The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-16 00:00:00

KING'S BEIYCI4.---(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE SING V. THE INHABITANTS OF SANDHURST.
.This was an appeal from an order of two Justices, for
the removal of Benjamin Robertson and Sarah his wife,
from the parish of Battle, in Kent, to the parish of Sand-
hurst, in Sussex. The Sessions confirmed the order of the
Justices, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon a case
stated, the substance of which was, that the pauper had
been apprenticed to his uncle, a shoemaker, in the parish of
Sandhurst, for seven years, and his master not having work
enough, gave him permission, at the termination of five
years, to engage for the two remaining years with a Mr.
Thorpe of Battle, the pauper's father paying 5/. to Mr.
Thorpe. The pauper subsequently became chargeable
upon the parish of Battle, and was removed by order of
two Justices to Sandhurst. The parish of Sandhurst ap-
pealed to the Sessions, who confirmed the order of the
Justices.
Mr. THESSIGER (with whom was Mr. Watson), in sup-
port of the order of Sessions, contended that this was
clearly a defective contract of apprenticeship. If an ap-
prentice served without engaging himself for any definite
time, the second master being cognizant of the fact of his
being an apprentice, that would clearly be a service under
the indentures. But where, as in the present case, the ap-
prentice engagea himself as if sui juris, without the
Master being cognizant of the fact of his being an appren-
tice, no settlement was gained. The Learned Counsel
cited a variety of cases in support of his argument.
Mr. DERBY (with whom was Mr. Jones), was heard at
considerable length on behalf of the appellant parish.
The COURT, after conferring for some time together,
said the cases which had been cited on either side, were of
so conflicting a nature that they would feel it necessary to
take some time to consider them.---Judgment deferred.
Several other cases from the Crown Paper wero argued,
but none of them were possessed of the slightest public
interest.

BAIL COURT.
Mr. Justice' LITTLEDALE heard motions in this Cour
his morning.

WILLIAMS V. OWYNNE.
Mr. RICHARDS showed cause against a rule to set aside
proceedings in this cause, obtained on a former day by Mr.
Chilton, on the ground that, previous to the trial, the
plaintiff and defendant had entered into an agreement to
refer all matters in dispute between them to arbitration ;
and notwithstanding that agreement, the plaintiff's attorney
proceeded to trial, and having obtained a verdict for his
client, in the absence of the defendant, entered up judg-
ment, and issued execution thereon. Mr. Richards now
stated, that from the affidavits handed to him, it appeared
that although the plaintiff had signed an agreement, as
stated, yet that he did so at a public-house while in a state
of intoxication, and at the earnest solicitation of the de-
fendant and his friends, and contended that an agreement
signed under such circumstances could not be binding ;
and, further, that a reference to arbritration was, by a
rule of Court made in the reign of Queen Anne, declared
not to be a stay of proceedings, unless so expressed in a
rule of reference made by the Court. On those grounds,
and further on the ground that the application came too
late, after judgment had been signed, and execution issued,
he contended that the rule ought to be discharged.
Mr. CHILTON, in support of the rule, argued that the
mere fact of an agreement being signed in a public-house
would not invalidate it. It was a common thing, after an
action at law had been commenced, for parties to settle
their disputes amicably over a social glass. With regard to
the alleged delay, the Court would recollect that he ap-
plied for the rule to stay proceedings on the first day of
term ; and as to the rule of Queen Anne, it was only to
be found in some old books of practice.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—I confess that I never
heard of it.
Mr. CHILTON—It is as scarce, my Lord, as a Queen
Anne's farthing. After some further remarks, the Learned
Counsel expressed his confidence that the Court would
make the rule absolute. '
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said as the question was one
of considerable importance, he would take an opportunity of
looking attentively at then ule of Queen Anne, quoted by
Mr. Richards, before he gve his judgment.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY

THE BANK OF ENGLAND V. ANDERSON AND OTHERS
Mr. MAULS said that this was a case arising out o
proceedings in the Court of Chancery, between the Gover-
nor and Company of the Bank of England and the defen-
dants, in the course of which proceedings the Master of the
Rolls directed a case to be drawn up for the opinion of this
Court, upon a certain point. The case stated that the
London and Westminster Bank was a Company consisting
of more than six persons ; that they had covenanted and
agreed together to carry on their business in London ; that
the defendants Were proprietors of shares in the said Bank ;
that George Alfred Musgrave carried on the business of
a banker at St. Alban's. which place was within 65 miles of
London ; that he carried on the business on his own ac-
count, and was registered at the Stamp Office as sole pro-
prietor of the Bank of St. Alban's ; that he keeps a bank-
ing account with the London and Westminster Bank, and
that they act as his agents, and receive and collect money
for him ; that the Bank of St. Alban's had no connection
whatever-with the London and Westminster Bank, except
as aforesaid ; that in February, 1835, a person of the name
of Robertson applied at the Bank of St. Alban's for a bill
of exchange, payable in London, for 251., and that he re-
ceived the said bill, and gave 251. for the same ; that G. A.
Musgrave drew icon the London and Westminster Bank.
the bill of exchange, and delivered it to Robertson ; and
that the following was a copy of the said bill :
" 383. Bank Post Bill. Twenty-one days after date, pay to
the order of Robertson the sum of 251., and place the
samo to the account of the Bank of St. Alban's ;" that the
sum in question was received by Robertson, on presenting
the bill at the office of the London and Westminster Bank ;
that the London and Westminster Bank did not pay for
the stamp of the said bill ; that the bill was accepted by
them, &c. The question might be stated shortly as fol-
lows. It was, whether a number of persons, carrying on
business as bankers in partnership, exceeding the number of
six persons, and within the limit of sixty-five miles of Lon-
don, might lawfully accept against money owing by them
bills of exchange at a less date than six months ? He sub-
mitted that they could not lawfully do so, but that, on the
contrary, in doing so they violated the privileges which the
Bank of England possessed. The question certainly as ap-
peared by the anxiety of the Court of Chancery to take the
opinion of this Court was considered as one of very
great importance to the parties concerned and to the
public ; as it was often observed, and indeed appeared by
the Act of Parliament, that the privileges given to the
Bank of England were not given merely for the sake of
the proprietors, but also for the sake of guarding the
public against an unsound circulation. He had to submit
to the Court that this proceeding on the part of the
London and Westminster Bank was illegal, and when he
used the word illegal he meant in tonsequence of its being
a violation of the 3d and 4th of Wm. IV. c. 98. He must
here observe, that the last Act continued to the Bank the
privileges conferred b 7 Acts passed many years ago they
were all worded in the same terms, and were so considered,
and settled by decided cases applicable tp thp title now
under consideration, The enactments were stated in the