The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-25 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL

Yesterday a Court was held pursuant to a requisition
for the consideration of a motion to direct the City Cham-
berlain to pay the sum of 5001. out of the City's cash, in
aid of the Metropolitan Church Building Fund, and to
elect masters for the City of London School.
The LORD NitiYoll., upon taking the chair, addressed
the Court at considerable length upon the subject of the
nature of the duties which he should in his mayoralty have
to perform. All that was in his power should be done to
facilitate discussion, for he had experienced the value of
discussion during the time he had held a seat in the Court
of Common Council.—(Cheers.)

THANKS TO THE LATE LORD MAYOR.
Deputy WESTON rose to move a vote of thanks to the
late Lord Mayor.
Deputy PEACOCK seconded the motion, and declared
that he never knew a better public or private man.
Mr. R. TAYLOR could not help rising to give his hearty
concurrence in the vote. _

vv
The motion was then carried unanimously.
VOTE TO THE LATE LORD ➢fAYOR AS CHAIRMAN OF THE

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COURT.

The Chairman of the General Purposes Committee
brought up the report on the subject of the most advisable
mode of testifying to the late Lord Mayor the sense enter-
tained by the Court of his Lordship's conduct as Chairman
of the whole Court on the municipal institutions of the
city of London. It recommended that a piece of plate of
the value of 501. should be presented to the late Lord
Mayor, with an inscription adapted to the occasion. The
Chairman moved that the Court should agree with the
Committee in their report.
Under-Sheriff WIRE did not anticipate any objection to
the report of the Committee. He should propose that the
value of the plate should be 100/.—(Hear, hear.)
The amendment was withdrawn, and the original motion
was carried unanimously amidst cheers.

VOTE TO THE METROPOLITAN CHURCH BUILDING FUND,

The LORD MAYOR informed the Coutt that he bad re-
ceived a requisition, numerously signed, on the subject of
voting a sum of money for the building of Churches.
The requisition was then read. It was signed by be-
tween fifty and sixty members, whose names were all read.
Deputy CORNET, rose to move that a sum of money
should be granted in aid of the fund just mentioned.
The motion that 5001. be paid to the metropolitan fund
being then put,
Alderman SciioLEv seconded the motion.

Mr. JOHNSON considered the motion to be injudicious
and unreasonable.—( Hear, hear.) After some further ob-
servations, Mr. Johnson moved the previous question, as an
amendment.
Mr. LAURENCE seconded the amendment.
Mr. BOURNE was a Dissenter, but would support the
grant.
Sir P. LAURIE regretted that the question was brought
forward, but was determined to vote for it. The Church
of England at present appeared to be more popular than
ever, and he knew of four chapels which had lately been
made into churches according to fhe established religion.
Mr. RICHARD TAYLOR strongly opposed the grant. He
could trace to the pockets of the high dignitaries of the
Church the enormous sums which ought to be applied to
far different objects. He ridiculed the name of voluntary
churches, and asked what, if they were give their money,
they would get in return ? The Bishop would either have
the appointment of the veto, which amounted to the same
thing.
Mr. ANDERTON could not vote for the grant without
consulting his constituents.
After some observations from Mr. Stevens and Mr:Wire
against the grant, and Mr. R. L. Jones, Mr. Fletcher, and
Mr. Williams in favour of it, the Court divided, when the
grant of .5001. was carried by a majority of 10, the numbers
being for the grant, 111 ; against it, 101.
The Court adjourned to this day, when the election of
the trustees of the City of London School will take place.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nor. 24.

IN RE LADY KIRKWALL.

Mr. RICHARDS applied in this matter for an order to the
Master to review his report on the claim of a medical gen-
tleman, who had attended Lady Kirkwall, and held her
bond for 185/. The lunacy had rendered the bond of no
avail, and the Master refused to admit it ; but if the order
was now obtained, it would save the expense of taking ex-
ception to the report.
Mr. ELLISON, for the Committee, consented to any order
his Lordship might think proper.
The LORD CHANCELLOR declined to make any order on
the subject.

IN THE MATTER OP LYON, A LUNATIC.
Sir W. HORNE appeared in support of a petition in this
case, praying that no further proceedings may be taken
on the finding of the jury until the lunatic has an opportu-
nity of collecting witnesses abroad, and bringing them to
England, in order to disprove the evislence given in support
of the lunacy. His Lordship would perceive there were two
petitions before him, one to stay the further proceedings,
and the other for the appointment of a committee of the
person and estate. The petition on which the Learned Coun-
sel appeared was the joint petition of the alleged lunatic and
his wife, and it stated that Mr. George Lyon, formerly
of St. John's-wood, Regent's Park, and recently a resident
at Nice, had been found a lunatic in August last, under an
inquisition held at the Gray's Inn Coffee-house, in London.
Now this inquisition was a pure exparte proceedinc, behind
the back of the party most deeply interested in the result,
without even the assistance of a counsel to cross-examine
the witnesses, whose testimony, it was clear to every one,
was of the most suspicious character. Mr. Lyon at the
present moment, was about thirty-three years of age. He
was the youngest of four sons of an eminent merchant of
the city of London, and entitled to the interestof a fund in
Court which produced 500/. a-year, and which was regu-
larly remitted through the agency of a banker, after being
paid by the Accountant-General. Mr. Lyon had recently
visited Egypt, from whence he passed to Italy, and after-
wards toMarseilles, where it was alleged he first showed symp-

toms of insanity. The evidence in support of this was a res•
taurateur, his chef de cuisine, and a doctor, all of whom were
brought to this country to support the commission. Now drun-
kenness was not insanity, and both the restaurateur and
the doctor thought so, for both ran up long bills with Mr.
Lyon, and in that respect treated him as perfectly sane.
One effect of the proceedings was yet to be mentioned—
Mr. Lyon married a French lady, whose cjiaracter was per-
fectly unimpeachable, in July, 1835, and the verdict of
the Jury, finding him lunatic in May, would have the
effect of dissolving that marriage. Now, in opposition to
the evidence in support of the commission, there was the
deposition of the medical gentleman at present attending on
Mr. Lyon at Nice, and he swore distinctly that Mr. Lyon
was perfectly sane.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, all that could be done
would be to allow both petitions to stand over for a reason-
able time, in order to give Mr. Lyon an opportunity of
coming to this country, with such witnesses as he thought
would meet the case made against him; and in the mean-
time an order would be made, directing a reference to the
Master to approve of a fit person to act as committee of
the person of the lunatic.

ROLLS' COURT, Nor. 24.
DEAN V. LONG.

In this case two petitions were presented—one for the
usual confirmation of the Master's report, making a settle-
ment of certain property, and the other from the father of
an infant, praying for an allowance out of the property of
his late wife. The father married in contempt a ward of
Court, and pending the proceedings in the Master's office
the wife died, leaving issue one child. The Master by his
report had settled the fortune of the wife upon herself for
life, with remainder to her issue, with a power of assign-
ment. By the Learned Counsel on behalf of the father it
was argued that though the wife had died without making
an assignment in favour of her husband that was no reason
to suppose that she would not have done so if she had lived.
Besides, the settlement which the Master had made, ex-
cluding the father from all participation in his late wife's
income, would attach a kind of stigma upon him, which it
would be extremely difficult to remove.
Mr. K. PARKER appeared in support of the petition for
the confirmation of the report ; and Mr. KINDERSLEY in
support of the petition of the father.
His Lordship the MASTER of the ROLLS said that, upon
the best consideration which he could give to this case, he
should confirm the Master's report, and by this means de-
prive the father, who was guilty of contempt, from touch-
ing one farthing of this property. He should merely grant
the prayer of the one petition, and dismiss the father,
with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nor. 24.
THE KING V. BRIGHTWELL. _

This was a rule for a quo warranto to be directed to the
defendant, calling on him to show cause by what authority
he claimed to exercise the office of Alderman of the city
of Norwich. The affidavits on which the rule was founded
stated that at the election of Aldermen in 1835 there were
16 names propoSed together ; that an amendment proposing
other names was rejected on a division, and then the whole
16 were put and-voted for in a lump ; and the Court had
granted the rule on these affidavits, and on the authority of
the case of the King v. Munday, which declared voting in
the lump in this way to be illegal.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now showed cause against
the rule.

Sir W. FOLLETT contended that the law of the case was
clearly in favour of the application.—Rule absolute.

THE ICING V. PHILLIPS.

Mr. CRESSWE LI, moved for a criminal information against
the defendant. From the affidavits on which the rule was
founded, it appeared that the defendant had held some
situation in a Railw. y Company with Mr. Richardson was
connected as secret try. The defendant had ceased to be
connected with the Company, and in the belief that that cir-
cumstance had arisen from Mr. Richardson's conduct he,
in a paper, which he circulated, accused that gentleman of
having caused his dismissal, because he would " not lend him-
self to a fraud," and of having counterfeited his (Phillips's)
handwritinr, in certain bankers' books, so that the bankers
had required Phillips to give them, for their protection, his
genuine signature. The paper also insinuated that Mr.
Richardson strutted in diamonds, gold chains, &c., from the
funds of the Agricultural Labourers' Employment Society.
All these accusations and insinuations Mr. Richardson
positively denied.—Rule granted.

THE KING V. ROBINS, LUCAS, AND DIMMS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied for a rule for a cri-
minal information against the defendants, the writer, prin-
ter, &c. of a bill containing libellous itnputations•against
Sir S. Whalley. That gentleman was the chairman of the
London Junction Railway Company, and on the 14th of
September there had been a meeting of the Company. On
that occasion he had made a statement to the Company
which was perfectly satisfactory, and he received the thanks
of the meeting. Shortly afterwards the libel he complained
of appeared. It was stated that he had been a servant in
the employment of Sir Jonathan Mills at his madhouse, a
statement which Sir S. Whalley, in his affidavit, most po-
sitively denied, declaring that he had never been a servant
there, nor at any other madhouse whatever, and that he had
never been employed in that or any other business. The libel
then went on to state that he had at this meeting spoken of
delivering a check to Lucas ; that he had never delivered
any check of the kind stated to Lucas, as Mr. Wilson, Mr.
Richardson, and others could distinctly prove. The gen-
tleman thus appealed to had, with Sir S. Whalley, made
affidavits, dietinetly declaring that he did deliver the check
in question to Lucas.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 24.
EAN%OM AND ANOTHER V. DUNDAS.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD and Mr. HILL showed cause
against a rule which had been obtained by Mr. Sergeant
Wilde for setting aside the judgment, or for amending it,
by striking out so much as related to the costs. The mere
question was, whether judgment ought to be entered up for
the costs as well as for the sum mentioned in the certificate
of the Speaker.
Mr. Austin will be heard on the same side to-morrow.
VIVIAN V. BLOMBERG.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE in this case pronounced the
decision of the Court, and having stated the grounds upon
which their certificate to the Vice-Chancellor was founded,
declared their ,opinion to be that the lease was not void.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nor. 24.
FOX V. MARSTON.

This is a suit respecting the validity of the will of the
late Mr. John Fox, late of Uxeter, in the county of Staf-
ford, who died on the 12th of May, 1835, of apoplexy. It
appeared that he drew up a will ill the January of that
year, by which he left real property to the amount of 2001.
per annum, to Ann Bakewell, an intimate friend, and the
residue of the property, which, after the deduction of all
the debts, amounted to about 80,0001., to Mr. Marston, a
nephew of the deceased, and one of the parties in this suit.
That in the February he intermarried with the said Ann
Bakewell, and died in May following, and in the month of
October a posthumous child was born. An allegation was
this day offered on behalf of Mr. Marston.
The KING'S ADVOCATE supported the admissibility of
the allegation, and contended that the will was revoked by
the marriage and the birth of the posthumous issue.
Dr. Nicttou, followed on the same side.

Dr. LUSHINGTON (with whom was Dr. Addams) ap-
peared on behalf of Mrs. Fox, late Ann Bakewell, the widow
of the deceased, and opposed the allegation.
The Learned JUDGE stated, that as the case required
the deepest consideration, be would defer his judgment.

COURT OF REQUESTS, KEvasaATE-STREET.

HARMONY, LATIN, IND PHYSIC.—A very curiously-
developed outline of a medical student, named Rudland,
was summoned by a little copper-coloured lady, named Ro-
binson, for the amount of 1/. 19s. 11d., for musical in-
struction supplied to the lady of Mr. Rudland. The original
debt was 21, 25., but it had been reduced in order to render
the recovery available in the Court of Requests.
Mr. Commissioner DUBOIS desired the plaintiff to state
her case.

Plaintiff—Why, Sir, it is neither more nor less than
this :—I keep an establishment for young ladies, and Mrs.
Itudland desiring instruction in music, applied to me for
that purpose. I told her that I did not teach myself, but
that I had a young lady upon my establishment who did,
and that the terms would be one guinea per quarter. Tho
defendant acceded to these terms, and two quarters' in-
struction were taken, all but five days.
COMMISSIONEIt—What have you to say to this, Sir?
Defendant—Why, Sir, I have a set-off against her. I gave
her the same amount of instruction in Latin.—(Laughter.)
COMMISAIONER—Did you? and how did she advance in
her studies ?

Here a very fiery-looking personage, the music teacher,
stepped forward, and assured the Commissioner that she had
taught him (defendant) singing, and that was quite enough
for the apothecary's rubbisrling, L stin.—( Laughter.)
Defendant (very indignantly)—Why, I never could learn
any thing from you ; you never taught me any thing,
Madam !

Witness—No wonder; you've plenty of crotchets in
your head ; but you'll never learn music for all that ; and
as to the Latin, why you know you can hardly decline a
verb yourself.--( Laughter.)
Defendant—But I could decline your instruction in sing-
ing, and therein lies the animus of the present action.
CommissioNmi—You see, Mr. Rudlit!7d, the instruction
afforded to your wife has nothing to do with the interchange
of talent between Mrs. Robinson's witness and yourself.
It appears that neither of you made much progress, and
it was a very inharmonious affair altogether. It is the opi-
nion of myself and the Jury that the amount sued for must
be paid, and that too directly.
Here the order was made out, and the medical musical
student quitted the Court considerably chagrined.

FOUR-AND-TWENTY BEDYBLLOWS ALL OF A Row!—
" As thick as three in a bed," has long bcen illustrative of
too many in the sleeping department ; but the following
throws the old adage altogether into the shade :—A gaunt
Irish girl, named Ellen Lacy, summoned her mistress,
Katty Sullivan, for 115.4 d. wages, alleged to be due.
What are you, inquired Mr. Commissioner DUBOIS of
the brawny-shouldered Mrs. Sullivan ?
Mrs. Sullivan—lt's what am I! Sure, then, and I'm
an honest woman !
COMMISSIONBR—How do you get your living ?
Defendant—Sure I don't, your Honour's Wurtchip,
know mighty well. I keep an open house. Divil's the one
in St. Giles but knows honest ould Mother Sullivan !
COMMISSIONER—Really, Madam, I hadn't the pleasure
of knowing all this. Do you mean to say you keep a
lodging-house ?
Defendant—Mighty well it is you've hit the same thing,
—(Laughter.) Ido kape a lodging-house.
COMMISSIONER—And pray how many beds do you

make up ?
Defendant—Och, your Honour, every room's a mighty
fine bed.
COMMISSIONER—And how many rooms does your esta-
blishment contain, Mrs. Sullivan ?
Defendant—Why, in regard of that, and reckoning the
cook-lofts and the two kitchens, and the ground behind,
we've room for a matther of sivinty thravellers.
COMMISSIONER—Now, let us come to the point. Why
did you discharge your servant without paying her her
wages ? Defendant—Och, she was too laborious for me—
(Laughter.) She mightily blackguarded ivirey one of my
best customers ; and bad luck to her, she kilt one of the
finest boys that iver throd the bogs of Allen.
COMMISSIONER—What, killed a boy I Pray how was
that ? Defendant—Did'nt he die of a favour
COMMISSIONER—Of a favour ?—(fever.) Defendant—
Yes, me Lord, in the work-house ; and all bekase she
did'nt lave him alone in me own place, and its me own
mind that's made up. Och, may ths banshee soon wail a
wake under her own casemint. Nivir's the long day that
I'll pay her at all at all.
COMMISSIONER—Swear Ellen Lacy on the cross, officer.
Here Ellen Lacy was sworn, and it appearing that the
sum of I Is. 4d. was due, it was ordered to be forthwith
paid over to the beautiful Ellen. Mrs. Sullivan immedi-
ately opened the flood gates of her abuse upon the Commis-
sioner, and it was with considerable difficulty she was
handed out of court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday several prOprietors of market-carts, used to
bring vegetables, &c., to Covent-garden, were summoned
by Rogers, the informer, under the Street pct, for suffer-
ing their vehicles to remain in the streets adjacent to the
market, namely, James-street, King-street, Tavistock-
street, and Russell-street, longer than was necessary for
loading or re-loading.
The defendants were fined in various penalties.