The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-18 00:00:00

MILI.ER 4,,ND SIMES V. I'ALMER AND KILEY.
Dr. LUSHINGTON to-day gave his decision. In this case
the office of the Judge had been proraoted by the church-
wardeniof St. Alban's Wood-street, against thosa gentlemen,
who were churchwardens of St. (}:ayes, for not repairing the
church, and for disobeying the lawful orders of the Arch-
deacon. The Court was prayed to pronrun e 'hat the
church was, and is, out of repair—that the churshwardens
had neglected .their duty—and that they or the present
churchwardens be admonished to repair the church. The
question was reduced to whether these churchwardens had
been guilty of any breach of duty of which the Court could
take cognizance. He (Dr. Lushiagton) would take that
opportunity of expressing some general opinions as to the
authority of that Court to correct the evils cemplained of.
As far as he could express an opinion in accordance with
the authorities, he apprehended that the Court had
adequate power to punish any neeect on the part
of churchwardens in the performance of the duties
of .their office. The question here was, however, whe-
ther the churchwardens were in fault ; and it appeared
that they had been willing to do their duty, but, that
obstacles had been thrown in their wav, so that it'had been
out of their power to repair the church. If the Court hail
been called upon to proceed in the proper form it might
have directed the churchwardens to have repaired the
hureh, and they might make a roan n, showing that a vestry
rd been convened and a rate refused. The question
..sould then be rife for the decision whether the Court would
:int order the churchwardens to make a rate contrary to
the decision of the vestry. If the churchwardens had called
a vestry to make a rate they were exculpated, as nothing could
be more clear than that they were not to spend their own mo-
ney,or to incur debts. The rate must be first made. The
Learned Judge cited several cases in support of this opinion.
The question whether the Court could enable the church-
wardens to make a rate against the authority of the
vestry for the repairs of the church was one of
great importance, and upon which he (l)r. Lush-
ington) would not express an opinion until he had
maturely considered it. The Court must now look
if these churchwardens had been guilty of any deri
liction of duty. He was of opinion that no delicturn
had been made out against the churchwardens, and that
they must be dismissed. The Court could not entertain
the alternative prayer against the present churchwardens,
nor issue any monition against them to repair the church.
under the present proceedings. The Learned Judge, in
dismissing the parties proceeded against, expressed a h,,pe
that the disagreement between the two parishes would be
arranged.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, *TAX. 17.
Matthew Milton, a horse-dealer, was opposed by Mr.
Woodrooffe, on the part of William H. Watson, *Esq., the
Chancery Barrister, and a creditor named Collins, a horse-
dealcr. This insolvent had been three times a bankrupt,
and the present was his second application as an in-
solvent debtor. The last time he was discharged was
in 183 I, and on his applying. some month:, ago his
case was adjourned, for Win to obtain the consent of
three-fourths of his creditors. lie had, however, remained
in prison until the five years from his former discharge
had expired. It appeared that in June, 1835, the
oToom of Mr. Watson, who resided at Fulham, took a
horse to the insolvent's stable, and the animal or 40/. was
to be sent the same night. The horse, which belonged to
Mr. Watson, was not returned, nor the money forthcoming.
In a few days afterwards Mr. Watson caused the insolvent
to be served with a writer 40/. The action was pleaded to,
the venue was removed, and, in obtaining a verdict, besides
the loss of his horse, Mr. Watson was put to 25/. law ex-
penses. The insolvent declared that the horse was sold to
him by the servant for 35/., and he was sued for 401. He
would have paid the money he had agreed for. He told
the party who served him with the writ, that he had sold
the animal for 40/., and spent the money. The servant of
Mr. Watson and the clerk to the attorney contradicted the
insolvent. lie, it appeared, can neither read or write. He
had been in prison since November, 1835.
The COURT adjudged him, at the suit of Mr. Watson,
to an imprisonment, from the date of filing his petition, of
17 calendar months, which judgment would have the effect
of prolonging his confinement about five months.