The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-12 00:00:00

THE SNLE OF A CADETSHIP.

THE QUEEN V. KENDALL. BIrCKES, LINLEY AND

BICKLEY.

The defendants iu hich has been re•
pentedly be or the public, appeared. in amordanee with
nooce, on me floor of the court this mLiz.

The ATToRNEY•GENERAL moved ,be judgm•-nt of thy,
Court upon them. It w►ll %/e I-, collect, d that they were
found guilty of conspiring together tor the sale of u c,-
detship.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE'addressed the Court in mitigation
of punishment on behalf or Mr. Bickley, who has bee►
for twenty years an attorney of the Court.

Mr. M. CHAMBERS folluwed on behalf of Mrs.
Linley.
An affidavit was produced by Mr. Kendall, which was
read by one of the Masters. It stated that having b., n
absent from England for many years, he was not aware
on his return that the selling of a cadetship was an
illegal act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was not instructed
to press for undue severity towards the dqtendants; but
he trusted the Court would support the Legislature in
putting a stop to a traffic of this kind. lie then recalled
the attention of the Court to the facts of the case. The
Court could not fail to be of opinion that the whole of
the defendants were perfectly aware of the illegality of
the transaction in which they all embarked.
Mr. Justice PATTESON passed sentence upon the de-
fei dents— Mr. Kcndall to twelve months' i prisonment
in the Queen's Prison, and to pay a fine of 1,0001., and
to be imprisoned until the fire be paid; Mr. Bickley to
one y cies imprisonment; Mrs. Binckes the same; and
Mrs. Linley six months.
The defendants were then removed in custody.

EXCHEQUER.-( THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

IN THE MATTER OF TM: HAMMERSMITH RENT CHARGE.

JUDGMENT.

Mr. Lusu, on a former occasion, obtained a rule in
this care calling on the vicar of Hammersmith to show
cause why an order, directing the Sheriff of Middlesex
to assess for certain arrears of rent charge, in lieu
of tithes, in the parish of Hammersmith, should not be
set aside, together with the subsequent proceedings.
Cause was shown some terms ago, and the judgment ot
the Court was suspended. It appeared that the particu-
lars of the case were as follow:—An attorney at Ham-
mermith allotted to a poor man a piece of land to cul-
tivate for his own use and benefit; and, in consequence
of his poverty, the magistrates exempted him from the
payment of rates and taxes. The vicar, however, did
not relinquish his claim to the tithes, which were com-
muted into a rent charge, but prosecuted it by distrain-
ing for the amount. After some interlocutory proceed-
ings, a Judge's order was obtained directing the Sherifi
of Middlesex to summon a jury and proceed to trial,
for the purpose of assessing the amount of arrears.
The case was accordingly Ewald in spite of a notice trom
the other side, to the effeet that, as the order for trial
had be en obtain ex parte, it must be considared null tied
void.

Mr. Baron PAaKE was of opinion that the rule ought
to be made absolute, on the ground that the Judge%
order fur assessing the vicar's claim could not be ob-
tained ex pArte.
The Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr,
Baron Platt, took a different view of the case. The)
considered that it had been for some time the general
practice of the Court to grant such orders, and were 01
()Orion that the rule ought to be discharged.
The rule was aceordiugly discharged.