The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-14 00:00:00

THE KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF WEEKS.

This was an application for leave to file a criminal infor-
mation against certain inhabitants of the parish of Weeks
in Essex, (35 in number), for making an alleged false re-
turn to a writ of mandamus, by which they were com-
manded to proceed to the election of churchwardens for
that parish.
The return stated that there had not, from time imme-
morial, been any election of churchwardens for the parish
in question, and the affidavits in support of that return,
and in answer to the present rule, although they admitted
that the custom had been for the Minister to appoint one
churchwarden, denied that a second had ever been elected
by tie parishioners ; and they stated that the parish
never, in fact, had any churchwarden.
Mr. DEACON now showed cause against the rule.
Mr. PATTESON, in support of the rule, appeared on the
part of the Archdeacon, who felt desirous of trying the
question as to the al:eged custom.
Lord TENTERDEN thought that the parish had better at
once appoint a churchwarden, and so put an end to liti-
gation, as otherwise the money which might be appro-
priated to the repairing or ornamenting the church would
be spent in law.
. _

Mr. DEACON observed that no inconvenience bad
hitherto resulted from there being no churchwarden ; and
the church was not at present out of repair.
Lord TENTERDEN-But perhaps it soon will be, if

there is no one to look after it.
After some further observations,
The Couivr directed the rule to be enlarged for the pur-
pose of giving Mr. Patteson an opportunity, in case no
arrangement should be come to, of moving to quash the
return as insufficient, and for a perempto7 y mandamus to
compel the election.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE U.
BULL V. PRICE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a surveyor,
against the defendant, Mrs. Price, to recover a sum of SU
as compensation for his trouble in negotiating for the dis-
c defendant's interest in the premises lately
posal of the

known by the name of .he Key Hotel, in Chandos.street,
of which she was the freeholder. These premises having
fallen within the line of the Charing- cross and Strand im-
provements, it became necessary to pull them down, and
the plaintiff was employed by Mrs. Price to negotiate with
the Commissioners for the sale of her interest in them, she
agreeing to pay him "21. per cent. on the sum which
might be obtained for the same, either by private contract,
by arbitration, or by the verdict of a jury." He accord-
ingly entered into a negotiation with the Commissioners,
and obtained an offer of 4,600/. ; but the defendant, act-
ing on the advice of another person, declined the offer,
and the case went before a jury, who awarded
her only 4,000!. There being some incumbrances
on the property, she had not yet been able to make
out a perfect title, and, consequently, the money was
still unpaid. It was upon this ground that she resisted
the plaintiff's demand, contending that, according to the
terms of their agreement, he was not entitled to any re-
muneration until the money was "obtained " by her.
The cause was tried at the last Middlesex sittings, before
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, who, being of opinion that by
the terms of the contract, which was a written one, the
plaintiff was bound to wait until the money was actually
obtained or received by the defendant (unless prevented by
some wilful act of fraud or negligence on her own part),
decided that the present action was prematurely brought,
and therefore nonsuitenhe plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant JONES now moved to set aside the non-
suit.—The Court granted a rule to show cause.