The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-12 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

PALMER V. THE lIUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY.
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which had been
argued during the last term. It was a question arising out of
a demand for compensation under the Hungerford Market Act
(11th Geo. IV. chap. 70), the plaintiff having made certain
improvements, valued at 441. 10s., in premises rented by him
from Mr. Wyse, which the Hungerford Market Company had
subsequently purchased. After stating the terms of the agree-
ment under which the plaintiff held the premises, and the de-
cisions which had been come to by the Court in several similar
cases arising out of the compensation clauses of the Act, the
Court was of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the
compensation claimed, and therefore the rule must be dis-
charged.

POOLE V. CROWDER AND ANOTHER.
This was an,action of assumpsit upon an agreement tried be-
fore Lord Denman at the sittings after last Term, in which a
verdict was had for the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
had on the ground of the verdict being against the evidence,
and also on the ground of misdirection. It appeared that Mr.
Aubrey, an Italian gentleman, came from Naples to England,
bringing with him the will, a codicil, and other documents, of
a person named Dean, who had died there, and which enti-
tled Mr. Aubrey to certain property. The plaintiff, an attor-
ney, being (as was stated) in possession of these papers, the
defendants, Messrs. Crowder and Maynard, also attor-
neys, being employed by Mr. Aubrey, applied to the
plaintiff to deliver up the papers to them, and entered into
an agreement to pay him a sum of one hundred and fifty pounds
and also the amount of his bill of costs, on condition that the
papers were delivered up to them. An action was subse-
quently brought by Mr. Poole to recover these two sums, and
the defendants pleaded, first, that the plaintiff had not de-
livered the papers, and secondly that theplaintiff had deceit-
fully represented to defendants that he had the originals in
his possession—that it was with a view to obtain those originals
the defendants had entered into the agreement, and that it
was subsequently ascertained that the papers were in the pos-
session of Mr. Palmer, a solicitor, of Trafalgar-square, to
whom they were Subsequently obliged to pay 901. tor them,
Mr. Palmer having a lien for that sum on the papers. The
Learned Counsel contended that the plaintiff had no right to
recover under these circumstances.
Court—Take a rule.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—THE QUEEN V. POSTLETHWAITE.
Mr. WIGIITMAN (who spoke in so low a tone of voice as to
be nearly inaudible) said, he had been instructed to apply in
behalf of Mr. Gale, a Magistrate of Lancaster, for a rule to
show cause why a criminal information should not be filed
against the defendant, a gentleman residing at Ulverton, for
having used language derogatory to his character as a Magis-
trate. There were several affidavits all to the same effect,
and he would read one which set forth that a meeting of the
rate-payers of Ulverton had taken place, for the purpose of
considering the propriety of raising a rate for paving, watching,
and lighting the town, and that some of the rate-payers in-
quired out of what funds the expenses of certain lawsuits insti-
tuted by Mr. Postlethwaite and Mr. Woodham a solicitor, against
the inspectors of police should be defrayed. It was further said,
that as Mr. Postlethwaite had been convicted in a sum of 51.
before the Magistrates for an assault upon the police, it
clearly showed that they were only doing their duty. It
should be observed that one of the Magistrates before whom
the conviction had taken place was Mr. Gale. Mr. Postle-
thwaite, who was present, said, " Yes, but one of them is a
partial one." The meeting was subsequently adjourned to
the 15th November, at the National School, and a great
number of rate-payers attended, and some difference of opi-
nion was expressed as to the discussion which had taken place
at the former meeting, and particularly as to the de-
fraying of the expenses of the law suit which deponent
thought it necessary to explain. Speaking of that,
deponent said, " Mr. Postlethwaite has commenced an action
against the police, and he has charged one of the Magistrates
with partiality—l call upon him to proceed with that action,
and to name which of the Magistrates it is who is partial."
Mr. Postlethwaite then called out and said, " I will—it is Mr.
Gale." The Chairman remonstrated with him for using such
language, and making such statements, but he replied " It is
so—l will maintain it." He (Mr. Wightman) had several
other affidavits of persons who were present, and heard the
words spoken, and they were all to the same effect. Mr.
Gale himself had also made an affidavit. He denied that he
had ever been guilty of partiality or corruption, and there were
the affidavits of several Magistrates and gentlemen, who knew
him well, and spoke to his character. The words spoken
directly charged a Magistrate with partiality in the execution
of his duty, as regarded the conviction of Mr. Postlethwaite,
and he ( Mr. Wightman) submitted that this was a case for the
interposition of the Court.
Lord DENMAN—Take a rule.
THE CANADIAN PRISONERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied to the Court to fix some
day for bringing up the Canadian prisoners who had been re
moved from Liverpool by writ of habeas corpus. It was de-
sirable that an early day should be fixed for hearing the argu.
ments

Mr. ROEBUCK wished to be presented with a copy of the re-
turns before the case came on for argument.
Lord DENMAN said, if desirable, the case might be heard
on Monday. He believed it would be consented to, that the
prisoners should be brought into Court without any interme-
diate attendance at Chambers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented.

Mr. ROEBUCK said he had made an application to see the
prisoners since they came to London, but had not been
allowed. It was of great importance that he should sec them
before the argument took place.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that so far as he was con-
cerned, every possible facility would be given to Mr. Roebuck
to have communication with his clients.
Lord DENMAN thought the Secretary of State was the
proper person to apply to. They were not at present in the
custody of the Court. He thought the Learued Counsel
ould be permitted to see his clients, and that no objection
would be offered after the intimation of the opinion of the Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a copy of the return
should be handed to Mr. Roebuck in the course of the day.
The hearing was then fixed for Monday.