The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-30 00:00:00

company were therefore entitled to the costs of the
suit.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, April2B.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON,
Mr. Justice COLERIDG E, and Mr. Justice ERLE.)
REGINA V. THE INHABITANTS OF ST. LEONARD'S,

SIIOREDITCH.
In this case the guardians of the poor for the parish
of St. Luke, Middlesex, had been assessed, upon the
annual value of 4001., to the poor-rate of the parish of
St. Leonard, Shoreditch, in respect of their occupa-
tion of a workhouse, situated in the latter parish. The
parish of St. Luke having appealed against the rate,
the appeal was allowed by the sessions, which reduced
the rateable value of the building to the sum of 19/.
subject to the opinion of this Court upon a
case. From this it appeared that, by the 11th
section of the 22d of George 111., the rector, church-
wardens, and overseers of the parish of St. Luke,
were appointed trustees for the erection of a work-
house for that parish, which they were authorised
to erect either in the parish of St. Luke or in the
adjoining parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch; and by
the 14th section it was enacted that if the workhouse
so to be erected should locally be situate in the parish
of St. Leonard, no person should gain a settlement
in that parish by reason of being born or residing in
the workhouse. It also provided that the workhouse
so to be erected, if within the parish of St. Leonard,
should be rateable to the poor-rate of that parish only,
according to the then rateable value of the land so
improved. A workhouse was accordingly erected in
the parish of St. Leonard, and its then rateable value
was 19/. By a subsequent Act, the 4th Geo. 111., c.
97, which was passed to make better provision for
maintaining the poor of the parish of St. Luke, the
22d George 111. was repealed, and the workhouse in
question was vested in a body of guardians, " as
fully, effectually, and beneficially, and in as large
and ample a manner and form, to all intents and
purposes whatsoever," as it had formerly been
in the rector, churchwardens, and over-
seers. By the very large words contained
in that clause of the Act, the parish of St. Luke con-
tended that their workhouse was rateable to the poor-
rate of the parish of St. Leonard only according to
the value at which it was rateable under the repealed
statute, viz., upon the annual value of 191. Ou the
other hand, the parish of St. Leonard contended that,
as the 22d George 111., which gave the exemption,
was repealed, the exemption was gone ; and that the
workhouse was now rateable upon the annual value
of 4001. They further justified this assessment
under the general terms contained in their own local
Act, the 53d George 111., c. 112, by which the
parishioners of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, were em-
powered to levy a rate fur the relief of their poor upon
every person who should occupy " any land, house,
shop, or buildings within the parish of St. Leonard."
The Attorney-General and Mr. Pashley appeared
for the parish of St. Luke, and Mr. Prendergast for
the parish of St. Leonard.
The Court took time to consider their decision.

BAIL COURT, April 28.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF DOVER.
Sir J. BAYLEY applied for a mandamus to be
directed to the Corporation of Dover, requiring them
to make an order on the treasurer of the borough to
pay to a party named three several sums of 500/.,
3,0001., and 8001., due to him from the corporation.
It appeared that Mr. M. D. Hill was instructed on
the other side, and it bad been arranged between
them that the facts should be turned into a special
case, with liberty to turn the facts into a special
verdict.—Application granted.

EX PARTE THE SEA FIRE AND LIFE ASSURANCE

COMPANY.
Mr. POWER moved for a mandamus, directing the
the Registrar of Joint-stock Companies to receive
and register a return, changing the name of this
company from a " company" to a " corporation."
The company had already been provisionally regis-
tered, but, the promoters being desirous to have the
name altered, sent in the particulars to the registrar,
who, however, had refused to make the alteration, on
the ground that, being a joint-stock company, it was
not entitled to the name of a corporation. The Learned
Counsel submitted that the registrar had no power to
exercise a discretion.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said he would give an an
swer on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
Mr. Justice Coleridge will proceed to take the en
larged rule paper on Tuesday next.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 28.
(Sittings in Banco.)
IME DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. SLOMAN AND OTHERS.
The argument in this case, having occupied two
days, was concluded to-day. The action was in
trespass, brought by the plaintiff against the de-
fendant, Sloman, a sheriff's officer, and four other per-
sons, his assistants, for breaking and entering the
dwelling-house of the plaintiff. The defendants
severed in their pleadings, and justified the breaking
and entry on the ground that they had entered law-
fully to execute a writ of fieri facias against the goods
of the plaintiff, a person named Munden having ob-
tained execution against him for 2201., to enforce
which the writ was issued; and that after the entry
they had been expelled, and then broke and entered
the plaintiff's house, as in the declaration alleged, as
they lawfully might. At the trial the jury gave the
plaintiff a verdict with 7201. damages; 5001. for the
wrong done him, and 2201. the amount of the levy,
which the plaintiff had paid under protest. A rule
nisi having been granted for a new trial on the ground
that the verdict was against evidence,
Mr. Sergeant Byles, Mr. Sergeant Allen, and Mr.
Heneker appeared to show cause against the rule. It
appeared that the writ of fi. fa. against the plaintiff's
goods was directed to the defendant Sloman to
execute. In partnership with Sloman was a person
named Baker, another of the defendants, and a person
named Brown, another of the defendants, was a fol-
lower of Baker. On the 15th of May, 1847, it was
attempted to execute this writ. This was, however,
no easy task, as the plaintiff's house, which was in the
New-road, near the Regent's-park, was surrounded
by a garden and high wall. The Duke was in the
habit of having his dinner sent from a restaurant's,
named Girendi, in the neighbourhood, at six o'clock,
and a plan was laid to endeavour to make an entry at
the time the dinner was admitted. Baker and Brown
accordingly were watching at the garden gate on the
day in question, and a person named Townsend, an
attorney, and another person named Mills (two other
defendants) were in a gig watching also
close by. The garden gate was kept by a
porter named Bates ; and an artist named Gates
was in attendance at the house. On the night in
question the porter admitted a boy carrying the
dinner, who handed it over the area rails. At that
moment Gates entered the garden gate, the porter's
attention being taken up with the boy carrying the
dinner. As he was entering Baker and Brown
rushed after him, pushed him down, and ran across
to the front door and up the steps. According to
the evidence of a cabman and another person who
saw what passed from the footboard of a cab, one of
these defendants entered the house and sat down in
the porter's chair in the hall, and thus took posses•
,ion, when Bates, the porter, a man six feet four
inches high, rushed up the steps after him, seized
him by the collar and the breeches, dragged him
down the steps, and pitched him into the middle
of a tulip bed in the garden. According to the
evidence of the porter and the artist, this was ad-
mitted to be true, except the entry into the house.
After this the sheriff's followers got policemen,
insisted they had been driven out of possession,
and thereupon forcibly broke open the outer door.
The Duke's secretary then came down with
300 sovereigns in his hand, which he placed on a
table, and said he would pay the execution under
protest, and told the officer to take what he thought
fit. The officer made a rush at the sovereigns, and
seized a handful, and said he knew nothing about any
protest, and eventually 2201. were paid to get out the
execution. To make the defendant Sloman a party,
it was shown that he had offered to postpone execut-
ing the writ for a few days if the plaintiff would give
him 201., and that after the writ was executed he had
acknowledged that he had received the 2201. The
Learned Counsel, in showing cause, contended that
ethe ve enrede i cwt
was
sv aisn a
fparvoopuerr
oo
fn et, h
et hda
et e
itshi
oe
hweight e o
jfu the
ry,
that, considering the circumstances and position of the
plaintiff the damages were not excessive, and that if
the execution were illegal, the plaintiff had a right to
have returned to him the amount obtained by such
illegal seizure ; at all events, the jury had awarded
him that amount as part of the damages.
• •I. s
In support
nof tWilkins, Mr.
Mr Mr.. Cleasby, and Mr. Lush, Mr. Bramwell,
Mr
James were heard on behalf of the several defendants.
As to Sloman, the offer which he had made to post-
pone the execution for 201. was an offer to post-
doing
his i s
authority,followers
ap
fotne er
wa r
d sdid
that
a nwuhni
lcahwwf
uals
al
ea
twf l
without.
that offer was no ratification of their act. Neither
could he ratify their unlawful act unless he had geinvedn
previous authority for it. As to the other
%Tits, it was contended that the weight of evidenceciFf
went to show, as also affidavits which were offered,
that an entry was made, in the first instance, by the
officers before they were expelled. TheT evidence to
the contrary was not to be relied on. The
porter's live.
depended on his master, and the artist's sister was
a female " companion" of the plain,
iihooddepen
tiff's and lived with
_ _
'num. The testimony of the artist was not, therefore,
to be much relied upon. The probabilities were also
conduct and expressions used by the parties at the
in favour of the entry having been made, from the
time.

Their Lordships deferred their judgment.
The case occupied the whole day.

The Stowe Manuscripts have been bought by Lor
Ashburnham, for the sum of B,oool—Athenaeum.