The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-15 00:00:00

EAST INDIA SHIPPING.

Arrivals, Jan. 11.—The Elvira, Simpson, from Bengal, off
Liverpool, sailed July 30 ; Cape, Nov. 2. ; and St. Helena,
Nev. 2.
Arrival at Penang.—The Ann, Griffith!, from Bombay for
China.
Arrival at Madras.—The Adelaide, Guthrie, Sept. 26, from
Calcutta, and sailed the 27th for London.
Arrivals at Singapore.—The Blakeley, Snipe, August 16,
from Bengal, and sailed on the 17th for China ; ir H. Comp-
ton, from Bombay, and sailed August 21 for China; Eleanor,
Simons, Aug. 18, from Penang ; Zephyr, Robinson, Aug.
is, from Borneo ; Amelia, Rosso, Aug. 18, from Batavia,
and sailed on the 22d fur —; Danish Oak, Rabe, Aug. 19,
from Pedeir, and sailed on the 23d for China ; Jamaica,
Martin, Aug. 19, from Bombay, and sailed on the 20th for
China ; Hams Castle, Aug. 19, from Bombay, for China.
Departures from Singapore.—Tho Emma and Mathilde,
Janson, for Harnburgh ; Columbian, Pritchard, Sir John
13eresford, Mitchell, and Hero, Smallwood, all for London ;
the latter in want of light freight, and filling up with hides,
pepper, and gambier.
Departure from Simon's Bay (Cape.)—The Barossa, Grey,
Oct. 30, for Cork.
Departure from Table Bay.—The Charles Carter, Chris-
tall, Nov. 1, for St. Helena and Rio.
Arrivals at St. Helena.—The Hero, Smallwood, from Siam
and Singapore ; Lady East, Emery, Nov. 20, from Bombay.
Arrivals at Sincrapore.—The Edinburgh, Marshall, in Sep-
tember, from Bombay to China.
Ships Spoken With.—The Red Rover, Patterson, from
London to Cape and Singapore, Dec. 3, in lat. 3. N., by the
Bulo, arrived off Plymouth.

The books of the Bank of England are said to be
kept in triplicate—the original being at the Bank, one copy
lodged in the Tower, and another in some place of safety.

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
.
CO Ural Oft OtTEEIVS PENC.H, .I.lx. 12.
THE QUEEN V. THE liliiii§ifthfE# POOLE.
Th 4 ATTORNEY- GENERAL showed a(fainst a rule for
a nviiidgMli to he diteeted to the defendants, C.CMltianding
thsm to issue their' vtiflr-F4)t of diStress to compel payment of a
poor rats. It was clear on the Nee of. the aTdavit in support
of the rule that the rule must be discharge Two persons,
Custard and Sydesham, were appointed dit4l-ee.t.'e oe
the 6tii iit Aptl/i 1827, and in the summer of that year
Made a rate for the feßef of the poor. In the first place,
these persons had been illegally appelinted Overseers by the
miyoft; its the absence of the other Ccfrotatora. Their ap-
pointment had theft l&e been protested against, a 0 invalid. Of
course the rate made by than *as resisted, as made without
attfhotity. There had been an appeal against the rate, and
it had 'beef, gitOslred. The present application Was to enforce
a rate which had heed /mashed, and the Court yvOtild not
exercise its power in favour or art application
Sir W. FoLLETT supported the rule.
Lord DENMAN said that the whole difficulty in the ew.e
arose, as it seemed to him, from eertain Magistrates haring
chosen to act rid improper part is the appointment of the over-
seers. The rate being a nullity, could not be enforced in the
manner now sought. It was it great imputation on these par-
ties that these disputes should have taken the course they had
done, but the Court could riot correct this. The Quarter Ses-
sions must be taken to have acted rightly, and the parties
making this application had not put themselves in a situatioa
to claim the interference of this Court.
Rule discharged with costs.
THE QUEEN V. BUNNF.LL.
This was an application for a mandamus to the defendant to
issue his warrant to distrain for a highway rate in the parish
of Bethnal-green. The question intended to he raised was,
whether the rate could be imposed by the select vestry, or
must be agreed to in open vestry?
The COURT finding that the parties applying for the man-
damus were willing to indemnify the Magistrates, and thinking
that the question could be raised on the return to the writ, in-
terrupted the arguments, and made the rule absolute.

JANUARY 13.
THE KING V. PEPPER.
Mr. TIMMER appeared to show cause against the rule obtained
by the Attorney-General last term in this case. It was for as. infor-
mation In the nature of a quo warranto, calling upon the defendant,
Henry Pepper, to show by what authority he exercised the franchise
of a burgess of the borough of Mahlon in Essex. It was objected to ti t
defendant that he exercised the franchise contrary to the provisions of

the original Charter, granted in the reign of George the Third, because
his father having been admitted to the freedom of the borough by mar-
riage, and the son having been born previously to the father's admis.
sian, his claim should have been made within six months of the period
when he became so entitled. He (Mr. Thessiger) had, however, some
preliminary objections to offer which he hoped would dispose of the
question without at all considering the merits. In the first place, ac-
cording to a recent Statute, the application was out of time. By the
7th William IV. and -Ist Victoria, chap. 78, it was by the 9.3 d section
enacted, that from and after the passing of that Act (17th July, 1937),
every application to the Court of King's Bench for the purpose of calling
upon any person to show by what authority he exercised any fran.
chise or filled any office in any borough, should be made within twelve
months after such election, or after the person, shall have become dis.
qualified, and not at any subsequent time. ft might be alleged that that
Act merely applied to offices under the new Corporation Act, but there
was nothing in the words of the section to distinguish the present from
the other cases. The application had not been made till last term, and
if the section applied it was certainly out of time, the defendant having
been admitted to his freedom on the 24th Sept. 1832.
Mr. Justice LtrrLenkLE enquired what was the limitation under the
former Statute.
Mr. THF.SSIOER —By the 32d. Geo. 111., cap. 58, which was the
former Act, it was provided that " no information in the nature of a
qto warrant() calling upon any person to show by what authority he
exercised any office or franchise should issue after the person had
exercised that office of franchise for a period of six years." But if the
Court was of opinion that the Ist Victoria merely applied to the lately
established boroughs, there was another objection which appeared to
him to be fatal to the inquiry, and that was that the party was not ex.
ercising any franchise at all, and had no power do so. At the last re.
vision of the list of voters for the borough the name of Mr. Pepper had
been objected to, and the Revising Barrister had struck it out, and yet
in the month of November following, the defendant was called upon by
a quo warranto to show by what authority he exercised that franchise.
He submitted that that objection was fatal to the case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. CnANNeLL were heard in support
of the rule. _ .

The COURT took time to consider its decision.
THE KING V. THE DIRECTORS OF THE POOR OF TOR PARISI( OF ST. PANCRAS.
Sir W. FoLLErr moved in this Case for a rule to show cause why a
verdict should not be entered for the defendants by leave of the learned
Judge. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Coleridge, at the sit.
tings after last term, and arose out of the exposure of a child under the
following circumstances :—On the 11th May last a woman had gone to
the Foundling Hospital, and given the porter a basket, directed to the
Governor or Secretary, which was subsequently found to contain a male
infant. By direction of the officers of the hospital the child was car.
Heti to the workhouse, but the parochial authorities refused to receive
it, and it was taken back, and still remained at the Foundling Hospital.
The question was, whether under such circumstances the parish was
bound so maintain the child. The Learned Gentleman here referred
to the charter originally granted to the hospital in the year 1739, by
which they were bound to support and maintain all exposed and de.
serted children.
Mr. Justice Cotaalooc observed that the regulations of the hospital
were, that the mother must appear before the Governors before they re-
ceived any child, and it was competent to them to refuse or admit any
child, according as they thought fit.
Sir W. FOLLETT contended that such regulations ware at variance
with the letter and spirit of the charter, and under such circumstances
the parish of St. Pancras submitted that they were not responsible for
the maintenance of the child. He would further observe ,that although
the hospital was within the parish, it was not within the juris-
diction of the parochial offices, and therefore the exposure could not
be said to hays occurred within the parish.
Lord DENMAN thought what had been done at the trial was perfectly
eorreet. It was clear that the hospital had never received the child,
and that they also had the power of receiving or rejecting it. The ex.
posure of the infant had certainly taken place within the parish, and
came within the term " casual poor," and unless the parish could throw
the burden elsewhere, they were undoubtedly bound to maintain it.—
Refused.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 12.
On the sitting of the Court this morning the Duke of Man-
chester took the usual oaths as Lord Lieutenant and Custos
Rotulorum of the county of Huntingdon, and Roderick
M'Leod, Esq. as Lieutenant of the county of Cromarty. Af-
ter disposing of some motions of no public interest his Lord.
ship sat at Nisi Prius.

BUSINESS OF T/IE COURT.
On the first case being called on, the Learned Judge sa:d
he wished that the gentlemen of the bar would come to some
arrangement among themselves, so that those cases that were
set down for trial at the sittings in Term, which were likely to
occupy the Court a considerable time, might be postponed un-
til the sittings after Term.
The gentlemen of the bar, in obedience to leis Lordship's
suggestion, mentioned the names of several causes, each of
which were likely to occupy the Court a considerable time.
The Learned Judge ordered the trials of each of them to be
postponed until the sittings after Term.