The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. MAY 23.
THE QUEEN V. WARLAND.
Mr. CRESW ELL moved that the side bar rule obtained in
this case calling upon the Judges of oyer and terminer, and
and the Clerk of Assize fur the county of York, to make
aresu, n into this Court of certain e rits of certiorari be
discharged. He moved this upon the affidavit of the Clef k
of Assize, which stated that early in the Easter term last,
application had been made to him respecting the returns
,o certain writs of certiorari by Mr. Newton, who had
asked him why those writs had not been returned to the
Court ; in reply to which he informed Mr. Newton, that
he had never received nor heard of such writs, but would
write to the Deputy Clerk of Assize on the sub-
ject—that he had according done so, and had learnt
that the writs were prepared, but that the ancient
and accustomed fees payable thereon, amounting
to 21. Bs., had not been paid, and that the delay
in the return was owing solely to the neglect of the prose-
cutor in paying these fees. He had informed Mr. Newton
of this, and had stated to him that the writs would be re-
turned as soon as the fees should be paid. That Mr. New-
ton had proposed that the fees should not be paid until
after the cause had been tried, to which he had refused to
accede ; whereupon Mr. Newton had said that he should
move the Court for an attachment. That the next day he
had been served with aside bar rule, and had instructed his
attorney to state to Mr. Newton that the writs should be
returned on payment of the fees, for the receipt of which
he was obliged to account on oath to the Lords of the
Treasury, and which he did not receive for his own use.
That these fees were long established, and were to be ac-
counted for by him in accordance with the provisions of
the Act 1 and 2 Will. IV., cap. 35 ; that these fees were
always paid beforehand in every case except in Govern-
ment cases, those being the only cases in which credit
was allowed, and that the Government invariably paid
them afterwards, and he believed that neither of the Judges
of oyer and terminer were ever served with their writs of
certiorari.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE did not consider personal ser-
vice on the Judges necessary.
Mr. Justice PATTESON was of the same opinion.
Mr. CARSWELL said that he applied to have the rule
set aside on two grounds; first, that the Judge of Assiz.
could not be called upon to make a return to writ of cer-
tiorari which had not been served on him ; and, next, that
the party had no right to call for a return unless he was
willing to do that which was necessary to be done, which
he was evidently not willing to do, having refused to pay
the fees which were due.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALZ—Take a rule Nisi.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that this is
the case, in connection with which an attachment for con-
tempt was moved for yesterday against Mr. Baron Alderson.

SHERIFFS COURT, MAY 23.
POPE AND OTHERS V. SINCLAIR.

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—This was an action brought to
recover the sum of 4/. Bs. I ld. for certain articles supplied
by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The defence set up was
that the latter, at the time of making the purchase was a
prostitute, and known to the plaintiffs, to be so, and therefore
the articles were supplied to enable her the better to carry
on that abominable practice, they well knowing that she
had no other means of payment than by the gains accruing
from the prostitution of her person. They had therefore been
a party to, and encouraged an open immorality, and were
therefore not entitled to recover.

Mr. WILSON conducted the case for the plaintiffs, and
Mr. THOMAS for the defcndant.

Mr. WILSON said that the plaintiffs, Richard and John
Pope were coal merchants and the conductors of a linen
drapery business in high 1-I,lborn. In June 1837, the
defendant, Mary Ann Sinclair, called at their warehouse,
and made some purchaves in the ordinary business. way of
It these kind of pleas were once admitted in defence, wh,t
protection would tradesmen have in the transaction of
their common business ? The goods were sold, as to their
other customers, without any reference to the purposes
alleged.
George Wight, foreman to the plaintiffs, deposed to the
purchase of sixteen yards of silk for a silk dress, a pair of
silk socks, linen, and calico for lining, in the month of
June, 1837.
Cross-examined by Mr. Thomas—Our shop is a tally_
shop. The goods were sold to defendant on credit, and at
credit prices. She was introduced by Mrs. Dudley. I
was told she was a woman of the town. She said she was a
dress-maker. Mr. Pope was absent. I have authority to
act on such occasions.
Wm. Smith, plaintiff's collector, went to St. James's-
place, Hampstead, for payment, but was refused.
Cross-examined—Was in the habit of collecting for his
) oyheor
us
sien
fit
fi t
ty ne
times. ighb o u
Hrh
e o
ho
ad He had
d.
occasionally
dant'sdrop
with
the ladies—( Laughter)—but he never thought how they
g,,t their money.
Mr. Thomas commented in strong language on what he
denominated the witness's perjury, and said he must have
known they were women of the town.
Further evidence was adduced to the same effect.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF in summing up, told
the Jury that if they thought the plaintiffs were aware that
the defendant was a person of that unfortunate description,
their verdict must be in her favour.
The Jury immediately found for the defendant.