The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-29 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief justice
Erle, and justices Williams, Willes, and Byles.)

WHITE V. STEELE AND ANOTHER.

This was a demurrer to a declaration and to cer-
tain pleas in prohibition, in which it was sought to
prohibit the judge of the Court of Arches from pro-
ceeiing in a certain suit for subtraction of church
rates against a parishioner of the parish of Plum-
atead. The rate in question was made under the 3d
George IV., cap. 72, sec. 75 (one of the Church
Building Acts), for the purpose of paying for the
purchase of an additional burial-ground for the
parish. The commissioners had made their order
for the purchase of this ground in pursuance of cer-
tain resolutions of the vestry, which it was alleged
in answer had been improperly passed, a poll having
been demanded and refused. This was admitted for
the purpose of argument only in the court below,
and the judge of the Consistory Court, and of the
Court of Arches, on appeal, held that the order of
the commissioners being regular they could not in-
quire into the previous proceedings. This the
plaintiff in prohibition contended was a wrong con-
struction of the act, and that the refusal of a poll if
properly demanded was a good answer to the claim
for the rate.

The case was argued last term, and to-day Mr.
Justice Willes delivered judgment, and after enter-
ing fully into the reasons of tho case, said they were
of opinion that the prohibition ought to go.
Rule accordingly.
BARNES v. PHILLIPS.

This was an action tried before Mr. Justice Wil-
liams, at Westminster, when a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff, damages £2O.
Subsequently a rule was obtained for a new trial,
or to enter the verdict for the defendant, on the
ground that the verdict was against the evidence.
It was an action for false imprisonment, to which
the defendant pleaded first not guilty, and:secondly,
a justification, on the ground that some person had
feloniously stolen some of his property, and that he
had reasonable ground of suspicion that the plaintiff
was the thief, and had therefore given him into cus-
tody. The plaintiff was a rag picker, and the de-
fendant a rag merchant. A person named Goodall,
one morning at six o'clock, looking out of his win-
dow, which overlooked the defendant's premises,
saw a person running away from them, and two
sacks lying in the street. He gave information to
the defendant, who found that some of his property
had been stolen, and also gave a description of the
person he saw running away. The defendant saw
the police; and on investigation an opinion was ex-
pressed that it was some one who knew the premises
who had done it, and who had been in his service.
On looking over the names of the persons in his ser-
vice, the defendant came upon the plaintiff's name,
who had been discharged by him from his service
in the early part of last year, and he then recol-
lected that he answered the description given by
Goodall, who subsequently identified him at a pub-
lichouse. He was, therefore, given into custody,
but discharged, and the action was then brought.
The Court made the rule absolute, without call-
ing upon the defendant to support it.
Rule absolute accordingly.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Keating
and a Common Jury.)
TONNE V. DANIEL-LIBEL.

the City, against the e en -
attorney, practising in
to recover compen-
sation This was an action brought by the plaintiff,df and
ant, a clergyman at Ramsgate,
The defendant
in damages for a libel.
pleaaed not guilty.
were
cou"%irs.elEdfowrartdhotTap
the defendant.
named Vaulk-
mlaeins,tile; .:11arn.dHliwr.kPinfse,nQt-ic.Ce.w,
that he had been engaged by a person
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff
de-
fendant, and after writing several letters to him,
man to recover a sum of £2 16s. Bd. from the
and receiving no answer to them, at last the plain-
tiff served him with a writ. That seemed
to give
offence to the defendant, who wrote to Mr. Vaulk
man a letter which, it was now contended, was
libellous, and which was as follows :
" Dear Sir,—.l find from my son in New Bond-
street, who Caine last Friday to spend Christmas
here, that you bad not sent for your small account.
I therefore sent it with 58. to Mr. Towne, the law
yer, his charge for writing to mo. He has not had
acknowledgment, and not
the civility to send any