The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-27 00:00:00

they did not think that it gave the Conrt any power to
make allowance for loss of time. The Master, on tax-
ation, was empowered to allow all reasonabl6 expences for
witnesses, but there was no law under which an attorney,
or any other person, could recover compensation for loss
of time by action, such an action, therefore, could not be
maintained. His Lordship added that he wished it
to be clearly understood that the Courts were of opinion
that no person whatever that has been subpoenaed as a wit-
nEss was entitled to more than reasonable expences. He
w,s not entitled (whatever his station or profession) to
compensation for loss of time.
Rule for a new trial discharged.

THE KING V. THE PARISH OFFICERS OF ST. MARY,

ISLINGTON.

This was an application on the part of the inhabitants
of the parish of Sr. Mary, Islington, for a.writ of quo
warranto, calling upon the oversyers and churchwardens
of that parish to show by what authority they executed
the duties of their respective offices. The Court took
time to consider its judgment this morning.
Lord TENTERDEN said, th,t Court were not agreed as to
the case being such an one as to grant a quo warranto;
but they were decidedly agreed as to the improper mode in
which the overseers had been elected, and also that the
election of those officers should be by ballot. He hoped,
therefore, that this intimation from the Court would be
deemed sufficient by the contending parties.
Mr. Justice JAMES PA RKE—The overseers, no doubt,
will see the necessity of abandoning their offices.

Sir JAMES SCA ItLETT said, he hoped the opinion ex-
pressed by the Court would be productive of much good
in the parish, and the means of saving the parish unneces-
sary expense.

Lord TENTERDEN-The earnest wish of this Court is
always, when possible, to save expenses.

MANDAAIUS.-THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF CORNWALL.

The ATTORNET•CENERAL moved for a rule calling
upon two Magistrates of the county of Cornwall, to skew
cause why they refused to hear an appeal against the re-
moval of a pauper named William Anderson. The
Learned Counsel said, the facts of the case were somewhat
curious. The pauper some time since, resided with his
wife and seven children at Penryn, and on his coming
chargeable to the parish he was removed by an order of
two Justices to Whitehaven, in the county of Cumberland,
which the Court were aware was a very great distance ,
On the pauper's arrival at Whitehaven, he was examined
by the overseers of that place as to his right of settlement,
when it was discovered that he knew nothing about
the place, and shortly afterwards decamped and
had not since ken heard of. The guardians of
the poor, therefore, to prevent the wife and children from
becoming chargeable, appealed against the order of re-
moval, sent their officer into Cornwall at the Sessions to
support the appeal, but the Justices positively refused to
hear it unless the pauper was present, stating that their
rule in such cases was inflexible. They consented, how-
ever, to adjourn the hearing until the next Sessions. In
the mean time every effort was made to find the pauper,
but without success, and it was believed that he only got,
passed f►r some particular purpose, to avoid the expenses
of a long journey. At the next Sessions these facts
were stated to the Magistrates, but they refused to hear
the appeal.

The COURT—Mr. Attorney, take a rule to show cause,
Rule granted.