate-
payers who had paid their rates. The voting papers were,
however, left indiscriminately with all persons, whether
they had paid Union-rates or not. The Learned Counsel
referred to some old authorities, to show that a quo war-
ranto would lie in a case like the present.—Rule refused.

BAIL COURT.
CLOSE V. PARKE.

Mr. CIIILTON moved for a rule to show cause why a
writ of distringas should not issue against the defendant,
notwithstanding service of the writ of summons had not
been effected. The transaction nut of which the action
arose occurred in 1834, and since then the defendant had
remained in concealment, so that the preliminary process
could not be served on him.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE asked for what the action had
been brought?
Mr. CIIILTON replied that the cause of action was a
criminal conversation which the defendant had with the
plaintiff's wife.
After some further observations between the Court and
the Counsel a conditional rule was granted.

CCURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAT 6.
RE DUFAUR.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD showed cause against a Rule
Nisi, obtained on a former day by Mr. Sergeant Wilde,
calling on Mr. Dufaur to deliver up to the legal represen-
tative of the late Mr. Day all deeds, papers, and other do-
cuments relating to Mr. Day's affairs, and which had come
into Mr. Dufaur's possession as Mr. Day's attorney, toge-
ther with a sum of three thousand pounds, which had been
placed in Mr. Dufaur's hands, for the purpose of investing
the same in sufficient securities, at interest. The condi-
tional rule had been obtained at the instance of Mr. John
Simpson, the son of one of the executors named in Mr.
Day's will, and Mr. Simpson acted only as administrator
pendente lite, a suite having been instituted in the Eccle-
siastical Court to determine the fact as to which of several
papers were entitled to probate.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE supported the Rule.
The COURT ordered that the deeds and papers of Mr.
Day, with the three thousand pounds in the hands of Mr.
Dufaur, should be lodged in the hands of the prothonotary,
and that a complete account should be delivered in within a
month, on the understanding that Mr. Dufaur's costs, when,
ascertained, should be paid, any indemnity being given that
the prothonotary might think fit.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAr 8.

ROBINS V BRIDGE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the
expenses incurred by him in attending at the Assizes as a
witness as a cause in which he had been subpoenaed by the
defendant, who was the Attorney. The question was whe-
ther an attorney is prima facie liable to a witness whom he
has subpoenaed for the expenses incurred by the witness in
attending under that subpoena. The point was partly ar-
gued this day week by Mr. Earl in showing cause against
a rule to set aside the verdict for the defendant, and enter
a non-suit. The arguments were this day resumed when—
The COURT said that as the question was one of very
great importance to the profession, and as the point had then
for the, first time expresOy arisen, they wished to take time
to consider of their judgment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION.HOUSE.

Mr. Evans, the owner of the extensive furnishing iron-
mongery warehouse, No. 40, Ludgate-hill, stated to the
LORD MAyott, as a caution to the public,. the particulars
of a robbery committed upon that part of his establishment.
On Friday laq a man of gentleman-like appearance pur-
chased at the :ivarehouse a set of tea-trays, a set of knives
and forks, and some other articles, to the amount of about
171., and desired the shopman to send the goods to No. 3,
York-road, Waterloo-road, with a bill and receipt, stating
at the same time, of course, that the porter should receive
the money upon delivery. The shopman was more strongly
induced by the peculiar name of the customer, as well as by

his knowledge of the neighbourhood to which the direction
was given, so order the man to bring back money or goods.
The porter, upon taking the articles to the house, was ad-
mitted, and, at the gentleman's request, consented to accom-
pany him to the booking office, as the goods were to go to
the country. When they had walked some distance, the cus-
tomer said, Oh, I believe the office is some distance, and I
will not trouble you further." A cab was then called, and
the goods were put into it. " Now, have you got the
change of 201. on Messrs. Coutts's bank to hand over to
me ?" " No, Sir," replied the man, " for I brought no
change with me." " Good God ! what, no change, and I
in such a hurry ; then take this check to Coutts's at once,
and take the change to the York-road ;" putting a cheek,
purporting to be drawn by a Mr. Parker in favour of Mr.
Howard, for 201. upon Coutts. The porter, who was but
a spooney, took the check, allowed the customer to drive
off in the cab, and by the time the former learned that the
payinent was a humbug, the goods were probably deposited
in a marine store shop.