The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-03 00:00:00

THOMAS V. JONES.

Mr. ALEXANDER moved, in this case, for a rule to show
cause why the defendant should not render an account to
the plaintiff of all rents received by him, all distresses made
upon his property, and any balance remaining in his hands,
after payment of the amount of three executions upon the
plaintiff's property, and that the case be referred to the
Master, in order that any overplus should be refunded to
the plaintiff. The defendant Jones, who was an attorney,
entered three executions on the property of Thomas,
amounting in the gross to 8001., and it appeared from the
affidavits of Thomas and his tenants, than that sum had
been paid to Jones, who still retained possession of the pro-
perty, by which the tenants were prevented paying their
rents to the rightful owner.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—There seems to be a case in
3d Barnwell and Cresswell, in which the Court granted
such a rule.—Rule granted.

THE KING V. THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE
PARISH OF ST. PANCRAS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show
cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, directed
to the Guardians of the Poor of the parish of St. Pancras,
appointed under the provisions of the Poor Law Amend-
ment Act, requiring them to obey an order of the Poor
Law Commissioners, dated 9th July, 1836. It would ap-
pear that the defendants were determined to act in open
defiance of the law. Their Lordships were aware that by
the Poor Law Amendment Act the Commissioners had a
right either to put together a number of parishes in a
Union, and direct the manner in which the poor of that
Union should be maintained ; or if the parish be populous,
they may direct the poor to be maintained separately by that
parish. The parish of St. Pancras being very large, the
Commissioners determined that it should be a district in
itself, and therefore they intimated that the Guardians
should be chosen by the rate-payers for the management of
the affairs of the poor. The Poor Law Amendment Act
provides that the Guardians should be elected by the rate-
payers, and then the former administer the affairs of the
poor. In the parish of St. Pancras they had a local Act
of Parliament, according to which Directors were appointed
by the Vestry, and these Directors had the manage-
ment of the affairs of the poor, and it was suggested
that the Poor Law Amendment. Act did not apply to this
parish, and a strong disposition on the part of the Directors
to maintain the power they had hitherto legally enjoyed.
The Directors therefore suggested that the opinion of three
gentlemen of the bar (the Attorney and Solicitor-General,
and Sir William Follett) should be had upon the matter,
and they gave it as their opinion that the Poor Law
Amendment Act did extend to the parish of St. Pancras.
However, the determination to resist its operation still con-
tinued. The Poor Law Commissioners issued an order to
the rate-payers to elect Guardians of the Poor, and the rate-
payers met accordingly, and elected Guardians, most of whom
had bean Directors under the local Act. The Commis-
sioners then issued the order, upon which the present appli-
cation was grounded, dated 9th July, 1836, directing the
Guardians to meet upon a given day, and elect a chairman.
The Guardians did meet, and intimated an opinion that the
Poor Law Amendment Act did not extend to their pa-
rish, and said that they would not obey the order of the
Poor Law Commissioners. Although he (the Attorney-
General) did not suppose there was anything contumacious
in the conduct of the parish authorities, and that they were
merely desirous of having the question decided in a superior
Court, still, as nothing further had been done, he felt it his
duty to make the present application.
COURT—Take a rule.