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

KING'S BENCH..-(THIS DAY.)

The Court took the peremptory paper this morning. The
cases argued did not possess any public interest.

BAIL COURT.
THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF BOSTON.
Mr. CLARK applied for a mandamus, directed to the Towns
council of Boston, calling upon them to execute a bond, se-
curing to Mr. Edward Copeland, late coroner of that borough,
the payment of a sum of 3001., as compensation for the loss of
his office under the provisions of the Municipal Reform Act.
, The circumstances under which this motion was made were as
follow. On the 2d of May, 1536, the party, on whose behalf
he appeared, having been remoned frortchis office by the new
Town-council, put in his claim for compensation, demanding
3001., and setting forth the amount of his fees and other per-
quisites in all particulars directed by the statute. Upon this
no determination was come to until the 18th of November, and
then a Committee of the Council awarded Mr. Copeland a
sum of 2501. Several communications passed between the
parties, but his Lordship would observe that the claim must
have been treated as an admitted one, no decision having been
come to upon it within six months as required by the Act.
• Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule to show cause.
THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF Noamcn,
Sir W. FOLLETT said he had similar application to make
against the Corporation of Norwich for a mandamus requiring
them to execute a bond securing to Mr. Boardman, late under
Chamberlain of that city, and surveyor of tonnage works, the
payment of a sum of 1,776/. 195., as compensation for the.loss
of these offices. When the new Town Council came into
office, they proceeded in a wholesale manner, and by a single
vote they removed all persons who held office under the old
Corporation. Upon this Mr. Boardinan,, as required by the
Act, sent in his claim on the 7th of May, for compensation,
and demanded the sum already mentioned. After stating the
nature of his offices, and the amount of the fees, &c. received
by him for the last five years, he set forth that he was 56 years
of age, and he required 1,770/. 19s. for the loss he should
sustain by removal. It would be necessary to attend to dates
in this case, and his Lordship would remark from the affidavits
that nothing hid been done by the Corporation till Oct. 20. Mr.
11,aardman was tnen summoned to attend a meeting of the
council. He attended on that day. The council did not; but
he was present afterwards, from time to time, and answered
such questions as he was required by the Act of Parliament.
On the 20th of November, Mr. Broadman received a letter
from the new town clerk, stating that the council were of' opi-
nion that he was not entitled to any compensation, but that
from motives of compassion they had awarded him 60/. The
question would turn upon the construction of the statute as to
the legality of certain acts of the counsel between the Ist and
4th of November. His client treated his claim as an admitted
one, no decision having been properly come to upon it within
six months from the date of delivering it in. It would be ne-
cessary, then, to know what had taken place. By the 31st
section of the Act, the one third part of the town council should
go out of office on the Ist of November, 1836, In Norwich
the one third amounted to sixteen, who ceased to be council-
lors on the 31st of November. The plan adopted by the town
clerk was this:-On the 31st of October he sent notices
to all the then existing town councillors, including the six-
teen who were going out of office, • and wno were well
known being those who upon the former election had the mi-
nority of votes, calling. upon them to meet on the 4th of Nov.
to decide upon the claim of Mr. Boardman and other matters.
By the 69th section it was necessary that three days' notice of
meeting should be served upon all the Town. councillors either
by personal service or by having a copy of the notice left at
their usual place of abode, or at the premises in respect of
which they were placed upon the burgess roll ; one-third of
the Council should be present. Besides this a notee signed
by the Mayor should be placed upon the door of the Council-
hall, setting forth the time and place of meeting. Now the
Court would observe that no such notice could have been given
by the Town-clerk, inasmuch as one-third part of the Council
went out of office on the lsf of November, though it happened
that some of them, but not all, were re-elected. The Mayor
also, in the hurry of affixing the notice, called tho meeting Ile (Sir W. Follett) said
for Friday, the 4th of November.
Thursday, not-Eriday, was the 4th of Nov., and the notice was
consequently irregular. At that meeting the vote respecting
Mr. Boardman Was come to. Seeing therefore that vlo depi-
sion had been regularly made within the tiTe prescribed by the
Act, notice was served upon the ogunoil, requiring them to
execute the bend, and treating the claim as an admitted one.
Upon this the Council met, the question respecting Mr.
Boardman's demand was put, and negatived by a majority ;
and lie submitted therefore that ha wan entitled to his rule,

Mr. Justice PATTESON—I do not say what may be the c. n
sequences of this case, or the law npplit:able to it; but if y' u
view should prove correct, the effect will ba that the T
Councils canrot do any act between the 31. it of October ani
the 4th of Ncvember. That 1. think did not come within t 1.4
contemplilion of the Legislature. You may however tape
rule to show cause.

COMMON PLEAS-(TIIIS DAY.

DALE V. THOMAS

Mr. RYLAND appeared to show cause against a rule which
had been obtained by Mr. Miller on a former day, calling upon
the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside, and a new trial granted. The facts are shortly'these:—
Da'e and Thomas b. came juint bail for another party of the
name of Drasch. Drasch being unable to pay, the creditor
Cohen proceeded on the bail bond against the bail to recover
the amount. Dale, Drasch, and Cohen arranged the matter
behind the back of Thomas, by Dale and Drasch giving bins
to Cohen. More the bills became due Drasch became bank-
rupt, and Cohen recovered the amount of the bills from Dale.
Subsequently Dale brought an action against his co-bail,
Thomas, to recover a moiety of the sum which he, Dale, bad
been compelled to pay, and the Jury found a verdict for tlie
plaintiff. Mr. Miller obtained a rule on the part of the,: de.
fendant Thomas, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why
this verd!et should not be set aside, and against this rule cause
was shown to-day.
The rule was directed to he made absolute, unless the par-
ties should consent to a stet processlis.