The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-22 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

TAILOR V. SOUTHGATE.

The argtiments in this part-heard appeal were resumed
and concluded to-day, The only question involved in the
appeal was relative to costs.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR postponed giving judgment.

VICE-CUANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

MARRIOT V. TARPLEY.

This case.before the Court, upon motion, to
change the venue for trying an issue directed by the Court,
from Northamptonshire to Warwickshire, on the ground
that the defendant would be prejudiced by having the mat-
ter tried in the former county. The defendant had as-
serted a right of way to the parish church of Floore, in
Northamptonshire, through certain closes belonging to the
plaintiff, who denied that any such right existed ; and on
the case coming on before the Vice-Chancellor he directed
the issue in question.
The arguments in the case, which occupied the greater
part of yesterday, were concluded to-day.
His HoNoutt immediately gave judgment, refusing the
motion.

QUEEN'S BENCII.-(THIS DAY.)

SENTENCE -THE QUEEN V. NICHOLAS CORY.

The defendant in this case, who was an Excise-officer,
stationed at Woking, had been convicted of obtaining money
under false pretences from a brickmaker named Page, by
representing the amount of duty payable to the Excise as
171. 1.55. 10d., instead of Di. 6s. Bd. The Jury recom-
mended the defendant to mercy on the ground of the faci-
lity afforded for such peculations by the careless manner in
which the business was transacted in that department of
the Excise.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now prayed the judgment of
the Court upon the defendant.
There were no affidavits on either side, and the defen-
dant, who had no Counsel, addressed the Court i❑ person.
He said that having been convicted by a Jury of his coun-
trymen, it would be presumptuous of him to trespass at
any length upon their Lordships' time. Unworthy as he
was, he begged to submit that he had aged and infirm pa-
rents, who had came to the Court to witness the punish-
ment of their unfortunate son—that he had a wife and five
small children, who were suffering from their father's folly,
and for them, and them only, he asked for mercy. He had
been six months in 'gaol, and had suffered mud' in mind
and body. He would conclude by saying that "to err was
human, to forgive divine," and he threw himself upon the
mercy of the Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having pointed out the serious
nature of the offence committed by the defendant, and the
necessity of making an example,
Mr. Justice PATTESON pronounced the judgment of the
Court, which was, that, taking ail the circumstances into
consideration, he should be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour in the House of Correction at Guildford for nine
calendar months.
The defendant was then removed in custody.
THE QUEEN V. SULLIVAN, WATERS, AND MANSELL.
The defendants in this case had been convicted before
Lord Denman, at the sittings after last Term, of a conspi-
racy to defraud the Hoyal College of Surgeons, the de-
fendant John Waters having represented himself as the de-
fendant Henry Mansell, passing an examination, and obtain.
ing a certificate or diploma in the name of the latter, and the
defendant Sullivan having instigated and put forward Wa-
ters so to represent Mansell.
Sir F. POLLOCK now prayed the judgment of the Court
upon two of the defendants (Sullivan and Waters), who
stood upon the floor of the Court. The defendant Mansell
did not appear, and his recognizanees were ordered to be
entreated.

Affidavits in mitigation of punishment were then put in
and read by the officer of the Court. Among other mat-
ters they deposed that the defendants had been nearly ten
months in prison.
Mr. PLATT, on behalf of the defendant Sullivan, ad-
dressed the Court in mitigation of punishment. He be-
lieved that it was pecuniary distress which had instigated
his client, who was a member of the medical profession,
having received the education and moving in the station of
a gentleman, to commit the crime of which he had been
found guilty. He trusted the Court would take that fact,
as well as the long period of his confinement, into consi-
deration.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK addressed the Court on be-
half of the prosecution, and pointed out the danger which
would result from permitting such an offence to pass un-
punished.
The defendant, Waters, declined to address their
Lordships.
Mr. JUSTICE PATTESON pronounced the judgment of
the Court. They could not but see that the case was
one of very considerable importance, because the Char-
ter which had been granted to the Royal College of Surgeons,
author izing them to examine and grant diplomas to pro-
perly qualified persons, was framed for the protection of her
Majesty's subjects, so that the introduction of persons com-
petent to the discharge of such responsible duties as devolved
upon medical men would be prevented. They thought it
was absolutely incumbent upon the College of Surgeons,
and a part of their duty, to bring the matter before the
Court when they found that a fraud had been practised
upon them. So far as they could judge from the evidence,
the originator and prime mover of the matter had been the
defendant Sullivan, and that it was by him Waters had
been put forward to represent Mansell. It further ap-
peared from the affidavits of Waters, that he bad repre-
sented Mansell, not from any doubt that Mansell was able
to pass the examination himself, but because he believed he
had not sufficient nerve to do so. The Court did not think
that any mitigation of the offence, because Waters had, ac-
cording to the regulations of the College, taken an oath
that he was Mansell. Taking into account the length of
time the defendants had been in custody, the sentence of
the Court was, that Henry Sullivan be imprisoned in the
House of Correction at Coldbath•fields for six months ;
and that John Waters be imprisoned in the same place for
three months.—The defendants were then removed in
custody.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF CLUN.

In this case a rule was granted a few days ago, on the
application of Mr. RICHARDS, to show cause why a manda-
mus should not issue commanding him to sweat• in a perscia
named Griffiths, as a burgess.
Mr. WHATELEY now moved that the rule should be en-
larged, on the ground, that there had not been time to pro-
cure the affidavit, as, although the rule was drawn up on the
6th, it was not served until the 19th instant.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE enlarged the rule.
THE QUEEN V. TAI:INTON.

Sir F. POLLOCK said that his Lordship, a few days ago,
granted him a rule for a quo warrauto, against the defen-
dant, a town councillor of Bristol, on the ground that his
name did not appear on the burgess' rate. Since that time
the person who had made the application, had discovered
that he had made a mistake in his affidavit, which he had
made another affidavit to correct. He proposed now to
abandon the first rule, and draw another founded on the
second affidavit.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)