The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-25 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Nov. 24.

(Before Mr. Sergeant Adams, Assistant Judge, and a

Bench of Magistrates at Westminster.)

The court sat specially to-day to hear appeals.
Frederick George Gush appealed against a conviction
of D. Jardine, Esq.
The conviction was for an indecent exposure to two
young girls in the Green-park on the 3d of August. The
police constable stated that the girls laughed at the ap-
pellant's conduct.
The court held after this statement that the appellant's
conduct could not legally be considered to have insulted
the girls. The statute was to prevent the insulting of
modest women, and the question was whether it could
be said that the girls were insulted when they merely
laughed at what the appellant did. The court had no
course left but to quash the conviction. The appellant
at the same time had not increased that good character
which he understood many of his friends had come to
give him.
Mr. Clarkson, who with Mr. Ballantine, appeared for
the appellant, said he was sure the court would not con-
clude anything against Mr. Gush, without having heard
their side of the question, for they were in a condition to
have altered the case materially.
Mr. Ballantine said the case had been stopped on a
point of law ; they did not think it right to occupy the
time of the court on a question of fact, but they entirely
denied the imputation on Mr. Gush.
Mr. Payne appeared in support of the conviction.
Conviction quashed.
THE CONSERVATIVE CLUB V. THE POOR RATE OF ST.
JAMES'S.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Ballantine were for the appel--
lants. Mr. Pashley, Q.C., and Mr. Huddlestone for

the respondents.
Mr. Bodkin said, that appearing on the part of the
appellants, he need hardly say that the high character
and position of the gentleman forming the committee of
management of the Conservative Club, was a sufficient
ytehaer s
p, r
e andvi o
u hsa d
valua-
tion, a now
tion, which, as well as many preceding it, had been too
guarantee that they would not come. to a court of justice
to resist a reasonable tax upon them, but the rate had
hbeeeenn
rcareiseepdingupuwparfdosr
oaf n 41101201 b.
e overrof
high in respect of the real rateable value of the premises
in question. The property was the Conservative Club
House, at the corner of St. James's-street, and he be-
lieved the case of club houses had never yet been brought
before the courts. In other cases there was no difficulty
in having the rateable value of the property ascertained,
but there was in property of this description. In the
case of this kind of property there were no rents and no
profits, and therefore quite an absence of the ordinary
data upon which the value for the purpose of assessment
could be ascertained. To say that in making such
assessment they were to be guided by the cost of the
property, was a proposition so absurd that it could not
be entertained for a moment. If Waterloo-bridge, for
instance, was assessed on what it cost, would not the
rate absorb all the receipts taken by the toll col-
lectors ? In the difficulty he had adverted to, the
committee had done this. They objected to the increased
rating of upwards of 4001., on the valuation of Mr. Lee,
which was confined to the clubs in the parish. Theyhad
therefore taken the opinion of those who dealt with pro-
pertybwpmuu oattdr taehus
pooti
nfoot
upon it
intets analogousipfhcaiaortdnt
wsoienfdreeteahr
nearly
elnbeypsl
tycaherroei
Ipisonht
market.oi
edti
r) asedyt b with
yiootl
huwf
fl
ethdehal
het
the
have
valuation
upgoeauei
dltddh ietbtone,
come
entirely
to that fo r
tcourt.he
purposes Pro-pa pe
rpteya
ol f against
this
e s theer
description
rate,tio was
dh
uc
of clubs, and of what worth were their houses if they
ceased to be clubs ? They would have to be reconstructed
to be converted into ordinary dwelling houses ; in fact,
they were useless but for the purposes for which they were
originally intended. He should call before the court
witnesses competent to judge of these matters, who
would tell them that the letable value of the club-louse
was 2,0001. a-year, and the parish had rated them at
2,9401. If they satisfied the court that 2,0001. was the
correct value, they would at the same time show, of