The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-26 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 24
WILLIS V. lIISCOX.

This was a question on the construction of a will, the
point being whether the child of Ann Willis took an estate
for life, or an estate tail. The gift was to the heir male of
the body of Ann Willis and to his heirs. It was argued on
one s.de that the word heir in the singular number was
descriptive of an individual person, and therefore gave an
estate for life only. On the other side it was contended
that it was 3 novena collectivum, and gave an estate tail.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had a strong opinion on the
point, but he took time to look into the cases before he
gave judgment.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 24.
THORNE V. FRANCIS.

The MASTER of the ROLLS, in giving judgment in this
case (which was noticed in The Sun of Saturday), said any
individual may appear as next friend to infants in this Court,
to protect their interests, but the conduct and motives of
that individual would be looked after with the greatest
anxiety. Whether this suit should or should not have been
filed, he would not let the conduct of it remain in the hands
of such a man as Ashton. He would desire the plaintiff to
give .a copy of the accounts to be examined by the defen-
dants, and on their answer, and the explanation of the plain-
tiff, which he wo 1! hear as early as they chose, shou!d
depend whether he ordered Ashton to pay the costs out of
his own pocket.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nor. 24.
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF EXETER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied for a rule to show
cause why a quo warranto should not issue, calling on Ed-
ward M'Gowan to show by what authority he claimed to
exercise the offices of Mayor of Exeter and Alderman of
that city. The object of the application was, like that
made in another case a few days ago, to obtain a deci•ion on
the question, whether when the period arrived for the
Mayor to be elected, and for some of the Aldermen to go
out of office and others to be elected, the old Aldermen
had a right to vote in the election of the Mayor, before re-
tiring, or whether they were bound to withdraw, and the
election of the new Aldermen to be completed before the
election of the Mayor was decided.
The Court granted the rule.
THE QUEEN V. THE REV. A. GATHERCOLE.
In this case the defendant had been convicted upon a
criminal information for publishing in the Paper called the
Watchnum, a libel on certain nunneries at Stockton and
Darlington.
Mr. WATSON, in mitigation of punishment, contended
that the object of the defendant was to attack the Romanist
system of nunneries, not to malign those who alight happen
to be inmates of such establishments.

Mr. Justice PATTESON before delivering the judgment
of the Court rear! the libel, which called nunneries " bro-
thels for the Priests of the Popish religion :" described
them as a disgrace to Christianity and humanity ; said that
all such Popish stews ought to be burned to the ground,
care being first taken of the unhappy victims of the system ;
and it then went on to ask how many Popish priests en-
tered the nunneries at Stockton and Darlington each
week, and how many infants were born in them in each
year and what became of them, whether the holy fathers
brought them up, or whether they were murdered out of
hand or not." This was the libel. The defendant said that
he i .tended only to reflect on the system, hut the jury
found that he intended to reflect upon individuals. The
defendant had alleged that he believed what he stated, be-
cause he had read accounts of the mischiefs of auricular con-
fessions. and be looked on them as often productive of
crimes. But that showed that he was a person of very
little understanding. His Lordship grievously regretted
that a clergyman of the Church of England should be so
totally devoid of the brightest jewel of Christianity—Chris-
tian charity—as to entertain and express such opinions.
The Court felt that the defendant had been guilty of a se-
rious offence, but as it appeared that he was not able to pay
any large fine, and would not be able to bear any length-
ened imprisonment, the Court took those circumstances into
consideration, and sentenced him to be imprisoned in the
custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea for the space of
three calendar months.

THE QUEEN V. THE VESTRYMEN OF ST. MARGARET,

LEICESTER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against a rule
for a mandamus to the vestrymen of St. Margaret's,
Leicester, calling upon them to assemble and make a rate
fOr the repairs of the Church. The question for the con-
sideration of the Court arose on the construction of a local
Act of Parliament.

Lord DENMAN, in the course of his observations on the
application, remarked, " It is said that we have no power
to call on a vestry to make a rate ; but in all cases we can
call on the vestry to meet and consider the making of a
rate. I think, however, that this Court is not so limited in
its power ; for, when an Act of Parliament requires some
act to be done by a particular body, and that body either
refuses to do the act, or collusively avoids the doing of it,
I am of opinion that we possess the power to compel its
being done by virtue of the Act. That is the case in the
present instance, and I am, therefore, of opinion that the
rule ought to be absolute.

Mr. Justice Patterson, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr.
Justice Coleridge, all concurred with the Lord Chief Jus-
tice.—The rule accordingly was made absolute.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 24.
THE GREENWICH POOR-LAW UNION V. THE CHURCHWAR-
DENS, OVERSEERS, &C., OF ST. NICHOLAS, DEPTFORD.
In this case the Attorney-General moved that the Court
quash the answer made by the Churchwardens and Over-
seers, the Governors and Directors of the parish of
St. Nicholas, Deptford, to the mandamus granted by the
Court to compel these parties to pay into the hands of
the Treasurer of the Greenwich Poor-law Union the sum
of 1,0731., which ought to have been paid in October
last, as the poor-rates for that parish. The Learned Gen-
tleman proceeded to remark, that finding the poor in the
workhouse were starving, in consequence of the non-pay-
ment of the rates for the parish of St. Nicholas, the Guar-
dians of the Union had brought the case into that Court,
when Mr. Justice Littledale granted a mandamus to com-
pel the Churchwardens and Overseers, the Governors
and Directors, to pay the money. In terms of this nzan-
daunts the Guardians of the Greenwich Union issued three
several precepts calling on the defendants.to pay the money
into the hands of the Treasurer. The first was issued
in April, the second in July, and the third in October
last. The answer of the defendants was that they were
not, when these precepts were issued against them, able to
pay the amount demanded by previous precepts, and that,
being unable to raise a poor-rate, they were not in a con-
dition to meet the demands of the precepts. The precepts
were issued in accordance with the orders, rules, and regu-
lations of the Poor-law Commissioners, and therefore were
quite legal. He was aware the defence to be set up by
the defendants was, that at the time the last precept was
i,:sued, they had only 46/. odd in their hands, and that they
had then expressed their readiness to pay that over to any
party the Guardians of the Greenwich Union might ap-
point. He was also aware that they admitted having since
recovered from the parishioners 1931. which they were also
willing to pay, making the sum altogether 2391. But this
was no defence at all. He maintained that the defendants
had at the time the first of the three precepts were issued
the sum of 1,0701. odd in their hands, though they refused
to pay it over to the Treasurer of the Union. But even
if they had not had the amount in their possession, they
ought to have raised it in obedience to the precepts of the
Guardians, by imposing a poor-rate on the parishioners.
'They had the power to raise the money by the imposition
of such a rate.

Mr. ERLE, who was for the defendants, said they had
not the power of making a rate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No such thing. There is
no local Act in existence which prevents their imposing a
rate in such a case as the present. So far from this there
is a local Act which expressly enjoins them to make such a
rate as often as it shall he required.
Mr. ERLE showed cause why the answer to the manda-
mus ought not to be quashed, and why the mandamus
ought to be set aside.
The LEARNED JUDGE, at the conclusion of Counsels'
arguments, said that he had considerable doubts as to the
validity of the precepts issued by the Guardians of the
Greenwich Uni'n. The Attorney-General admitted that
they had only been issued according to the rules and regu-
lations of the Poor-law Commissioners. Now, he rather
leant to the opinion that the precepts ought to have been
issued under the special authority of the Poor-law Com-
missioners. He would, therefore, dismiss the motion of the
Attorney-General in the meantime, as the matter could be
brought before the Court again in another form.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 24.
HITCHCOCK V. WALFORD.
Mr. Sergeant GOUEBURN applied to-day to have this case
put in the list of new trials for next term. This was an
action of trespass against a clergyman for removing a grave-
stone, in which the Court had recommended that a
ad
p ocossus should be entered ; but he moved now, on an
-affidavit of the plaintiff, in which he swore that defendant
had recently stated that, as soon as he could get the judg-
ment of the Court, he would bury the first pauper that
died in his parish in the vault.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
FECTOR V. BEACON.
This, as was stated on Saturday, was an action of debt
brought to recover 6201. 15s. 10d., the amount of expenses
certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to have
be,';, ineurred in d, f-nding the return of Mr. Foetor for
the MaHsione, t4,r,airist a petition vsliich was
declared by the Committee of the House of Commons to
be frivolous and vexatious, and the defendant was one of