The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-11 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE Kis° V. THE CORPORATION OE CANTERBURY.
In this case, early in the present Term, Mr. D.
PuLLOCK obtained a rule to chew cause why a mandamus
should not issue, directing the Magistrates of Canterbury
to sign an order for the removal of a woman who was
likely to be delivered of an illegitimate child, to her own
parish. It appeared that Canterbury is divided into 14
parishes, over which the Corporation have unlimited juris-
diction. One of the parishes, cal!ell St. Paul's, is part in
that city and part in the county of Kent, and this is the
parish which has given rise to the present question. For
the last century the making of such orders has always been
done by the Justices of the county, but in the present ease,-
they having some doubts of its being their duty, refused
to make the order, and brought forward the present pro-
ceedings to try the question whether it of right belonged
to them to make such orders, or to the Magistrates of the
city.

This morning cause was shewn against the rule by Mr.
Tli RSSIC ER, who contended that the Justices of the county
were bound to make the orders in question, under the Act
of Parliament which regulated the duties of the authorities
of Cniterbury. Another clause of the Act made it im-
perative ,•n the County Magistrates to enforce all payment.
of the poor rates, the produce of which was paid to the
Treasurer of the City.
The Learned Gentleman was interrupted by Lord
TENTERDEN, who, without calling on Mr, POLLOCK for
his reply, said the Court were of opinion that the power
was with the Magistrates of the city, therefore the rule
must be made absolute.—Rule absolute accordingly.
The ATTORNEY- GENERA L moved for a rule to show
cause why an attorney should not be struck off the Rolls
of the Court for allowing another person to use his name,
that person being charged with the commission of improper
practices. The application having been made ex-parte,
we forbear giving the names of the parties, or the nature
of the practices alleged, till the matter comes more fully
before the Court.—Rule granted.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-THE KING P. THE PRINTER

AND PUBLISHER. OF THE SATIRIST NEWSPAPER.
In this case Mr. POLLOCK, early in the term, obtained
a rule for a criminal information for a libel on Messrs.
Headland and Cork, solicitors, against James Thompson,
the alleged printer and publisher of the Satirist, and
Mewls. Cunningham and Salmon, who were charged as
being the actual pi ham of the newspaper in question.
Mr. CAMPBELL this morning showed cause against the
rule, and observed, in the first place, that whatever
liability exi3ted in this case belonged only to Mr. Thomp-
son, who was the resp,nsible party, being the registered
printer and publisher of the paper, in which the alleged
libel appeared. The Learned Gentleman contended
that there was no ground for this application as
against Messrs. Cunningham and Salmon; the affi-
davits against them were grounded on informa-
tion which was believed to be true, and he was sure
their Lordships would not only discharge this rule,
but that they would do so with costs. The affidavit of
William Headland, respecting Cunningham anti Salmon,
was me•ely that he was informed, and that he believed,
that they were the printers of the paper in question.
Now the answer to this belief was, that Mr. Thompson
was the real printer, and that Messrs. Cunningham and
Sahnon had no sort of controul over the paper, under
these circumstances he (Mr. Campbell) felt himself jus•
tified in hoping that their Lordships would discharge the
rule as against these gentlemen with costs. Now as to
the article charged as libellous, he would not for a moment
attempt to deny that it was so, but he would contend
that the conduct of the prosecutors in this case did not
justify them in their application for a criminal information
against Mr. Thompson. The Learned Counsel here read
the libel, which imputed to the prosecutors, Messrs. Head-
land and Cork, that they knowingly and wilfully advised
a client to make an affidavit of a debt, they being aware at
the time that no such debt was due. He then went
through the history of the libel, from which it appeared
that it contained a good deal of truth.
Mr. POLLOCK and Mr. SANDERS were heard in support
of the rule.

Lord TENTERDEN in delivering the judgment of the
Court, hoped no person would consider it as giving any
sanction to iheir using and publishing language of the sort
complained of.

They, howevee, were of opinion, that the rule must be
discharged, as they were of opinion that the plaintiffs did
not appear before the Court with clean hands.—Rule
discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
LIGGINS V. INGE.
This was a case in which the plaintiff sought to oblige
the defendant to restore a water-cpinse to its proper state,
which the defendant had turned through his own land,
under a parole license from the plaintiff's father. The
plaintiff, it appeared, possessed a mill, worked by a stream
of water, in the neighbourhood of the defendant's land, who,
by leave of the plaintiff's father, had erected a weir, and
availed himself of part of the water, for the purpose of
turning the wheel of his own mill, in consequence of
Which, in the course of a few years, the plaintiff's mill
Bteppea for want of water.
The Cousu were
incurred considerable expence on the faith
Pf ()Pinion that as the defendant had
of the permis7
sion he had received, the plaintiff could not recall the
license, and oblige the defendant to restore the water to
its former state, and therefore the rule for setting aside
the award of the arbitrators must he made aLsolute.
RURLEs V. SMITH,
The opinion of the COURT was, that this question be
submitted again to the determination of another Jury,
upon ihe ground that the verdict was against evidence,
but upon payment of the costs by the defendant, if
thought pr per to accept those terms..
The }tight Hon, Georte William, Earl of Coveatiy,

and George William Coventry, commonly called Viscount
Deerhurst, appeared at the bar to suffer a recovery for the
purpose of passing certain lands and tenements.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE AN]) EFFECTS OF

JOHN REV BRUCE, ESQ.
In this case a very important question was involved.
Mr. Bruce's father in the beginning of last century went
from Scotland to America, where he married an American
lady, and where he continued to reside until his death.
In tLie year 1764 John Key Bruce, whose property was
the subject of the present inquiry, was born ; he was
sent to Scotland for his education, and in 1788 he sailed to
the East Indies, being described in the ship's hooks as an
American. He remained in India engaged in mercantile
pursuits, holding no situation under his Majesty or the
India Onnpany until 1818, when having acquired a large
Fortune, he came to Europe, leaving property in Indio.
From Europe he went to America. He afterwards
returned to this country, but finally went to
New York in 1824, his object being to draw his property
to America, where he intended to settle. He di,4l in
New York in 1824, leaving a will, in which he described
himself as " formerly of Calcutta, but now of the State of
New York." By his will he bequeathed many legacies
to persons resident in England and Scotland, and appoint-
ed Mr. M'Ki!loch and two other persons his executors.
Soon after the testator's death, the legatees in England'
and Scotland instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery
aga'nst the executors, for the administration of the estate
and effects of the testator, whin a decree was pronounced,
by which persons were appointed to obtain probate of the
testator's property in India and in America, and to remit
the proceeds to the executors, who wet e ordered to pay
them as received into the Bank of England, in the name
of the Accountant-General of the Court, to Le by him
p iid by the legatees as directed by the will. When the
testator died he had some money in the British Funds, and
the personal estate in the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of
Canterbury had been sworn under 10,0001., upon ss hich
probate duty had been paid. The money remitted from
India amounted to about 33,000/., and had been paid into
the Bank as directed ; but nothing had yet been received
from America. The question now was, whether the
money in this country was chargeable with the legacy duty,
the Crown having made a claim to legacy duty in respect
of all the legacies payable to persons in England and
Scotland. _ _ _ _

11Ir. JARVIS, on behalf of the executors, addressed the
Court at great length, to show that the testator tieing an
American, domiciled in America, the property which he
had bequeathed to persons in this country was not charge-
able with the legacy duty. It was clear that it was the
intention of the testator to be cons;dered an American.
He was born in America, and although he was educated
in Britain, he sailei to India as an American, (being so de-
scribed in the ship's books.) His eventual removal to
America, his drawing his property to that country, and
describing himself as of the State of New York, all
showed that his intention was to be domiciled in America.

The Learned Gentleman was proceeding to cite several
authorities regarding the laws of domicile, which were
always taken to govern the possession of property, when
our reporter left.

The Solicitor-General was in waiting on the part of
the Crown, and the arguments were expected to last the
whole of the day.

THE FUNDS.-(THIS DAY.)

CITY, TWELVE O'CLOCK.

We have this morning accounts of the arrival of the
Emperor of Brazil, in the Volage, off Falmouth ; also
a French frigate, with the young Queen of Portugal :
they are going to Cherbourg, and from thence, it is said,
to gunich. In all probability the Emperor's going to
France may be to claim the as'istance of the French Go-
vernment to put the young Queen on the Throne of
Portugal.
The Dutch mail, which arrived this morning, has
brought the Russian account of the battle of Ostroh nka,
dated head-quarters, May 27, at the above place. The
Russians claim the victory, and say they have taken fif-
teen hundred prisoners from the Poke, with three pieces
of cannon. The Poles attacked them five different times
—it was a most dreadful and obstinate battle.

Accounts are in town that the cholera merl►us is making
great havoc at Riga; ninety persons have died in the
hospitals.
We have several arrivals this morning of foreign mails,
viz :—A mail from Buenos Ayres sailed the Mh March,
from Brazil 10th April, from Halifax 15th May ; and a
Leeward Island mail, sailed from St. Thomas's 13th
May. The private letters from Buenos Ayres are war-
like; there has been some skirmishing, but no decisive
battle.