The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-31 00:00:00

LAZY INTELLIGENCE.

LEICESTER.
The ATTORNEI-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. MELLOR)
showed cause against a rule for quashing a return to a man-
damus which had been issued to the Select Vestry of the pa-
rish of St. Margaret, Leicester, commanding them to make a
Church-rate.
Lord DENNAN—If we thought that there was strong evi.
dente of vexation and wilful delay, we should certainly inter-
fere}; but if persons give us a good reason for not making a rate,
and we think that there is truth in the statement of that rea-
son, we must refuse to decide a case of this kind in the manner
in which it is now presented to us. This mode of trying 'a
mandamus on affidavit is very inconvenient.-- Rule discharged.
THE QUEEN V. THE STRAND UNION.
Mr. CRESWELL moved for a rule to show cause why a cer-
tiorari should nut issue for bringing up an order of the Poor-
law Commissioners for the consideration of the Court. He
said that the object which he had in making this motion was to
bring forward the question of the validity of an order made by
ths Poor-law Commissioners which had for its effect the sepa-
ration of husband and wife in workhouses, and which was one
of their general orders, having been made under the general
provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act.—Rule refused.
IN THE CASES OF THE CANADIAN PRISONERS,
Mr. HILL applied to the Court in the case of the rule which
he had obtained on Saturday last, and which was to have come
on on Tuesday for argument, and upon which he was anxious
to have the pleasure of the Court, whether he shouldiproceed
at once with the argument, or whether it should be postponed
for consideration hereafter. Since he had last mentioned the
case to their Lordships, the Court of Exchequer had granted
rules for writs of habeas corpus in reference to the same pri-
soners as those on whose behalf he had moved, and the ques-
tion which was to be argued before the Learned Judges of
that Court was as to the sufficiency of the return, upon which
this Court had also to decide. The Learned Barons had ad-
journed the determination of the rule until next term, and
the question "was whether, under these circumstances, the
Court would -deem it advisable that he should proceed to argue
the matter here.

Lord DENMAN said that it was reasonable to wait until the
Court of Exchequer had given their decision upon the ques-
tion, and it was fit, therefore, that the rule in this Court
should not only be postponed until next term, but until that
Court should have given their opinion upon the question be-
fore them.

SCOTTER V. THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL OF NORWICH.
Sir W. FousTr showed cause against a rule obtained by
Mr. Kelly for a certiorari to bring up an order of the Town
Council of Norwich to pay to their clerk the sum of 5761.,
in respect of certain bills of cost delivered by him for pro-
ceedings in which he bad been employed in defending an ap-
peal carried up to the House of Lords, which was now
pending, upon the subject of the appointment of trustees for
certain funds under the Municipal Corporation Act.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court would consider whether
Mr. Kelly would be entitled to have his rule„or whether filo),
would require him to address them, and would let him know
the result at a future sitting of the Court.

ARCHES' COURT, J. 29.
BECKE U. MARSHALL AND PAGE.-JUDGMENT.
This is a proceeding instituted by Mr. Becke, an inhabitant
of Northampton, against the churchwardens of the parish of
All Saints, in that borough, calling en them to show cause
why proper accommodation had not been provided for him in
the Church. It has been alleged, on behalf of the church-
wardens, that seats capable of containing Mr. Becke and his
family, in a good situation, were offered to that gentleman,
but were by him refused, and a pew, which belonged to the
Vicar by a faculty, was claimed by him. This demand was
resisted, and proceedings were commenced in the Consistorial
Court of Peterborough, and the proraovent condemned in two
thirds of the costs. From this decision an appeal has been en-
tered, and the arguments on it were delivered during the course
of last Term.
The Learned JUDGE gave his decision this day, pronoun-
cing against:the appeal, confirming the sentence of the Court
below, and condemning Mr. Becke in the costs.

CHESTERTON AND HUTCHINGS V. FARLAR.
A motion as to the costs was made in this case, which was
originally a suit for substraction of Church-rate, promoted by
the churchwardens of St. Mary Abbot, Kensington, against
Mr. Farlar, an inhabitant of that parish. The case was ori-
ginally brought in the Consistory Court of London, and the
rate was disputed on the grounds of inequality, and also that
it was retrospective, and made to reimburse the church-
wardens. The Judge of the Consistory Court rejected the
defensive allegation of the churchwardens, who appealed to
this Court, which reversed the sentence of the Court below,
and admitted the allegation. Mr. Farlar appealed to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which held the alle-
gation to be admissible in part as to the inequality of the rate,
but rejected the other part, virtually pronouncing the rate,
being retrospective, to be invalid. The churchwardens, on the
remission of the cause, abandoned proceedings.
Her MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE applied on behalf of Mr. Farlar,
that the churchwardens might be condemned in all the costs of
the suit.

Dr. ADDAMS, contra, contended that the expenses had been
considerably increased by the conduct of Mr. Farlar, and that
justice demanded that he should share the expenses.
The Court awarded 401. nomine expensarium.
SCRIVRNER V. SCRIVENIR.
This is a question as to the reduction of alimony, in conse-
quence of the diminished income of the husband.
The Court allotted 1001. per annum, in lieu of 1201. and
decided that in consequence of the unnecessary delay in the pro-
secution of the wife's suit, its payment should only commence
from the date of the return of the inhibition.

MORGAN V. MORGAN.
This is a question as to the validity of the will of the late
Mr. John Morgan, of Appleford, in the county of Devon, who
died on the 2d of February, 1837,
at the age of sixty-four
years. The will, which bears the date of the 2d of February,
1835, benefits the widow of the deceased, and appoints her
sole executrix and universal legatee. It is opposed by Mr. T.
French Morgan, a son of the testator by a former wife, who
has been admitted to defend the suit in forma pauperis, on the
grounds of testamentary incapacity, and of undue influence
exercised over the mind of the testator. The cause is appealed
from the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Exeter, the wfil

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JAN. 30.
THE QUEEN V. MARSHAM.
Lord DENMAN delivered judgment in this case. The ques-
tion here was, whether the Recorder of a borough had been
right in refusing to admit the evidence of a Churchwarden
in an appeal brought by the parish of which he was Church_
warden. The only object of his evidence was to prove the
service of a notice, but the Court thought that there was no
distinction between the preliminary matter and others, and
therefore, the Recorder was right. The rule for setting aside
his judgment must therefore be discharged.
THE QUEEN V. THE LORD MAYOR OF YORK.
Sir F. PoLLocK and Mr. CRESWELL showed cause against
a rule for a quo warranto to be directed to the defendant, call-
ing on him to show by what authority he claimed to exercise
his present office. The ground of objection was, that when
the day arrived for the Aldermen to go out of office, and for
their successors to be elected, those successors had been elected
before the Mayor, though one of the sections of the Statute
required that the election of the Mayor should be the first
business proceeded with. The Learned Counsel having argued
the case on the construction of the various Acts relating to
municipal corporations,
The COURT said that, as there were many other cases de-
pending on the same point, and as the question was one of such
nicety, it must be decided in the most solemn manner. The
writ must, therefore, go, and the case could then be heard in
the most satisfactory manner.
In all the other cases in which similar applications were made
to the Court, and which depended on similar questions, the
Rules were likewise made absolute.
THE QUEEN V. THE TESTRYMEN Or ST. MARGARET'S