The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-01 00:00:00

TAYLOR 0. WATERS.

Sir W. HoRNE resumed his argument in this case, which
raised the question whether the plaintiff is to have a sum
of 3,6501. pAid in Court by him under injunctions, and
afterwards invested in stock, or is to have the stock so in-
vested on the 3,650/. with interesi. 'fhe'.l4earned Counsel
contended that the investment had been made on the ap-
plication of Waters with the concurrence
_of, Taylor, and
that as Waters had takep All the eanseqoenees of the IQ
vestment, he could not be stripped of the advantages M
that investment. ' - •
Mr. TnEsLombaving ieplied, • -
The LORD CHANCRE:I.OR intimated his intention' tolii:e•
judgment on Monday. "( *

KING'S BESCH
Tim
,iirfp,ti. yx-9 b• •
The ATTORNEY-0.4,14ii.A.k pitcqck, to ~,,sboy causer
against a rule for a q4uszvarrepifiV. be lasiked -to. the
feridant, calling him to Show 'by Itthatauth4orlty,lte clairaetl
to exercise the office of Mayor: of ;Barnarvim. :
'Sir W. FOLLETT appeared.in support, of the rule.

After hearing the facts of the case, the COURT thought
that there was enough of difficulty in the case to require
that a quo warranto should issue in order to bring the
question to a proper decision.
Rule for a quo warrant° absolute accordingly.
THE KING V. TILE ALDERMEN OF CARNARVON.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against the
rule obtained in this case for a quo warrant° calling on the
defendants to show by what authority they claimed to
hold the office of Aldermen of this borough.
Sir W. FOLLETT supported the rule.—Rule granted.
THE KING V. ARNOLD.

Sir F. PoLLocx appeared to show cause against this
rule, which was for a mandamus to allow two persons
named Scott and Lancester, to inspect the lists of votes
given at the election of town-councillors for the borough of
Poole, and to take copies of such votes, on the payment
of one shilling for the inspection. _

V The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was heard in support of the
rule.—Rule enlarged.

THE KING V. BRAME.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against the rule
for a quo warrant° being issued in this case, calling on the
defendant to show cause by what authority he claimed to
exercise the office of Mayor of Ipswich. The chief ground
of objection to his election was, that there was no proper
presiding officer.
The Court thought there was enough of doubt on the
matter to require it should be fully inquired into, and, there-
fore, made the rule of a quo warranto absolute.

BAIL COURT.
-- V. JENNINGS.

Mr. BEBE moved for a mandamus, calling on Robert
Jennings, late Portreeve of the borough of Yeovil, to de-
liver up the insignia of office, and the deeds, books, and
papers belonging thereto, to his successor.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
Mr. JONES obtained a rule to show cause why the town
clerk of the new corporation of Maidenhead, in Berkshire,
should not deliver up certain deeds and papers now in his
possession,
BIRMINGHAM RAILROAD COMPANY V. DAWLEY.

Mr. Sergeant ADAMS having obtained a rule nisi for a
niandanws against the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, calling
on him to tax and assess the costs incurred by the Company
in defending themselves against the claim of the defendant,
Charles Dawley, who refused the compensation offered him
by the Company.
Mr. CLARK opposed the motion.
The COURT gave time to the Company to amend their
rule, until the first day of next term.