The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-12 00:00:00

" THE SABBATH" QUESTION.

In the course of the day the Grand Jury, interrupting
the argument in the King v. Kelly, came into Court to
deliver the bills which had been presented, and the officer
of the Court then read a paper, signed by their foreman,
to the following effect :—" The Grand Jury begged to state
that in Easter .Term last precepts were issued to the con-
stables attending the Grand Jury to present persons who
were guilty of profaning the Lord's Diy by Sunday trad-
ing ; that many of the constables did make such present-
ments ; and the Grand Jury, having examined them,
found that they were correct, and accordingly found
bills ogainst the persons so presented. Precepts of a si-
milar kind were issued to the constables attending the Grand
Jury in the present Term, but the constables had represented
to the Grand Jury that they found it impossible to make the like
presentments, in consequence of the violent behaviour of
those persons against whom such presentments had formerly
been found, and the constables represented that they had been
threatened by these persons, and now went in danger of their
lives. Two letters had been shown to the Grand Jury in
coArm„;!inn of these statements. The Grand Jury were
now i„formu; that no further proceedings were taken on
the presentments ar.:.Qr the persons against whom such pre-
sentments were made L'd entered an appearance. The
Grand Jury, therefore, asked for the assistance of the Court
in the matter, either that the nuii.:,nce which they had pre-
sented might be abated, or innocent i,lrsons charged there-
with might be acquitted of the charge, oi* that the Jury
might be relieved from making further presentments on the
subject. The Grand Jury also begged to inquire whether
the offence of Sunday trading was an offence at common law.
Lord DENNIAN, after consulting with the other Judges.
said—the Court is obliged to you, gentlemen, for calling its
attention to• this which is a subject of great difficulty. With
respect to the question you have asked, we do not usually
feel it to be proper to state the general view we entertain
of the law on any pieticular subject, but we shall not lose
sight of what you have stated. In the next Term you
will again be assembled, when my Learned Brother, who-
ever he is that may have to deliver the charge to you, will
most probably address you on this subject. You are now
discharged, gentlemen, and the country is indebted to you
for our services.
Tue Grand Jury then retired.

BAIL COURT.

APPLICATION TO STRIKE AN ATTURNEY OFF TIIE ROLLS.

Mr. PLATT applied for a rule, calling upon a Mr.
Greenhill to show cause why he should not be struck off
the rolls of this Court from practising as an attorney. Be
believed that it was not allowed by the Court that any
Attorney should be permitted to practise at the bar, and
surely much less at the bar of a public-house.—( A laugh.)
Tile affidavit on which he made the application stated that Mr.
Greenhill, besides being an attorney of the Court of King's
Bench, bad of late years carried on the business of a pub-
lican, at the Roebuck at Chiswick. So incompatible, in
his opinion, vas the business of a publican with that of the
profession of an attorney, that he was confident his Lord-
ship would grant the rule. Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JuNglo.
MORGAN AND ANOTHER V. MILLER AND ANOTHER

This case came before the Court-to-day on an argument
upon a rule, calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause why
an attachment should not issue againut them. The rule
bad been obtained by Mr. Serjcant Wilde, on the ground
that the plaintiffs had treated. with contempt, and endea-
voured to evade, an order of reference entered into at the
trial of this cause.

The action was brought by the trustees of a Mrs. Far-
den and her children, who were infants in contemplation of
law, to recover 5,0001. on a bond, to which Mrs. Farden, on
the one hand, and the defendants on the other, were par-
ties, and which, in consideration of the sum they had con-
tracted to pay, conveyed to the defendants a beneficial in-
terest in the business which bad belodged to Mrs. Farden's
late husband, who was an attorney. The defence pleaded
was, that tberc had been a fraudulent intent to withhold
the consideration, and a consummation of that intent.

Rule enlarged.
LORD MAYOR'S COURT, JUNE 10.
APPROACH TO LONDON BRIDGE-SINULAR TENURE.

Mr. BULLOCK stated to the Jury that they would have
no difficulty in this case. The house No. 36, London- wall-
was required to be taken down, in order to form the np,
proach to London-bridge from the City-road ; and a Mr.
Gilpin held the lease of the premises on the ground-rent of a
peppercorn yearly for 1,000 years from 1603'. But part of
the ground was freehold, and the house in question had
been built upon What was formerly the site of two ttrva-
'lints. Beyond Mr. Gilpin it appeared that some. person
(unknown) has a contingent interest, which, however,
would not be available until 2603. Yet, remote as the
contingency was, it was necessary that the Jury should givJ

the party who might claim hereafter such amount a
evidence would warrant.
Mr. Montague, the City Sin.veyor, deposed that h-q and
the surveyor on the part of Mr. Gilpin bad agree] that the
dcmanclant should receive 2,4001, riz., 1,1991. 17s. (id. fur
the freehold, and 1,2001. 2s. Gd. for the leasehold eqate ;
:nd they were of opinion that fire tlii!lings would be ample
!oinpensation for the contingent intct4:st.
RECORDER—You think that sun would be bett,r than
waiting 766 years?—(Laughter.)
Mr. Montague—Juit so.
Verdict for the demandant-2,4001. ss.