The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-05 00:00:00

of Mr. Pemberton was agreed to, and the petition or-
dered to be dismissed, but without costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 4.

THE QUEEN V. THE VESTRY OF THE PARISH OF

ST. PANCRAS.
In this case (which was not concluded when we Wert
to press)
The COURT took time to look into the affidavits.
THE MASTER AND WARDENS OF THE APOTHECARIES

COMPANY V. CIREENWELL.
Mr. CRESSWELL moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the defendant should not be
set aside, and a new trial had, on the ground of misdi-
rection. It was an action to recover penalties against
the defendant for practising as an apothecary without
the necessary licence, and was tried at the last Liver-
pool Assizes before Mr. Baron Manic. The defendant
carried on business at St. flelen's, near Liverpool, call-
ing himself a surgeon, and his sister's name was over the
door ; but it was given in evidence that he bad attended
and prescribed for patients in the usual manner as an
apothecary. By the 28th section of the Apothecaries'
Company Act it was provided that nothing therein
contained should affect the rights of chemists and drug-
gists as they had been exercised previously to the pass-
ing of the Act. The Learned Judge, on summing up the
case, said if the Jury believed that chemists and drug-
gists were in the habit of visiting patients, then the de-
fendant had committed no offence ; and the Jury re-
turned a verdict as follows :—" As there is no evidence
to show what was the trade of a chemist or druggist,
we find for the defendarit." The Learned Coansel con-
tended that the direction was bad, inasmuch as the onus
v.robandi rested with the defendant as to what the bu-
siness of a chemist was.
COURT—Take a rule.

DURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nor. 4.
JUDGE V. BRAYE AND OTHERS.
Mr. PLATT moved for a rule Nisi to set aside the
trdiet which was for the defendant. The action was
:tied before the Lord Chief Justice at the late Assizes
'or Sussex, and be moved on the ground that the ver-
dict was a perverse one. The defendants were parish
officers, and seized a feather bed and bolster, a table,
two chairs, and a gun, the property of William Judge,
for a rate which was due by Jesse Judge. At the
trial he proved that the father of William and Jesse
Judge died about eight years ago, up to which time
the father and the two sons, with their families, re-
sided all together in the house—that after the death of
the father the goods became, and were always recog-
nised as, the property of William Judge, although Jesse
Judge and his family continued to reside in the same
house—he also proved by the maker of the chairs that
they were made fur William Judge, and he further
called the person who sold him the gun. The de-
fendant's Counsel knew of what materials the Jury was
composed, and he touched them on the right part.
They were all in such a situation of life as to expect to
become parish officers themselves, and he expatiated
on the hardship of persons acting in that capacity
being put in jeopardy for a mistake of such a cha-
racter, and to the astonishment of the Judge, and every
one, the Jury adopted that view of the case.
Mr. Baron PARKE—The defendants took the pro-
perty—it was a mere mistake in rating.
Mr. PLATT—The name of Wm. Judge was not in
the rate at ali—Jesse Judge was the person rated and
summoned.
Mr. Baron PARKE—By mistake. The goods seized
were in the house liable for the rate. They were the
proper goods.
Mr. PLATT—NO doubt of it, but are the jury to be
allowed to commit perjury ? it is neither more nor less
than that, for they found the goods to be the property
of the wrong person.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—It is quite clear that the
defendants had made a mistake in the rating, but that
they had taken the proper goods. We think there will
be no injustice done in letting the verdict stand. The
action ought not to have been brought. The ends of
justice do not require the interference of the Court.
Rule refused.

HUMPHRIES V. PRICE.
This was an action for assault, which was tried before
Mr. Justice Pattison at the late Assizes held for the
County of Glamorgan, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiff—Damages, 201.
Mr. JERVIS now moved for a rule Nisi for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection on the part of the
Learned Judge. The Learned Gentleman said, how-
ever strange it might be, the fact was that processions
of teetotallers were becoming very frequent in Wales.
The defendant formed one of such a procession when
the petitioner, who was, returning from bunting, rode
into it, and assaulted the plaintiff who, in self-de-
fence, committed the assault complained of. For the
defendant it was proved that the assault was not com-
mitted until ten minutes after the processpn had dis-
banded ; but the. Learned Judge kit it to the Jury to
say whether the assault committed on the plaintiff by
the defendant was done immediately upon the assault
committed upon the defendant by the plaintiff.
Rule granted.