The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-09 00:00:00

OLDHAM V. EBORALL.

The arguments were resumed and concluded in this
long-litigated cause.
His LORDSHIP stated, that before lie disposed of it,
he should consult with the Learned Judges, before whom
this case had also on former occasions been very fully
discussed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
JUDGMENT.-THE KING V. MESSRS. BENNETT AND

BROUGHTON, MAGISTRATES OF WORSHIP-STREET.

This was a rule for a mandamus to compel those gentle-
men to sign a pass for a. poor Irish woman that the parish
officers of St. Luke's were anxious to send home, as she
had become chargeable to them. The woman had a
young child which was born in that parish, and so had
gained a settlement there, and as the Magistrates could not
remove it they refused to separite the mother and child.
Both of the gentlemen being barristers they sheaved cause
against the rule early in the Term, and their Lordships
took time to consider of their judgment.
Lord TENTraoEs, in giving judgment this morning,
said that the case was one of extreme difficulty, it
had been very well argued on both sides, and the
Court had given it every consideration. The rule
was applied for under the Act of Parliament 59th
of George 111., chap. 12, which set forth that any
person born in Scotland or Ireland, and becoming charge-
able to any parish in England, without having gained a
s,tt!ement, should l e removed to the place of their birth ;
but in it there was no power to remove the child or chil-
dren of such persons, born in England. In cases of
this kind, where the removal was only from one parish
to another in England, the common rule was that the
child should also be removed for nurture, but the one
parish accounted to the other for the maintenance of
the child; in this case the removal back to Ireland where
no Poor Laws were in force the case was different, and he
would observe that the rule he had mentioned was only
an understanding come to between the parishes for con-
venience, there was no Act of Parliament for it.

After the most mature deliberation, the Court were of
opinion that as the law now stood it was their duty to
direct that the rule be made absolute, as far as regarded
the removal of the woman, but so much of it as con-
cerned the child must be expunged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
EVELYN AND ANOTIIER V. PARKER.

This was an action, brought by the plaintiff•, Messrs.
Evelyn and Co., the wholesale hat-manufacturers in the
borough, to recover the aura of 251. I4s. 9d. for a quan-
tity of hats supplied to the defendant, who is a retail hatter,
residing at Islington.
Mr. Wm. Evelyn proved that in January last the de-
fendant was supplied with fortytwo beaver hats, accord-
ing to his order ; they were delivered by the porter, and
the receipt for them now produced, is in the hand-writing
of the defendant ; the charge for the hats were the usual
trade primes.
The porter to the plaintiffs having proved the delivery
of the hats to the defendant on the 22d of January lot,
at his shop in Islington,
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 251 14s. 9d.

EINNAIRD AND CO. V PLACE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Samuel, Joseph, and Edward Kinnaird, merchants in Lon-
don, to recover the sum of 8381 I Is. Id. from the de..
fendant, Mr. William Place, of Nova Scotia, for merehan-
dize sold and delivered to him, the said defendant.
A letter written by the defendant to the plaintiffs in
October, 1829, was produced, in which he admitted the
demand of 838/. I Is. Id. due to the plaintiffs to be correct,
and declaring that sooner than he would not pay it, he
would suffer incarceration for
Mr. Edward Rowe Dunse, the agent to the plaintiffs,
proved that the defendant had admitted to him, and one
of the plaintiffs, that the balance was correct, and he
agreed to it.
There being no defence to the action, the Jury found for
the plaintiffs 8381. 11/. Id.

moult AND ANOTIIEK t. DAVIES.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Moore and Reid, against the defendant, Mr. Win. Davies,
to recover the sum of 991. 94.'7d. upon a bill 0f exchange,
drawn by Wilson and Co. upon, and accepted by the de-
fendant, at three months' after date. The hand-writing
of the defendant having been proved, and there being no
defence to the action, the Jury found for the plaintiffs for
the amount of the bill and interest thereon.