The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-07 00:00:00

TELE SUN, LONDON. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1839.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF DERBY.

Mr. ALEXANDER moved fora rule to show cause
why a mandamus should not issue, directed to the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of Derby,
calling upon them to execute a bond under the follow-
ing circumstances :—The name of the person on whose
behalf he applied, was Newton, who "fig appointed a
constable of Derby, in the year 1812, in which office
he continued until the passing of the Municipal Reform
Act, when he was dismissed. By the 66th and 67th
sections of the Act, power was given to the Corporation
to award compensation to persons who had served
pnblic offices under them, either by a sum of money or
annuity. Application was made to the Corporation for
compensation, which they refused to give, and an ap-
peal was then made to the Lords of the Treasury, who
directed that an annuity of 371. should be settled upon
the applicant. Newton became a bankrupt, and his
assignees prepared a bond, which the Corporation re-
fused to sign, and he now applied for a mandamus to
compel them to do so. _ _ _

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule nisi.
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF PEMBROKE.

Mr. \VILLIAMS moved for a v mandamus against
Henry Phillips, Esq., one of the Aldermen of Pem-
broke, commanding him to proceed to the election of
a town councillor for Pembroke Ward, in the room of
Mr. James Robinson Bryant. The circumstances were
these. On the 6th November, 1838, Mr. Bryant was
elected as one of three councillors, in the place of those
who retired, but on the day of the election it was dis-
covered that he had not been rated, and as the Act
provided that no one should be qualified to be a coun-
cillor who was not on the burgess-roll, it was suggested
that, although Mr. Bryant was on the burgess-roll,
w he
had no right to be there, not being rated. That objec-
tion,. hoever, was ill founded, for the Court of King's
Bench had decided that a peribing on the roll was
sufficient. Mr. Bryant was deterred, by the objection
being taken, from the risk of taking office, which office
could now only be filled by virtue-of a mandamus from
this Court.

His LORDSHIP granted a mandamus absolute in the
first instance.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

(Sittings in Banco.)
JOHNSON V. REID.

This was an action brought to recover damages fur
trespass and false imprisonment, which was tried before
the Lord Chief Justice (Denman), at the late Assizes
for the county of Surrey, held at Croydon, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff—damages 451.
Mr. THESIGER. now moved for a rule nisi for a
nonsuit or for a new trial. The action was for false im-
prisonment, against a Magistrate for Surrey. The plain-
tiff, it was proved, was a journeyman calico printer, in
the employment of Mr. Makepiece. That gentleman
was in the habit of paying all his workmen by piece
work—all the materials used by the journeymen
were the property of Mr. Makepiece, and they all
worked on his premises. The plaintiff received blocks,
&c. with which to print some calicoes, from Mr. Make-
piece, but he neglected his work, and left the premises
without either notice or cause. Mr. Makepiece had
him apprehended, and being taken before the defendant
he was committed for a certain period of imprisonment
under the statute. Application was made to a Judge
at Chambers—a writ of habeas corpus was sued out,
and on hearing the case Mr. Justice Williams dis-
charged the plaintiff, on the authority of the case of
Hardy v. —9, Barnewell and Creswell 603, in which
the plaintiff was discharged, he having been given a
quantity of silk to be by him made into cloth. It was
there held that such a case did not come within the
statute, he not being a servant of the party. In this
case, however, not only were the materials the property
of the master, but all his men worked on his premises,
and the mode of payment of the wages was a mere ar-
rangement for the convenience of the parties.

The COURT—Take a rule.
VAUGHAN V. FITZHUGH AND.ANOTHER.

This was an action to recover the sum of 8691.,
advanced by the plaintiff to the `captain of a ship, the
property of Mr. , deceased, whose executors the
defendants were. It was tried at the late Liverpool
Assizes, before Mr. Baron Maule, when the Jury found
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed. . _

Mr. CRESWELL now moved for a rule nisi to reduce
the verdict to 2001. The plaintiff was a merchant in
Demerara, whose brother chartered the vessel in ques-
tion on his account for a voyage to Honduras and back.
Bythe charter-party the plaintiff was to advance the cap.
tarn to the extent of 2001. The ship met with a variety of
accidents, and the plaintiff had advanced the whole sum
of 869/. The question was, was not the plaintiff bound
by the charter-party, and concluded from recovering
more than the 2001. therein specified. At the trial the
Judge was of opinion that the charter-party compelled
him to advance the 2001., but did not take from the
captain his power to raise a sum sufficient for the pur-
poses of the ship.
The COURT were of the same opinion, and refused
the rule.
Mr. CRESWELL would then move for an arrest of
judgment upon a misjoinder in the pleas.
Rule nisi granted on this point.
SEWELL V. RABIC.
vies-also an action which was tried before Mr.
BarOn'Manfe at Liverpool, when the Jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—damages 221.
Mr. CRESWELL now, by leave reserved to him by
the Learned Judge, moved for a rule nisi for a nonsuit.
The action was for money had and received to the use
of the plaintiff. It appeared that plaintiff and four
other persons agreed to build a church at Tramyear.
They did so ; and after paying all the expenses attendant
upon the worship the residue of the pew rents were to
be divided into five shares. Sewell, it appeared, had
failed to pay up his full proportion of the building ex-
penses, and an action for contribution was brought against
him. While it was still undecided the then
Churchwardens made out an account, from
which it appeared that after paying all
expenses the residue of the pew rents afforded
the sum of 22/. to each of the five shares.
Sewell had been then offered his share, but refused it.
Before the settlement of the action against Sewell, the
then Churchwardens went out of office, and Sewell and
Raby came in. The former Churchwardens paid over
the 22/. they had in hand to Raby, at the same time
telling him not to part with it to Sewell, until the action
against him was settled. Under no circumstances then
could it be held that Raby held the money to the use of
the plaintiff ; if he held it in his capacity of Church-
warden, his co-Churchwarden would not sue him, and
it was clearly proved that he was not to pay over the
money until the action against Sewell was determined,
which it was not when the present action was corn-
menced.—Rule granted.

SHERIFFS' COURT-(THIS DAY.)

CIIAMBERLAYNE V. LEVELL.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
8/. 12s. 6d. for goods sold and delivered.
Mr. CREW appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Titostas for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this case is a beer-shopkeeper, and
the defendant is a foreman employed on some buildings
which are erecting in the neighbourhood of the plaintiff's
beer shop.
The barman of the plaintiff proved the delivery of
certain quantities of beer and provisions to the woKk-
men in the employ of the defendant. These persons
gave the witness tickets, who gave thorn to his master.
They were transcribed in chalk on a door, and subse-
quently entered in a book, in the presence of the de-
fendant, when the tickets were returned to him.
On his cross-examination he admitted that he could
neither write nor read writing, and that he had entered
the plaintiff's service since tho commencement of these
transactions.

The Clerk to the defendant's attorney proved that
the defendant had called at his master's office, and pro-
duced. an account saying he would pay for what he had
himself, but not for what the men had had.
On his cross-examination he stated, that the defend-
ant had kept the paper in his hand, and that he had not
seen any of the items, but concluded that it was an
account.

Mr. THOMAS for the defence, stated that the defend-
ant denied the debt in toto ; that he had never been
furnished with a bill of particulars until a few days
since, when he had been obliged to get a Judge's order
for the same, and that the particulars so furnished did
not correspond with the book produced by the plaintiff.
The
U UNDER-SHERIFF,
thought
I defendantF Finsumimlaidnggilu,epn the plaintiff, said that if
the Jury
orders to supply the articles in question on his credit,
then their verdict must be for the plaintiff, but if they
thought the evidence only went to prove that the de-
fendant had consented to become answerable after a
portion of the goods bad been supplied, they must find
for the defendant, as no undertaking to pay the debt of
another, already contracted, was valid in law except the
same was in writing. There was also a discrepancy in
the accounts, to which the Jury should direct their
attention.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

MARLBOROUGH-*TREET
(THIS DAY.)

George Acoti and Thomas Sheen, who have been in
custody before on different charges of housebreaking,
were placed at the bar, on the following charge. Mr.
Gibson of the Feather's public-house in Mar-
shall-street, Golden-square, stated that about ten
o'clock last night, while serving in the bar, he
heard a private alarm bell, fixed in his bed-
room, ring. He directly; proceeded up stairs, and
discovered that a door on the landing of the stairs had
been opened by a skeleton key ; and on entering his
bed-room, the two prisoners were found scrambling
under the bed to hide themselves. They were secured
on the floor ; beside them were found an iron jemmy
or crowbar, &c.
The prisoners were sentenced to three, months' im-
prisonment in the House of Correction, and hard labour.