The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-09 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DA

Nothing of any interest came before the Cots
morning.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DA

THE QUEEN V. THE PARISH OF ST. NICHOLAS, no/WO be
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied for a niandamus,t°,be
directed to the Churchwardens and Overseers et
Poor of the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford, for the leo,
mediate payment of 1,0701. to the Treasurer of the , ;4° of
with Union, being the amount of three several orctar,,,:l,
the Guardians of the said Union, issued on the 120 The
the sth July, and the 4th October last respectivelY. lay/
Greenwich Union was formed under the New P°°'..
par s
Act, the parish of St. Nicholas being one of the 13°, the
included in the Union. When an Union was forineuioch
manner in which the poor were relieved was this
irdos,
parish in the Union elected a certain number of Gtr-
in proportion to the population, as fixed by the FtEtril•
Commissioners, these Guardians constituting a the
The Board superintended the relief of the poor vi' the
sphere of the Union, and the money was supplied befog
joint contributions of each parish, such contributions.aora
fixed by the Board of Guardians. The order of the 'their
having been served upon the parochial authorities,ja to
were to raise the sum of money necessary to be P fare
the Treasurer, and to pay it accordingly. •Asrate°
therefore, as the making and collecting of the otter'
was concerned, it was still a parochial in tor.
but the relief of the poor was an Union Itnitig
The Board of Guardians of the Greenwich Union °laatell
ordered the sums he had mentioned, the parish abljoio°
refused to pay any of them, whereby the poor in the
coat
workhouse were without any means of support, exceP for 0
the Guardians supplied from other sources, and izagiebolas'
these sources depended upon the parish of St.
Deptford, the poor man would absolutely starve. hen the
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE-IS it the course, to
Board of Guardians fix the sum of money to be ~P-ee Pa*
take relative proportions ? Suppose there are t",r
rishes, for instance, and the Board want 301., and t
ar lish o
the parish of St. Paul shall contribute 121., the Pf
A. B. 101, and the other parish 81. Is that Pr°oP0,60
f poo
always the same, or does it depend on the numb
ber fro
in the workhouse belonging to each parish, varying
time t time ? na
Theo ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it did not dePeiv, the
the number of the poor, but on the claimants--estne Olio°
expences of each parish for a certain time before objec-
was formed, but nothing turned on that point. L'°l.efusecl,
tion was made to the validity of the order, but theY.o have
to recognise the Union altogether, having Ill°°eYt.iwordeq
which they refused to pay ; and one of the Chloction
actually stated that he had been told it was the let° fore°
the Board to have recourse to legal proceedings to
nenifeets
compliance with their order, and that the Parish tic( the
were savinr, up money to resist the proceedings Tnion•
Board, and quite sure they should beat tbes 'would
He apprehended this was a case where a mandarn.6,ained
issue as a mere matter of course, a teetha oeitsb Of t
similar mandamus under this Act against Pa_tdin t°
Andrew, Holborn ; and he also apprehended, e
ca
f the P°°rl:
the analogy that prevailed before the passing
to Oak
law Amendment Act, where a mandamus went n
rate, that it would be absolute in the first insta,terot. Soe
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE should have th
Ist, that to
many objections had been raised to this r rule
the
show cause. rdieg t° ce.
should have thought it more convenient to hake
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that acco
Here the poor were absolutely starving, and instal:lc
nary in this case to make it absolute in theil.oliag.e.
old system, the mandamus was absolute in the fi,,rsvvtas" odes'.
It had been granted before by Mr. Justice C
Mr. Justice LITTLEDA ix said as a similar apoplication 110