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

THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

In this case a rule had been obtained for a mandamus to
command the Justices of Gloucestershire to issue their
order for stopping up a footway within that part of the vil-
lage of Clifton which, by the recent Municipal Reform Act
had been part of the borough of Bristol.
Lord DENMAN now delivered the judgment of the Court.
The terms of the 7th and Bth sections of the Municipal
Corporations Act, did most distinctly take the township of
Clifton out of the county of Gloucester, and make it a part
of the city of Bristol. The rule, therefore, must be dis-
charged.

THE KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF THE PARISH OF EDG.

LANE.

This was a case in which there had been an indictment
against the defendants for non-repair of certain roads in the
county of Lancaster.
Lord DENMAN now delivered the judgment. Their
Lordships thought that, taking the words of all the Acts
together, the different road 3 must be considered as cnnsti-

.utmg but one line of road.—Judgment for the defendants,

THE KING V. RICKETTS.

Lord DENMAN stated that this was an application for a
prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Courts to prevent them
from proceeding further against the applicant in a de-
mand for church rates. The application chiefly rested on
the recent statute by which the jurisdiction of the Eccle-
s;.astical Court was taken away in cases where the sum de-
manded was less than 101. The answer to the application
was, first, that the alleged defect of jurisdiction did not ap-
pear on the face of the proceedings ; and, secondly, that
the applicant was not at liberty to make this application to
the Courts of Common Law after judgment had been given
in the Ecclesiastical Court. The first of these answers was
sufficient.—Rule discharged, but without costs.

THE KING V. JUSTICES OF CUMBERLAND.

Mr. CARPENTER ROWE showed cause against a rule for
a nzaaiannts, commanding the Justices of the county of
Cumberland to hear a charge brought against a person
named Beaumont by the paris officers of Wetherly. The
answer to the application for the rule was this, that the Jus-
tices had heard the complaint, and had decided that they
ought not to entertain it. The charge brought against
Beaumont was that of vagrancy, in abandoning his wife and
child,and leaving them chargeable to the parish.—The rule•
was made absolute.
THE CUSTOM-HOUSE ROBBERY.-THE KING V. SULLIVAN

AND OTHERS.

The defendants in this case, who were charged with the
robbery at the Custom-house, were brought up by writ of
habeas corpus, the return to which having been read, seve-
ral depositions were put in. These depositions contained
many allegations of suspicion as to the prisoners, and con-
tained some 'Dose expressions of other persons, said to be
their associates, respecting them. Mr. Clarkson then ad•
dressed the Court, and contended that there was no evi-
dence which could justify the frequent remanding of those
prisoners ; not one single note stolen from the Custom-
house was identified as having passed through their hands.
The COURT could not direct them to be discharged, but
would direct the Magistrates agai❑ to examine them, with
an intimation of the opinion of this Court, that unless strong
evidence should be produced, or its absence reasonably ac-
counted for, the prisoners ought not again to be remanded.

EXPARTE PALMER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was instructed to apply to the
Court to restore Mr. Palmer's name to the roll of attornie,
from which it had been erased by direction of the Court in
Hilary Term 1835, at the instance of the Birmingham Law
Association.

BAIL COURT.
IN THE MATTER OF THE BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY

COMPANY.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE observed, that in a case which
had been brought before him on Saturdty, with reference
to calling on the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire to tax and
assess th costs incurred by the Birmingham Railway Com-
pany in defending themselves against the claim of a per-
son named Dawley, who had refused the amount of com-
pensation offered by the Company, he had looked into the
Company's Act, and particularly directed his attention to
the point now in dispute. He had much difficulty in re-
conciling the different provisions of the Act, but he thought
that in taxing the moiety of costs to be paid by the claimant
to the Company, and deducted from the purchase money all
sums and dues which could be required according to the
fair interpretation of the Act.—Rule discharged. -

THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF WELLS.
ERLE appeared to show cause against a Rule ob-
tained in this cause, calling upon the Mayor, Recorder, and
Burgesses of Wells to hold a Court of Record, pursuant to
the letters patent grahted by Queen Elizabeth, and for the
erection of a prison in the city for the reception of debtors.
This Rule had been obtained on the application of Mr.
Benjamin Shape.
Mr. ROGERS appeared in support of the Rule.
Rule made absolute.