The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-24 00:00:00

THE KING V. JOHN MARSH.

Sir W. FOLLETT, on behalf of the' town-clerk of Dover,
who was also clerk of the peace for that borough, appeared
to show cause against a rule calling on him to amend the
caption to the indictment. The object of this application
was to enable the . defendant to move to arrest the judg-
ment. It was clear that the motion could not be granted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared in supported of the
rule. The great object of this motion was to save the ne-
cessity of bringing error in fact.

The Couar thought that there was nothing to amend by,
and so discharge the rule.
The defendant was then brought up for judgment. The
indictment charged him with having at the first election of
the municipal officers at Dover, under the Municipal Re-
form Act, fraudulently induced one Joseph Moore to por-
sonate one John Moore, and to vote as the said John Moore
at the said election. Affidavits giving the defendant a very
excellent character were read, and the Attorney-General,
Mr. Thessiger, and Mr. Channel', addressed the Court in
mitigation of punishment. Mr. Platt and Mr. Adolphus
were afterwards heard in aggravation.
Mr. Justice WILLIANts, as senior puisne Judge present
in Court, delivered the judgment of the Court as follows:
" You, John Marsh, are to receive the sentence of this
Court on a conviction that has taken place on an indict-
ment which charges, that after the passing of the Munici-
pal Corporation Reform Act an election was held for the
election of Town Councillors for the borough of Dover ;
that the borough of Dover is divided into different wards,
of which the pier ward is one ; that a person of the name
Of John Moore was a burgess entitled to vote at that elec-
tion, and that you instigated and persuaded a person of
'theaame of Joseph Moore to personate that voter, John
Moore, and in addition to that to subscribe his name to a
voting paper, purporting to be the voting paper of the said
John Moore ; and upon that indictment, so found against
You, and upon the trial, as I have mentioned, the Jury
have found you guilty. The sentence of the Court is,
that you pay a fine of 200/. to the King, and that you be
imprisoned till that fine is paid."

COURT OF COMJION PLEAS, JAN. 23.
VAUGHAN V. MENLOVE.
This teas an action on the case brought by the plaintiff,
who was the owner of certain cottages in the county of
Salop, to recover compensation in damages for the injuries
which he had sustained in consequence of the destruction of
some of the said cottages by fire, arising from the sponta-
neous ignition of a. hay-stack belonging to the defendant, and
standing on the defendant's ground. 'Tie case was tried
before Mr. Justice Mattison at Shrewsbury, and a verdict
was found for the plaintiff, damages 51. A rule nisi for a
new trial had been obtained, on the ground of misdirection
by the Learned Judge.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD showed cause against the rule.
Mr. RICHARDS supported the rule.

1.:"1-1-C COURT were of opinion that there had had been
gross negligence on the part of the defendant, and they
must discharge the rule accordingly.

ADMIRALTY COURT, JAY. 23.
THE LIMA—WAGES.
This suit, which is a claim for wages by Mr. Stephenson,
against Captain Fewson, the master and sole owner of the
brig Lima, came before the Court this day, when the
Learned Judge gave his decision. lie stated at some
length the circumstances of the case, and read the evi-
dence of the principal witnesses brought forward on be-
half of. Mr. Stephenson. Now he (the Learned Judge)
felt no hesitation in saving that Stephenson's conduct was
ungentlemanly and unotlicer-like, and that he had on save.
ral occasions in the most flagrant manner neglected his
duty. What, then remained for the Court to do if it was
of opinion that Mr. Stephenson "had neglected, or refused
to perform, his proper duty," as it most certainly was No_
thing but to follow the course laid down in the Passages
quoted ; and the Court accordingly decided that a con,
plete forfeiture of wages had taken place ; that Captain_
Fewson was justified in his conduct, and that it dismissed
hint as defendant in this suit without his costs.