The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-15 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

POWELL U. PHELPS.
The further arguments in this part-heard motion occupied
Is HONOUR the whole mcrning.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE STRAND UNION—THE QUEEN V. THE FOOR-LAW COMMIS"
SIGNERS.
The ATTORNEY-GENFRAL said the present case turned upon
the construction of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and the;
rule called noon the Poor-law Commissioners to shew cause
why a writ of certiorari should not issue to bring into that
Court certain orders and regulations of the Poor-law Com-
missioners, bearing date the 7th of March, 1836, whereby the
Guardians of the Poor of the Strand Union were ordered to
appoint a person to collect the rat( aof the said Union. The
application was made at the instance of Mr. D. Coghill, collector
of rates for St. Paul's, Covent-garden, one of the parishes in-
eluded in the Union. The Poor-law Commissioners, by virtue of
the powers vested in them by the 46th section of the Poor-lays
Amendment Act, directed the Guardians of the Poor of the
Strand Union, which had been previously formed under their
authority, to elect a collector for the Union, and they defined
%that the duties of the collector should he. It appeared that
pursuant to their order a collector was appointed, but subse
queritly there was another parish collector appointed for St.
Covent-gaeden, and it was by that local collector that
the present application was made. It was objected—first, that
the Poor-law Commissioners (independently of any local Act)
had no authority to direct the election of such an officer ; and
secondly, that if they had that power, there was a local
Act for _St. Paul, Covent -garden, which rendered such order
null. To show that the .Poor-1 aw Commissioners had no •
authority, it was only necessary for him to refer to the 46th
section, which provided that they might direct the Guardians
of the Poor of an:% parish, or Union, to appoint such officers
as they might deem necessary to carry the provisions of the
Act into eff_ct. It appeared fret?' that section that the power
of the Poor-law Commissioners mus most extensive, and be
would now refer them to the 109th .s,ection, and the interpre'
tation of the word "officer" about which there had been .'5O
much discussion. Among the persons enumerated there was
distinctly specified the " collector." The duty of the Guardians
extended to saying how much was nece:xsary to support the
boor of the Union, to appropriate the sum to'.be
by each parish, and it was unnecessary toP point out the P.
portance of having the officer, whose duty at was to collet,.
these rents, aointed by a Guardian of the Poor, rather tba:
the parish authorities. He submitted, therefore, That in leakier,
the order in question, the Poor-law Commissioners had in rie
way exceeded their authority, •
Mr. THESSIGER was heard in support of the rule.
Tbe
Learned Counsel proceeded to cite several authorities and de-
cisions under the Poor. law Amendinent Act, in support of
argument, and concluded by submitting that the rule of certi
rani must be made absolute.
The COURT, after conferring together for some time, said
would take time to consider its judgment.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY•)

MAIDSTONE ELECTION. —VECTOR V.
Mr. TIIESIGER moved, on the part of the plaintiff, for tea--
to enter up judgment to the amount of 619/., the costs of tbe
proceedicgs on the Maidstone Election Petition lust Sesiti°ll'
the Committee having decided that the petition was " frly(s°—
~,
and vexatious."—The Court granted the application.
WATSON V. REEVE.
Mr. HUMPIIREY showed cause against a rule obtained 11
defendant for a new trial on payment of costs. The case stoa,u
for trial before Mr. Justice Parke on Saturday. The defeat"
ant's ettorney did not come down to Court until elevep
o'clock ; before that time the cause was called omi and bei?g:
undefended, edict passed for plaintiff. The amount of tuu
verdict was only
Mr. Justice VaucmaY—And the rule nisi was ob taioe„°._
condition of defendant's attorney paying costs betwe4tll at."
ney and client?
Mr. H UMPHREY—Ycs, my Lord; and those costs ‘llll c°l3l
to double the amount of the verdict.
Mr. GRAY supported the rule.
The COURT discharged the rule.