The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-05 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

THE KING V. THE DIRECTORS OF THE room. OF ST. PANCRAS.
Mr. BODKIN moved for a rule, calling upon the Direc-
tors of the Poor of St. Pancras to show cause why a man-
damus should not issue, commanding them to support a male
child, held to become chargeable to the parish under some-
what novel circumstances. On the 11th of May a respect-
ably-dressed female went to the lodge of the Foundling
Hospital, and stated to the porter that she had brought a
parcel for one of the persons of the establishment. She
was accordingly shown into the lodge, and laid on the table
a rush basket, packed• up. The porter, at the request of
the female, went to ascertain if the individual to whom the
basket was directed was at home, and during his temporary
absence she opened the door of the building and decamped.
While the porter was endeavouring in his own mind to ac-
count for the absence of the bearer he observed the basket
to move, which was quickly followed by a cry. This in-
duced him to open the basket, and he there found a fine
boy, about six weeks old, meanly, but cleanly, dressed. Mr.
Lievesly, the secretary to the hospital, was immediately in-
formed of the circumstance, and he directed the infant to
be conveyed to the workhouse. The overseers, however,
refused to take the child in, saying they had no authority
so to do, for they were under the immediate controul of the
directors of the poor, and the child was accordingly sent
back to the Foundling- Hospital. On the meeting of the
Governors of the Hospital the infant was sent to the work-
house, when he was again refused admission and support.
An application was subsequently made to the Magistrates
of Hatton-garden, when Mr. LAING, under the 54th sec-
tion of the Poor Law Amendment Act, made an order for
:he admission of the foundling into the workhouse. The
directors of the poor, however, conceived that the limited
authority given to the Magistrates to interfere in cases of
extraordinary and urgent necessity, the parish being under
the operation of a local Act, did not extend to the case in
question, and they therefore refused to be burthened with
the maintenance of the child. The Governors of the
Foundling had, therefore, no alternative in their view of the
case, but resolved immediately to submit the present motion.
The case stood over for the decision:of the Learned Judge.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNK 3.
THE MAYOR OF BATH V. FINCH.

Mr. CROWDER showed cause against a conditional rule
for an attachment against the defendant on a former day, by
Mr. Sergeant Bompas. The plaintiff sued on behalf of
the Corporation of Bath. The defendant was a brewer,
occupying premises at some short distance from the Hot
Wells in that city. Sometime ago the defendant, requiring
a more extensive supply of cold water for his business than
the well on his premises supplied, determined on having it
sunk. Immediately after this the water in the Hot Wells,
belonging to the Corporation, was discovered to have dimi-
nished to a serious extent, and the cause having been ascer-
tained the defendant was called upon to restore his well to
its former condition. Some difference with respect to the
expenses, however, ensued, and the result was that the
Mayor, as head of the Corporation, brought an action on
the case against the defendant. When this action came
on for trial a compromise was entered into between the
parties, by which the Corporation undertook to have the
water pumped from the well, in order to have the damage re-
paired, and the defendant submitted to a verdict—damages,
one shilling. It became necessary to erect a steam-engine
to pump the water out of the well, but the defendant re-
' fused to allow it to be placed on his premises without com-
pensation. He also claimed the sum of 1401, the expense
which the boring had cost him ; but to these terms the Cor-
poration would not consent, and the consequence was that
the plaintiff applied for and obtained a conditional rule for
an attachment. These were the facts of the case, and the
Learned Counsel now contended, on the part of the de-
fendant, that the rule nisi ought to be discharged.
Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS said that the only proposition he
could agree to was to have the rule made absolute, upon
the understanding that the attachment was to stand sus-
pended for a given time.

. _
The COURT made an order to that effect, at the same
time strongly recommending the matter to be amicably
compromised.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jc.vE 3.
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN GROOM.
In this case a rule was obtained at the instance of Mr.
Vickers, of the firm of Child and Vickers, the distillers, as
assignee of the insolvent, calling on his widow, Mary
Groom, as executrix, and John Christopher, the executor,
to show cause why the sum of four hundred pounds, stand-
ing in the Long Annuities, should not be transferred to the
assignee for the creditors. A rule was also obtained on
the Bank of England to retain the sum until further order
of the Court.—The rule was accordingly enlarged.