The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 12.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ROCHESTER CHARITIES.
This was a petition to stay the confirmation of the Mas-
ter's report, appointing seventeen persons to act as trusteess
for the administration of charities under the controul
of the new Corporation of Rochester, and praying also that
leave may be given to the petitioners to go before the
Master, and propose seventeen other persons as fitting and
proper in their opinion to have the direction of the charities.
Mr. B. ANDERDON, in support of this petition, reminded
his Lordship that the election of the town councillors of
the borough of Rochester had terminated most untowardly
in the return of nine persons of one party in politics, and of
nine persons of another party ; and the consequlice had been
that there was no election of mayor or Aldermen, and in
point of fact, no corporate body. Notwithstanding this
state of things, it appeared that nine persons of one party
had taken on themselves to present a petition in the form
warranted by the Act of Parliament for the appointment of
trustees to administer the charities, and that, having ob-
tained the usual reference to the Master, they had gone
in and proposed seventeen persons of the same political
opinions as they entertained themselves to be the trustees.
It would be, perhaps, too strong an expression to say that
this was a fraud on the nine persons who held opposite
opinions ; but if it could not be stigmatised as an instance
of had faith, it was, at all events, such an exhibition of po-
litical partisanship as would not be countenanced by that

Court.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said ho could pay no attention
to statements respectinc, political parties in these boroughs.
He would rather not know that there were such things as
political parties.
Mr. ANDERDON admitted that his Lordship could not

take judicial cognizance of such a circumstance, except in
so far as it might be suggested in argument, for the purpose
of showing that a selection of seventeen persons from one
party would not, nor could not be satisfactory to the respect-
able inhabitants of the wealthy and populous borough of
Rochester. That, indeed, was the main ground of complaint.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was anxious to hear why the
parties had not gone before the Master in time to oppose
the election of trustees, and before the report was drawn up.
Mr. ANDERDON replied that the petitioners, Mr. Mack-
intosh and Mr. Batten, had no information of the presenta-
tion of the petition until too late.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I see nothing in this case
which should induce me to depart from the practice of the
Court, nor to interfere with the Master's report in the ap-
pointment of persons as trustees, unless some substantial
objection is made against the parties so appointed. As the
practice of the Court and the reason of the thing is against
such an application, I must necessarily refuse it, and with
costs.

Mr. BLUNT—With costs ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Yes, with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nor. 12.

EX-PARTE MERCERON.

Mr. PRICE made an application on Friday to the Court
under the following circumstances ;—Mr. Merceron (whom
he described as a person who had seen better days) had been
arrested by his uncle in January last, and, not being able to
procure bail, was thrown into prison. He had been afflicted
for eleven years with paralysis, which had rendered him to-
tally incapable of feeding himself, or of attending to any of
the common necessities of life. He was now in a room in
prison where there were other beds, and his wife was com-
pelled, from his helpless state, to render him the most par-
ticular attentions even in the presence of other prisoners.
The case was a most distressing one. The uncle was a
wealthy man, and had been begged to release the unfortu-
nate man, but in vain. Ile had retarded the proceedings as
much as possible. He (Mr. Price) had affidavits stating
that on a trial there must be a verdict in favour of the de-
fondant, who had pleaded the statute of limitations. Mr.
Price, therefore, had to apply to the Court for a rule to
show cause why the defendant should not be liberated on
filing common bail.
Their LORDSHIPS said the case, as represented, appeared
a very painful one. They would look in the books, and
decide in the morning.
On the sitting of the Court on Saturday Lord Denman
said the Judges had looked into the cases, but they could
not grant the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 12.
BEER AND OTHERS V. MOORE.

This was an—action on a bill for 2001., due on the 24th
of June, eleven days after Term. The venue had been
laid in Surrey, and the case svas tried before Mr. Justice
Gazelee, at the Guildford Assizes, when a verdict was
found for the plaintiff, the case not being defended. The
prothonotary refused to allow greater costs than would have
been necessary if the action had been tried in London,
where the parties resided. Mr. Thessiger, last week, moved
for a review of the taxation.
The COURT deferred its opinion, which it pronounced
to-day. They had inquir©d into the practice of the other
two Courts, and had learned that no distinction was made
as to the laying of the venue. As, therefore, it was desir-
able the practice should be uniform, the better course would
be to allow the taxation to be reviewed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Just as the office was about to close on Saturday a gen-
tleman, who gave the name of Robert Huish, was put to
the bar before Mr. DYER, the sitting Magistrate.
Before the charge was entered into, a lady came forward,
labouring under great distress, and solicited permission to
address the Bench on belalf of her husband. Her request,
we understood, was for a private hearing, which Mr. Dyer
immediately negatived.
Sir Henry Haver one of the librarians to the British
Museum, said the defendant was introduced, in 1829. as a
reader at the Museum, by the present Lord Mayor. From
information given to me I had reason to suspect that a book
in Mr. Huish's possession had been mutilated, and in
consequence of this communication I sent for three vo-
lumes of the Aforning Chronicle, and on inspecting the volume
for 1814 I found it had been mutilated in three places. From
the freshness of the parts I suspected it had been recently
done, and I sent for finish on Thursday, and mentioned the
circumstance to him. He denied the charge, and I then sug-
gested, for the satisfaction of the trustees, and to clear his own
character, that he should submit to be searched. Mr. Huish
was, at first, reluctant to comply, but afterwards he so
far assented as to pull out some papers and other things
from his great-coat pocket. A gentleman asked him what
he had got in his right-hand coat pocket, and then he ad-
mitted lie had taken some extracts from the volume. Hav-
ing ascertained the fact, I considered then my duty had
ended, and my next step was to mention the case to the
principal librarian, Sir Henry Ellis.
Mr. Dxea—And Sir Henry discharged his duty by
laying the matter before the trustees, who determined to
take the present notice of it. I need not hesitate to say,
what Sir Henry Haver has already expressed, that the
trustees desire the utmost lenity to be shown to the person
who has committed this offence, consistent with justice
and the impropriety of the act. As it' is quite evident
there is no disposition in the parties who bring the case
forward to inflame the circumstances, I presume the damage
will be placed at a low estimate.
Sir Henry Haver—Every thing has been done to save
Mr. Huish's feelings, but the trustees felt they could not
take any other steps than those they have taken.
Defendant-1 fully acknowledge my fault, and the guilt
of abstracting parts from the volume ; but I hope my cha•
ratter and th number of years during which I have been
admitted to the Museum will plead in my.favour. I have
the fullest desire to restore the volume to its original state,
and as this is the first thing of the kind I ever did in my
life, I hope to obtain your lenity and compassion.
Sir Henry Haver—l have examined other books which
have passed through Mr. Huish's hands, and I have found
no mutilation. lam willing and ready to believe the only
mutilation is in this one volume.
Mr. Huish—l feel the kindness of the trustees in this
matter. I am engaged on a work which must be com-
pleted by a certain time, and as I could not copy the ex-
tracts with sufficient expedition, I certainly, in a moment of
desperation, was obliged to resort to the mode which has
placed me here. With respect to the volume, I will take
care that the Museum suffers no loss by the mutilation.
Mr. DYER, having conferred for a few minutes, said—lt
is really distressing to have a case of this sort to decide
upon, for it must be quite evident from the reluctance of
those parties who had felt it to be their duty to bring it for-
ward, to take any steps which may affect you seriously. The
damage is, in a spirit of fairness, put at 11., a sum which
must be inflicted on you, and, if not paid, it will be my
painful duty to commit you.
Defendant—l will not only pay the money cheerfully, but
I will go further, and say that no cost shall be spared on my
part to restore the volume to its former value.
The money was paid, and the parties retired.

ILITTON-GARDEN.
An intelligent looking lad, named Jenkins, was brought
before Mr. LAING by policeman Alien, No. 2.50 N, under
the following extraordinary circumstances :
The defendant was without hat, shoes, stockings, or
shirt, and his clothing consisted of a sleeveless jacket, to
which was`tacked a few pieces of cloth and rags to cover the
lower part of his person. His deplorable plight and history
excited great sympathy.
The officer, for upwards of twelve months past, had
known the prisoner about the cattle layers in Islington ;
and, let the weather be ever so inclement, upon no place
but the cold ground could the defendant be persuaded to re-
pose, and he obtained his food either by begging or thieving.
Witness had apprehended him and brought him to that