The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-08 00:00:00

IN RE RUGBY SCHOOL.

It will be recollected that in this case, which came
on upon petition before the long vacation, praying for
the interference of the Court in the management and
regulation of the School, the Master of the Rolls made
no order, but expressed an opinion that discouragement
had been thrown on the introduction of young boys into
the School, and that adequate provision had not been
made for their instruction. An intimation was then
given on behalf of the trustees, that they were only
desirous of doing what was right ; and that, when his
Lordship's opinion was understood by them, no further
proceedings would be necessary.
Mr. PEMBERTON this morning stated that an arrange-
ment had been made by the trustees, which, if conti-
nued and permanently established by the order of the
trustees, was all that was necessary to be done ; but no
order had yet been made by them, which, in the opinion
of the petitioners, would meet the exigencies of the
case. All they desired was to have a permanent ar-
rangement made. _ _ _

KINDERSLEY, who appeared for the trustees,
was desirous that the Court, should make no order on
the subject.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said he certainly had ex-
pressed an opinion that there had not been that species
of encouragement given to young boys that was desirable.
At the same time a confidence was expressed that the
trustees would do what was right. It now appeared
that what was right had been done, but that ought not
to be assigned as a reason why no further order should
be made.

Mr. KINDERSLEY could assure his Lordship that
the trustees had literally no object whatever but to do
what was best for the school.

The MASTER of the ROLLS--I cannot suppose other.
wise.

Mr. KINDERSLEY Therefore, if his Lordship
would be good enough to suggest the form in
which the arrangement should be made the
trustees would be happy to concur in it. What
had ocourred to him was, that if the Court made an
order it might be considered as a sort of slur on the
management of the school, which he was certain his
Lordship would not wish to cast.
The MASTER of the RoLLs—Not at all: I cannot
look at it in that light. Nothing whatever disrespect-
ful towards the trustea is intended ; only it appears
to me that something more is necessary to be done for
the purpose of giving encouragement to the lower school.
Mr. KINDERSLEY was desirous that the public should
feel everything was done for the benefit of the school.
The MASTER of the Rou.s—lf I recollect right,
and it is rather a disadvantage to me that I have not
the whole facts now in my mind, it appeared that the
school was very flourishing, and had been particularly
so since its tuition by Dr. Arnold, but that one part of
the school did not receive that encouragement which it
ought to have.
An order was ultimately made, reciting that the peti-
tion had stood over, and that in consequence of an in-
timation from the Court, adequate provision having been
made for the instruction of young boys in the lower
school, the Court did not think it :right to make any
order on the petition except that the costs should be
paid out of the fund, with liberty to apply to the Court
•if there should be occasion.

'QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

in these calls. Now it was clear that the Directors had
no authority to expend the money of the shareholders
in any undertaking which had not previously received
thcir sanction, and which did not come within the terms
of the Act of Parliament. A certain proposition wL!s
laid before the public, and certain terms were prescribed
in the Act, and it was upon the faith of that arrange-
ment that the shares had been taken. Although the
defendant might have been willing to subscribe to an
undertaking for a line two miles and three quarters long,
he might have strong objections to joining a company
for forming one nearly five mites long. Under these
' circumstances he thought he was entitled to have the
rule prayed for.
The COURT said that there was some difficulty, from
the number of questions raised, as to the relief which
should he given. They thought it best however that
leave should be given on the points reserved by the
Lord Chief Justice, and the Court would then deal
with the rule as it thought proper.—Rule granted.

EAST AND OTHERS V. 31‘GEE.

Mr. PLATT bad been instructed to move for a new
;rlid in this case.

Lord DENMAN—Oh, I recollect it—it was a point of
honour between the drapers and tailors.—(A laugh.)
Mr. PLATT—YCS, my Lord. It was geld before
your Lordship at the Middlesex sittings, and there was
a verdict for the plaintiff for 571.
Lord DENMAN—The plaintiff was a draper and the
defendant a tailor, and it a-as alleged that he had kept
three pieceE of cloth sent him for inspection long enough
to make him a purchaser.
Mr. PLATT having stated the facts of the case, from
which it appeared that the cloth bad been kept more
than three months, and had been injured by being left
open, _ _

The COURT was of opinion that there was no ground
For disturbing the verdict,—Ru►e refused.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)

THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF HEREFORDSHIRE.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved for a rule to show cause
why a mandamus should not issue to the Justices' of
Herefordshire, commanding them to enter continu-
ances, and hear an appeal against an order of removal.
The order was made by the Justices of the borough of
Leominster on the 16th of March, and served on the
18th. On the 4th of April the parish to which the
pauper was removed gave notice of appeal. The next
Quarter Sessions were on the Bth of April, but the no-

nee of appeal was to the July Sessions. Upon the
appeal then coming on, the Justices refused to hear it,
on the ground that it ought to have been'to the April
Sessions. This decision of the Quarter Sessions in-
volved two very important points, which were entirely
open for the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.
Under the exigencies of the new statute, fourteen days
at least before the Sessions, at which the appeal is to
be tried, the appellant party is to furnish the respon-
dents with the grounds of appeal.
His LORDSHIP—What statute ?

Mr. WILLIAMS—The New Poor-law Act (4 and 5
Will. IV., c. 76, s. 81.) In this case it was necessary
that fourteen days before the Bth of April the grounds of
appeal should have been stated. Now there were only Fix
clear days, during which it was incumbent on the party to
make up their minds not only whether they would appeal
or not, but also to state with precision all the grounds
of appeal. Slx days, he apprehended, were not suffi-
cient for that purpose. There was another question of
equal or still greater importance, and that was whether
or not an appellant parish, under the new Poor-law
Act, had not at all events 21 days to deliver it ; for
the 79th scction directed that no pauper should be
actually removed until the expiration of 21 days from
the service of the order of removal. It was difficult to
imagine why such a limit should have been named,
except upon the supposition that during the 21 days
the parish was to have the opportunity of considering
whether to appeal or not.
His LORDSHIP granted a rule nisi.
THE QUEEN V. APPLETON.

Mr. ADDISON moved for a writ of certiorari, to re-

move the proceedings on the coroner's inquest in this
case into this Court, and for a rule to show cause why
Matthew Appleton, now a prisoner in York Castle, on
a charge of manslaughter, should not be admitted to
bail before a Magistrate in the county. The affidavit
of Appleton stated that he had been for five years in
the service of the Stockton and Darlington Railway
Company, and that on the 19th of October he was con-
ducting a locomotive engine belonging to the Com-
pany along the railway between Middleborough
and Stockton, and that previously to the arrival of the
engine at a point where the railway crosses the highway,
he gave notice of the approach of the engine in the
usual manner, by a shrill whistle ; that Thomas Gray
was driving a waggon, drawn by three horses, along the
road leading from Stockton to Stokesley, and that in
attempting to cross the railway the first horse swerved ;
that Gray urged the horse forward and got him across,
but that the second horse was struck by the engine, and
Gray thrown down, whereby his death was caused.
Appleton further stated that be believed Gray must have
heard his whistle, and that when he (Appleton) sa'w the
waggon he did his utmost to prevent the accident.
His LORDSHIP granted the application.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

EVE ,‘,,s I-- C E 441T1'
s I

vendant
18th

Mr. BEART, for the def:!nt e, said that the de,
had paid the plaintiff the amount in dispute on the
of July, and called the
Henry John Jackson, the defendant's clerk.—On tr.
15th of July he saw Westlake receive a letter from 1\
13
Conquest, the plaintiff's attorney, demanding paymei
of 10/. Bs., due to Mr. Parkins ; he immediately, b)
his master's directions, accompanied him to town, and
they went together to plaintiff's shop, and found Parkins
there alone. Defendant offered ten sovereigns and
eight shillings to Parkins in payment ; he refused to
take it, and referred Westlake to Conquest. Westlake.
said " I owe him nothing, it is to you I owe the money
whereupon the plaintiff took up the money and put it In
his pocket. Westlake then ordered a frock-coat, and
Parkins said he would send it to him, and at the same
time send a receipt, as he had no one to send out to
procure one. On their return to Barking, witness made
a memorandum of the transaction, which was nov put in.
Thomas Edward Thomas has known the defendant
many years. On the 18th of July last he accompsojea
the defendant to the plaintiff's shop. The defendant :asked
Parkins when the coat would be ready, to which Parkin s
said that afternoon, whereupon Westlake remarked,
" This commences a fresh account," to which Parkins !
replied, " Certainly."
Cross-examined—Did not bear anything said about a
receipt.
The witnesses for the plaintiff were recalled, but no-
thing material was elicited.
Mr. CONQUEST having replied,
The SECONDARY summed up, and said the case was
full of difficulty, and it entirely depended upon
which set of witnesses the Jury were inclined
to credit. The contradictions were direct and irre-
concileable ; he should offer no opinion on the matter,
but leave the question entirely to the Jury,
The Jury having retired for ten minutes, found a
verdict for the plaintiff for the whole amount claimed.