The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-22 00:00:00

AMPHLETT V. lIENTEI.I..

In this case a ward of the Court was alleged to have con-
tracted a marriage without its consent, and a reference was di-
rected to the Master to ascertain the fact of the marriage, and
to approve of a settlement to be made by the husband, 'rho is a
barrister, who stated himself to have an income of one hundred
pounds a-year, and to be willing to appear, and submit to the
will of the Court.
Mr. ANDERTON prayed the approbation of his Lordship to a
settlement of the property of the wife, which amounts to
2,4001. not yet realized. The husband could not be found,
and it was ascertained that he had no property ; it was there-
fore alsf) prayed by the petition that service at the last known
place of residence, and on the gentleman who formerly ap-
peared for him, be deemed good service. The settlement
gave the property to the exclusive use of the wife and her
children by the present or any future marriage, but with a
power also of giving a life interest to the husband.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had never heard of such a thing
as the Court giving its approbation to such a settlement in
favour of a husband who committed a gross contempt by declar-
ing himself willing to comply with the wishes of the Court, and
then withdrew himself from its jurisdiction. His Lordship
desired the petition to be handed up, and said he would state
his opinion on the settlement when he had looked with at-
tention at the Tacts of th 6 case.
His Lordship rose at one o'clock.

V ICE-CHAN CELL olt S COURT, Nor. 21.
ELLICE V. GOOLSON.
The COURT took time to consiler its judgment in this case.

COURT OF QUEEN'S _BENCH, Tror. 21.
The Earl of Roden, Lord Eilenborough, Lord Wynford,
Lord Foley, and Lord Fitzgerald appeared in Court, and took
the oaths on the accession of her Majesty.

TILE QUEEN U. FLEMING, ESQ., M.P.
Sir W. FOLLETT applied to the Court to enlarge the rule
in this ease, which, their Lordships would recollect, was one
where a rule for a criminal information had been obtained
against the defendant for writing a challenge to Mr. Kirk-
patrick, an attorney, who resided in the Isle of Wight. The
affidavits on which the present application was founded stated
that Mr. Smith, the ,gentleman who carried the letter in ques-
tion, was a friend both of Mr. Fleming and Mr. Kirkpatrick,
and though his ordinary residence was in the Isle of
he was at present in Ireland on private business. The defen-
dant desired to have Mr. Smith's testimony, in order to give
full explanation of the matter, and would not be able to ob-
tain affidavits from him in time to show cause against the rule
in the course of the present term. He therefore applied that
the rule might be enlarged till next term.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on being called on by the Court
to know whether he opposed the application, said tat it was
desirable to have the matter disposed of at the earliest possible
period.
Lord DENMAN observed that the mo,t satisfactory mode of
disposing of these matters was to have the fullest possible ex-
planations about them. The rule might be enlarged.—Appli-
cation granted.
ARKWRIGUT V. CAUTEF,LL.
This was an action brought to try whether the owner of a
mine could appoint a deputy berrister, as he was called, to de-
cide on questions between the owner of the mine and other
parties. Th o right claimed by the plaintiff, nho was the
owner of the mine, to make this appointo.ent, was a right
alleged to be founded on custom For the defendant it -was
argued that such a custom must be bad.
The Court thought that lies v Jolla,: did not go the whole
length of tl.is case. The verdict was, therefore, to be entered
for-the defendant.

BAIL COURT.—Nor. 21.
REFUSAL 10 PAY CIRAICII RATES.
Sir FREDERICK POELOCK stated that he was instructed to
apply to the Court on behalf of James Morton, Esq., and
Moore, Esq., two of the :magistrates of the county of Lincoln,
fur a rule, calling upon David Newlin, of Spalding, in that
county, to show cause why a criminal information should not
be filed against him. The circumstances under which he
made the application were stated in the sev,ral affidavits on
which it was founded to be as follows :—The churchwarden
of a parish in the town of Spalding, in Lincolnshire, applied
to the M tgistr ties of that town to iQ‘zue suattnonses against
certain of the inhabitants who refused to pay the Chth-cia-ratcs,
in which number Mr. Newlitig was included. The paridi
authorities, however, did not have recourse to this mode
until • a meeting of the parishioners had been held, at
which it was resolved that payment sholf.d be enforced,
and instructions were given to that effect to the Church-
warden. The justices on whoFe behalf he now applied
presided at the following Petty &ssions. Mr.
attended before them, and not being able to show any cause
why he should not pay the rates demanded of bins, they (the
magistrates) made an order that he should pay the fob
amount, 14s. 101, and lo_. costs. Shortly after, during the
great annual fair held at Spalding. the defendant, whose house
was close to the spot where the fair was held, atre.ed to the
door of-the shop the following placard :—" All the goods in
this shop have been seized under a distress warrant fot Church-
rates, by order of Messrs. Newton and Moore, the magistrates.
Beware of the inquisition of 1837." Affixed to this placard
was the order made upon the defendant for payment
of the Church-rates. The exhibition of a placard of this na-
ture of course attracted considerable attention, and the only ob-
ject the defendant could hare was to excite a feeling of ill-will
against the magistrates by whom that order was signed. They
(the magistrates) swore in their zffidavits that they bad never
issued any warrant of distress against the goods of the defen-
dant ; that they had merely acted ie discharge of their public
duty ; and were not actuated by any feeling of. malice. He
(Sir F. Pollock) had the affidavits of several respectable in-
habitants of Spalding, who swore that they called upon the
defendant, and remonstrated with Lim on the inipropti..ty of
his conduct, but that he refused to r: move it and they fur-
ther stated that in their opinion it was exhibited for the pur-
pose of creating a feeling of ill-w;11 against the magitoratcs to
whose conduct it alluded. Ile ( Sir F. Pollock) trusted that
the Court would protect the magistrates in the discharge of
their duty by granting him the rule he applied fir.
Mr. Justice I, ITTIEDALE —YU!! rosy take a iti!e to show
cause.

SERVANTS' W.:GES WILLIAMS V. 'DIXON.
This was an action brought by a butel.ers' servant to re-
cover the amount of 881., alleged to be due to him as a ba
lance of twelve years' wages. The defendant suffered judg-
ment by default. The caw was tried is the Sheriff,' Uoult,
and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed.

Oh a former day Mr. JAmF.s obtained a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be had, on the ground tl:at it had
been decided by Lord Tenterden, in a similar action, brought
by a servant against his master, that in the case of a selvant