The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-24 00:00:00

HORNE V. FRANCIS.

This was an opposed petition. The question raised on
the petition was whether it was fit and proper the suit should
be continued on behalf of infants.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF ST. ALBANS,

HERTFORDSHIRE.

In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. RYLAND,
calling upon the Justices of St. Alban's, Hertfordshire, to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directed to
them, and commanding them to enter continuances, and
hear a certain appeal, in which the parish of Watford was
appellant, and. the Rev Mr. Cassel, the Vicar, respondent.
Mr. WORDSWORTH now appeared to show cause against
the rule. The case turned upon the construction of the
Parochial As,tessrnent Act (6th and 7th William IV.,
chap. 96). Under that Act the Vicar appealed to the
Justices at Petty Sessions, against a rate for the parish of
Watford, made on the sth June, 1838 ; that appeal was
heard on the 24th July following, and the Justices, after
baring it, reduced the sum at which the Rev. Mr. Capel
was rated from 5401. to 4261. The parish appealed from
that decision to the Justices at Quarter Sessions, and the
Justices declined to hear the appeal, on the ground that the
recognizances required by the Act had not been perfected.
By the 6th section of the Act the appellants were required
to give fourteen days' notice, and within fire days afterwards
to enter into recognizances to prosecute the appeal.
When the case came on before the Quarter Sessions, the
notice was called for and produced, and then the re-
cognizances, appeared not to have heed signed by
the Magistrate before whom they purported to have been
entered. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to con-
tend that the informality to which he had referred, was
fatal to the appeal—that the Justices were right in refusing
to entertain it, and consequently the rule ought to be
discharged.
The COURT, after conferring together, decided that the
rule ought to be made absolute. The recognizances were
an undertaking by the party to prosecute the appeal, and
that having been given, any subsequent neglect of the
Magistate or his Clerk, ought not to bar the right of the
party.—Rule absolute. •

BOROUGH OF EXETER.-THE QUEEN V. M`DOWALL, ESQ

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been instructed to apply
to their Lordships for a rule to shoW cause why an infor-
mation in the nature of a quo warranto should not be filed
against Mr. G. M'Duwall, calling upon him to show by
what authority he exercised the offices of Mayor and Alder
man of the borough of Exeter. By the Municipal Cor
poration Act, it was provided that there should be four quar-
terly meetings of the Mayor and Alderman, and at one of
these on the 9th' Nov. at twelve o'clock, at noon, the first
business done was to be the election of Mayor ; at any sub-
sequent period of the proceedings it was provided that six
Aldermen were to be elected in the room of six of the twelve
Aldermen, who went out by rotation. It appeared that on
the 9th Nov., 1838, the Mayor and Aldermen met at ten
o'clock in the forenoon instead of twelve, and then elected
six Aldermen, who, at the subsequent meeting at
twelve o'clock, were thus enabled to vote at the election
of Mayor, which was manifestly illegal, the six retiring
Aldermen not being allowed to attend. One of the Al-
dermen so chosen in the morning was elected Mayor. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding to show, from the provi-
sions of the Act, that the entire proceeding was contrary
to its spirit and meaning, when

The -COURT said—Take a rule.
TAYLOR V. THE MANCHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this case a rule had bden obtained for setting aside
an award made some time ago, and the Court; after
hearing the arguments of Sir F. Pollock, decided that the
rule must be discharged.
At half-past twelve.thelarand Jury' appeared in 'Conit,
and were disaharged.