The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-08 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

?RAFFTEY U. ..
The question in this case was,HUMPAGE whether the-JTJDGMENT sum of 2,0001.
AbrbL°lle moiety of a sum of 4.0001., bequeathed by the will o
Htirnarm Hall, belonged to the next of kin of Elizabeth
of, age, deceased, or to the legal personal representative
,7,er husband, Mr. u deceased, who survived her ?
2,40117 MASTER of the Rolls' this morning decided that the
li •'n question belonged to the next of kin of Mrs.
urn Page.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
ChThis .
being the first Seal in Michaelmas Term, the Vico-
o atineellor took motions to-day-, but no case of interest except
perio'cie parties concerned came before the Court up to the
of our reporter's leaving.

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

CRIMIN (SITTINGS IN BANCO.)
AL INFORMATION THE QUEEN V. FLEMING ESQ., M.P.
tails this
case a rule for a criminal information been ob-
lliine" by the Attorney-General, at the beginning of last
-ehaelmas Term,at the instance of Mr. R. G. Kirkpatrick,
Soli
and d to be proprietor of one of the Hamp-
IfilsliereoileNiisgpiaitp,efrsost,artasegenadininstgJohn Fleming, Esq., M.P. for the
ehall a letter to the former containing a
;1, !lige. The circumstances arose out of the last general
-etion, When Mr. Fleming and Mr. Holmes were candidates
.or the borough of Newport, in the Isle of Wight, and the
foci the w appeared by a majority of sixty-Various
taternent in the local Papers charging Mr. Fleming
allitis having manufactured what were called faggot voters,"
lOr the purpose of securing his return, and at a public dinner,
"Ill Which took place at Newport on the 14th of August, after the
ation, Mr. Kirkpatrick, in the course of a speech, stated—
that the Liberal constituency of the Isle of Wight had been
sWamped by the faggot voters of Mr. Fleming." A gentleman
named Smith, as the friend of Mr. Fleming, waited upon Mr.
kpatrick, calling upon him to retract the statement,
Which the latter refused, alleging that he believed that he had
!tated the truth, but at the same time observing that
thenmeant no personal offence to Mr. Fleming. Mr. Smith
tee- • -
,that ,nanded a letter from Mr. Fleming, in which it was stated
olrkthe charges were false and unfounded, and that he (Mr.
patrick) did not possess the station, character, or feelings
fact gentleman," and ending by demanding the usual satis-
the len' Mr. Kirkpatrick replied to that letter, and published
Whole correspondence in one of the local Newspapers.
ulne further correspondence took place, in which Mr. Kirk-
Patrick
friend offered to refer the matter to the decision of two
as 2 s$ and Mr. Flaming, in his reply, denounced the charges '
b.
eeandalous falsehoods, and the person making them as a
Iss. and contemptible slanderer.
der! Wm. FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. Richards) yester-
o3‘;Ppreared to show cause against the. rule, and the argu-
the the Learned Counsel were this morning resumed :
pejiekere principally directed to the point that in Mr. Kb-k-
ill Published letter he declared that he did not consider
44r Fl Published
letter a challenge, or seriously meant for such,
4'l !las is having had recourse to another tribunal (the public
uiserititled him to the interference of that Court.
tie ATTORNEY-GENERAL was heard in support of the rule
that qmaied the accuracy of his Learned Friend'st argument,ahe
loved was necessary for the prosecutor to swear b
114 A:lr. Fleming meditated a breach of the peace.. Where
tyrii be-
ltlldication was made for a criminal information forh a letter
the an, or words spoken, with intent to provoke a reaacshthoef
ebgaace, there it was necessary to swear that such. w
t nf the words or letter; but where the letter itself con-
taiaea
telt4' hostile message, such a proceeding. was quite unne-
,,rl,Y* The question for their Lordships was, whether the
Auga Mr. Kirkpatrick, at the public dinner, on the 14th.i
stegaitirsetl was one. which justified the challenge, or which
contended that the
Jerre..., explanation or apology. He •
the i`r Must be put out of the question ; and with respect to
the Ittter, it appeared that Mr. Kirkpatrick offered to refer
epoi,ttter to two friends, and if they were of opinion that an
itet°g!, on his part was necessary, he should willingly make
aoa i,`'ne same time disclaiming any intention to offer a per-
tot4Msult or offence to Mr. Fleming. Instead of acceding
4114. t fair proposition, Mr. Fleming wrote the letter to which
,the mien had been already made, and which was published in
Ittifr",elnpspers. The Learned Gentleman concluded a
ka_taened argument by submitting that the rule ought to be
absolute-
ERLE followed on the same side.
_e COURT having conferred for some time,
haee7ll DENMAN said the Court regretted that two gentle-
PerseeWing to political differences,should
•have got into a
In meal controversy which was extremely painful. The letter
tletij`r• Fleming was one which the Courtm regretted any gen-
as
Nuaaill should use; but the answer of.. r. Kirkpatrick w
tare
improper and insulting, and hishaving subsequently
tare 4ed that letter in the newspapers was an important fea-
CeO in the case • for it had been always the rule of that
4142 tliat where' parties came to seek its protection, they
troh,,'_,cerne to it alone, and make no other appeal. On these
ir
ON • the Court was of opinion that it would be departing
if. usual course, and encouraging parties to come there,
'gat he
the rule absolute ; and therefore they were of opinion
e rule must be discharged.
COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
. Tr.
11I4Ii• "toßTstaN, on the part of her Majesty's Commis-
ktive t 8 rOr the building of new Churches, was instructed to
%thee°. aiake the rule absolute for a mandamus against the.
ttere
of the parish of Rickmansworth. The affidavits
b„the itjenr,:le usual form, stating a loan by the Commissioners to
irhltted 'et" ?Pon the sual terms, the non-payment after re-
sPPneations, and that the Court had granted a rule to
‘lleereti :se why a mandamus should not issue. The parish
wit Were perfectl that a mandamus should go.
42. ws,tice LITTLYEDALE—g Does anybody show cause?
C. j d3RTYAN understood not.
„41C. wustice LITTLF.DALE— What is the mandamus for?
intrr Ara
°r ob,. • o make a rate for the purpose of raising
th;4r. Jeeti7Y in order to repay the amount of the loan.
stile LITTLEDALE—If nobody appears to show cause
ust be made absolute.
QtRN. V. THE JUSTICES OF WORCESTER.
\Voi.0:1112
shoaled for a rule to show cause why
of
tleteeester B"itid not issue against. the Justices
and rezite
meaning upon them to adjourn, rehear,
the
Pa ire
of appeal of the Churchwardens and Overseers of
e4rit',.llB trie;tif ladb.ury, relative to the settlement of certain
le used in the order made by the parties.. The cir-
thtetalaed ;Ware rather extraordinary. The question to be de-
tieeaaneei as, Whether the party had occupied a tenement of
%bet th,l,,alue of 101. The case lasted a considerable por-
-114;4, ao-dm,5Y, aad ultimately the Justices retired from the
co'i'ls were turned out, when they had taken the votes, that
'kit 'uteen for quashing the order, and fourteen for
410 it
;ate .11 each' upon which the Chairman voted,. making fif-
,,.et4`B side, in addition to which he claimed another
'lty 41)Plie-dittr4n, and so confirmed the order. He (Mr. Lee)h
6) the R..° the Court to adjourn the appeal on the aut o-
rl4,ll',,Lhe V. the Justices of Westmoreland (2 Nowlan,
-"`g C V. the Justices of Monmouthshire (8 Barne-
hWed, resswell
al and , 137), and other. cases. They, however,
la, agr 'e Present application was in consequence made.
as ante")
teh
4„itta
rAt -• THE OVERSEERS OF EAST AND WEST FLAKE.
aPpli d for a rule absolute against the
2ter/V, esti7l,B and Overseerse of the hundreds of East
the -eel', a", in the county of Norfolk, and the Assistant
kies4eid hileTtinianding them to pay to the Treasurer of
to
44notreds out of the Poor's-rate the sum of 50/., pur-
Itatst Of the order of the Board of Guardians, towards the
St-111,!e, P,°°r• He moved for a rule absolute in the first
dens for ,rlse it was to procure the payment of a sum ne-
tt: had the relief of the poor, and he understood similar
• Jestre_ail made in full Court.
jvir LITTLEDALS directed the writ to issue.
Irhe• r/ori t QUEEN V. THE BAILIFFS OF CLUN.
•I\lll4olllcAirt°3 moved for a rule to show cause why a man-
-0 th not issae against the Bailiffs of the borough of
144 ltias e count
t thr, Griffiths 3' of Salop, requiring them to administer to
he 8011* the oaths of a burgess. The custom was
4 1;) 21. -,,,°Lt freemen should be admitted on attaining the
Ni 4 ikr "e applicant was the son of a person who had
ietl tess since the 1808 and on coming of age he
year
,h;SOI4 hav e admitted and was refused, on the. alleged ground.n
tinlag been Pe'' to in; aetirely employed in assisting his father.
She -eula injure the Corporation, and under the conviction
The
savor
detrimental to the interests of the borough if
F, Tna Quern in as TEERu granted.
OrPor ' PoLL R" CORPORATION 01' YORK.
of.n,„ew moved for a rule against the Mayor and
qlee'ead agefrietitZr_k, to show. cause why a mandamus should
he Nes nn the b_ enl to admit a person named Rob. Robinson to
14 ,Whethe..r.gess roll of that city. The only question inthe
laa,!3eau ',no. was an inhabitant householder, and whether
Raollbrii_ng the
.requisite period. It appeared that
tt, was uson king the owner of a house, took pos
Iv! sreet of rated for it, and had served,' parochial offices
ikita hevilersco ;'oe_c'eeupation; but he had made an agreement
W. 11,1 e_the use°ocefuPY part of it, to pay a servant and toe letng
llthe s some furniture, on consideration
af being
telit plAsehoi.7e e rent-free. He submitted that
bib 'er 'who lived in his own house, althoughp he
hi elikPolitgicinn. He understood the Mayor, who was
t4a' 110 Aro 4. 'celings, acting as assessor, had rejected
t to Mr.
nontnd that as some other person lived along with
•ar. Rob. a householder. The importance of the mat-
ilastm was this, that he had been elected

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY

REEVE V. CAPPER.

The question in this case was rather peculiar. The plain-
tiff, an attorney, having taken legal proceedings against a per-
son named Wilson, the master of a trading vessel ; and in
order to relieve him from an execution which he had issued
against him, plaintiff obtained an assignment of a chronome-
ter; and the point to be decided was, whether the property in
this chronometer was not vested by law in plaintiff, or whether
there was anything in a transaction which had previously taken
place between Wilson and defendants, to entitle them, the
Messrs. Capper, to the chronometer. That transaction was,
that Wilson, being about to go out on a voyage in one of the
Messrs. Capper's vessel, required a rather larger advance than
was usual, and to obtain it he assigned to them the chronome-
ter and all his nautical instruments. This issue was directed
under the Interpleader Act, to determine who had legal pos-
session of the articles, the plaintiff or the defendants, the lat-
ter alleging that the prior agreements with them vested the
property in them, the advance not having been paid. The
chronometer had never been, and was not now, in possession
of either party, but was lodged in the hands of Messrs. Bar-
row, the well-known instrument makers.

The case was fully and ably argued by Mr. Kelly, for the
plaintiff, and by Sergeants Wilde and Talfourd for the de-
fendants, the former contending that the assignment to Cap-
per was merely a pledge, and that Wilson never parted with
possession, the defendant's Counsel urging that the delivery to
them was as a mortgage ; that the possession had continued
in their hands, and that the subsequent arrangement with
plaintiff could not interfere with that possession.
The COURT felt the point to be one of such extreme nicety
that they took time to consider their judgment.

BATZMAN V. DUN.-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Sir F. Pommel( showed cause against a rule obtained by
Sergeant Wilde, for cancelling an order, by which the defen-
dant was to be at liberty to have his bail bond discharged on
entering a common appearance. The question would turn
upon whether, if the defendant were in the country special
bail would be demanded : if not, a common appearance would
be sufficient. If the defendant surrendered to his bail, no
doubt he would come within the 7th clause of the late Act
for abolishing arrest on mesne process—that clause enacting
that any prisoner for debt (on mesne process), who shall not
have taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act after the abolition
of Arrest Act came into operation, shall be allowed to be dis-
charged on entering a common appearance ; and he (Sir F.
Pollock) apprehended the Court would not hesitate (though
no clause in the Act especially authorized it), to order the bail-
bond to be cancelled on the same conditions, the defendant not
being now in the country, and having, in fact, no fixed place of
residence.

The point, which is of great importance, was being argued
at considerable length when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY

HUGHES V. LENN Y AND ANOTHER.

Mr. B. ANDREWS moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict for 115/. should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered.

The defendants were surveyors in Kent, and were employed
to survey and map a parish in that county. The plaintiff was
also a surveyor, residing in London, and the defendants em-
ployed him to survey the parish and make the map. The plain-
tiff alledged that he was to be paid 21. 2s. per day, besides his
expenses, and accordingly he brought his action for 2041.
The defendants said the plaintiff was to be paid by the acre,
and the Jury adopted that course, and gave their verdict at
the rate of 7d. per acre. It was the duty of the plain-
tiff to go over and measure the whole of the fields,
in the palish, measuring them and putting down the measure-
ment in what was called the field-book, and from it make out
the map. It was his duty to deliver both the field-book and
the map to the defendants, neither of which had he done.
According to the evidence they were not even ready to be
delivered when they were demanded by the solicitor for the
defendants, though he refused to give them up, unless upon
payment of 2041. It was proved, however,. that when the
solicitor made this demand he had not the field-books in his
possession, and therefore the action could not be maintained.
The plaintiff must either deliver the book and map, or at all
events must have them ready to do so when he made his
demand.

Rule nisi for a nonsuit granted.
MOGG V. BAKER.

Mr. CROWDER moved to set aside the verdict for the de-
fendant in this case, which was tried before Mr. Baron Parke,
at the late Assizes held at Bristol.

The defendant Baker was an attorney in Bristol, and set up
a person named Parnell in an inn in that city, lending him
money to furnish it, &c., for which he took a bill of
sale. Parnell was in insolvent circumstances, and the de-
fendant took the bill of sale in June last, but continued
Parnell in possession until September, when finding matters
growing worse with Parnell, he sent and took possession
under the bill of sale, and sold off the effects. Parnell went
to prison, and took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. The
plaintiff was the assignee, and brought this action to recover
the proceeds of the sale. The Learned Counsel contended
that the deed or bill of sale was a voluntary one, and that it
had been friendly throughout, as was shown by the defendant
allowing the insolvent to remain in possession for such a length
of time after the bill of sale was given.
Mr. Baron PARKE referred to his notes of the trial, from
which it'appeared that Parnell refused at first to execute the
bill of sale, and only did so in the fear that Baker would send
in an execution.

The COURT held that the bill of sale was not voluntary,
and the verdict ought not to be disturbed.—Rule refused.

BOW-STREET.--(THIS DAY.)

A respectable-looking, elderly man, named John James,
residing at Edward-street, Commercial-road East, was
brought up by 89 F division, who stated that at halt past nine
o'clock last night he saw him drunk, in the Strand. After
passing him, he followed the complainant, and struck him on
the back with the stick produced.

The defendant said he had dined with a friend, and in con-
sequence of what he had taken he bad no recollection of what
had happened, but he intended no injury to the complainant.
Mr. MINSHULL—You are fined in a penalty of 51., and in
default, you must go to hard labour for two months.
A friend of the defendant came forward to pay the fine, and
expressed a hope that his Worship would mitigate the penalty,
as the defendant was a person of respectabiltty.
Mr. MiNsHuLL—But if a person of respectability, as you
are pleased to represent your friend, chooses to act in the
manner he has done, be must suffer for it, and the fine is by no
means heavy.
Robert Elphinstone, of Buckridge-street, St. Giles's, up-
holsterer, was charged by Evans, of the T division, with
being drunk in St. Giles's, and assaulting him in the execu-
tion of his duty.

George Hicks, 18, Wakefield-street, Regent's-square,
Gray's Inn-road, proved that he found the defendant lying on
the pavement, and being told by him that he resided in King-
street, he conducted him to the door, but was there informed
by the people of the house that he gave a wrong address ; he
let him shift for himself. The constable happened to come
up at the moment, and he assaulted him by kicking him in
the nose.

Mr. MINSHULL ordered him to pay a fine of 5/. or go to hard
labour for two months.

Wm. Hemmings, the carman, 142, Broad-street, Padding-
ton, who stands charged with causing the death of a boy, yes-
terday, in Long-acre, by driving a van over him, was ordered
to find sureties in 401. each, to appear at the Coroners' in-
quisition, _ _ .

Wm. Burger, Bedford Hotel, Southampton-row, Bedford-
square, a porter, was brought up by Fall, the officer, charged
on suspicion, with stealing four 101. notes, the property of
Wm. Marsden, Esq., a military gentleman, residing at Ton-
bridge Wells.

It appeared that Mr. Marsden received six 101. notes yes-
terday from his bankers, which he deposited in his dressing-
case, and laid it in his chamber at two o'clock. Having occa-
sion to pay a tailor's bill, he went to take out a portion of the
money at four o'clock for that purpose, and found that he had
been robbed.

Mr. Campbell, the proprietor of the hotel, and the waiter,
both considered that the prisoner was the only person in the
establishment on whom suspicion could rest, as he had access
to the chamber, and had only lately come into the service.
He was remanded to procure further evidence.

member of the Town Council, which office continued for three
years; and by the 28th section of the Municipal Act it was
enacted, that no person should be a councillor who was not
enabled to be a burgess, and if he so acted, he would be liable
to a penalty.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.—Take a rule to show cause.
His Lordship then rose.