The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-31 00:00:00

TNE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF LEEDS

This was an appeal for a mandamus to the Mayor of Leeds
to admit Mr. Wood to the office of town-councillor of that
borough. A Mr. Brown, elected in 1836, became bankrupt
in June, 1837. The Mayor directed, in November, an elec-
tion of two councillors for the ward, in the room of the one
who went out by rotation and in the room of Mr. Brown.
The election took place, and 244 persons voted for White-
head and Watson, while 120 voted for Wood alone. It was
now contended that there ought to have been an election of one
person in the room of the two councillor who went out by
rotation ; that the nomination of the two persons was good
for nothing, that their election was void, and that the only
voters who had not thrown away their votes had voted' for
Wood. On the other hand, it was said that, though the
Mayor might have been wider a mistake in ordering an elec-
tion of two persons, that election could not be good as to one
and void as to another, but was void altogether. Sir W.
Follett appeared for Mr. Wood, and the Attorney-General
for the Mayor of Leeds.—Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT, JAN. 30.
CUSTODY OF WILLS.

Sir WI,OI. FOLLETT renewed a motion which he made on Sa-
turday last for a rule", calling upon Mr. Hardwick, the late
Registrar of the Court of Peculiars at Bridgenorth, to show
causj why he should not deliver up to the present holder of
that situation certain wills, codicils, &c., that came into his
possession by virtue of his office. The Learned Counsel had
looked into the case decided in the Court of Exchequer, to
which the Court had on Saturday called his attention. It was
that of a Deputy Prothonotary of the Welsh judicature, who
refused to deliver up certain papers to the principal, and in
which the Learned Barons decided that the Prothonotary had
his remedy by civil action ; but in that case the papers so de-
tained were not public documents or papers in which the pub.
lie had any interest. The present was a very different case—
the papers detained were wills, codicils, &c., to which the
public had at all times the right of access, but which right
could not be exercised while they remained in the custody and
under the control of the defendant.

Rule Aisi granted.
CORPORATION OF CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. JARDINE applied to the Court for a rule calling upon
the Corporation of Cambridge to show cause why a writ of
mandamus should not issue, commanding them to execute a
bond for securing to Mr. Harris, late town-clerk of that bo-
rough, an annuity of 1971. 19s. for his life. Since the pass-
ing of the Municipal Corporations Reform Act, Mr. Harris
had been removed from the offices of town-clerk and clerk of
the peace of the borough, and the Town Council having re-
fused to grant him any compensation for the loss of those
offices, he had in the usual form appealed to the Lords of the
Treasury, whereupon their Lordships requested to be fur-
nished with information as to the amount of the fees and
emolu►Ments of those offices. Having received the required
information, their Lordships, in October, 1837, awarded an
annuity of 1971. 195., and directed the Corporation to pay the
same. Mr. Harris subsequently served the officers of the
Corporation with a copy of their Lordships' order, and made
repeated applications to them ; but although three months
had now elapsed since the order had been made by their
Lordships, he had only received evasive answers to his appli-
cation.—Rule Nisi granted.