The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-23 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY•)

SCOBELL V. VICTOR.
In this case the parties agreed to the terms of a decree,
directing certain accounts to be taken before the Master.

DAVEY V. BIRCH.
The plaintiffs in this case were a class of persons claiming
to be entitled to the interest of an estate alleged to be in
the possession of the defendant.
The parties agreed to a decree, directing an account
against the defendant, as trustee ; but a long discussion on
the question of costs followed, which occupied the whole of
the morning, :and ended in the plaintiff's being ordered to
pay them.

XING'S BENCH.-(THIS, DAY•)

(Sittings in Banco.)

THE KING V. THE COMMIII6IONERS OF THE THAMES AND

IBIS NAVIGATION.

The COURT gave judgment in this case, which was a rule
for a mandamus directed to the Commissioners of the
Thames and Isis Navigation Company, and commanding
them to pay to Lord Boston a sum of 1,000/. as compen-
sation, and 2001. costs. The case had been a long time
pending, and cause had been shown against the rule in Tri-
nity term, 1384. After a great deal of deliberation, the
Court had agreed upon the judgment it ought to pronounce.
The first act of the Commissioners was to cut off a band
in the river, thereby making a new channel, by which a
towing path, the customs arising from which were vested in
Lord Boston, was rendered useless, and by which
it was supposed the channel of the river was rendered
less convenient for navigation. For the injury sustained
thereby, applicationfor compensation was made to the Com-
missioners, and on their refusal to make any award, Lord
Boston appealed to the justices at the Quarter Sessions of
the Peace for the county of Buckingham, who awarded to
him a sum of 1,0001. as compensation, and 2001. costs, and
the mandamus was to compel the Commissioners to pay
that award. The cause shewn against the rule by the re-
turn, was that the damage was not of a description to come
within the terms of the Act of Parliament, and that the
mere diversion of custom from the owner of the towing path
who lets out horses, was no injury, any more than the di-
version of custom from an ancient public-house, by the
making of an improved line of communication. The answer
was to be found in the very Act of Parliament itself,
which differed from almost every other, and which provided
in case of compensation being refused an appeal to the sessions.
The Act empowered every one damaged or injured by any
work of the Commissioners to apply for compensation, and
they were directed to make such order, determination, or
judgment as to them might seem just, and give such com-
pensation as appeared reasonable ; and on the refusal of the
Commissioners the party was authorised to appeal to the
Quarter Sessions, who were to entertain and take cogni-
zance of such appeal, and make such compensation as shall
seem just, and award costs, and such award shall be final
and conclusive. Lord Boston finding himself aggrieved
sought for compensation, and was refused, and appealed to
the Sessions, by whom he was awarded ,the sum in ques-
tion. It appeared therefore that the Act gave the Ses-
sions a much wider power than merely to assess damages,
as was objected by the defendants. Another objec-
tion to the mandamus was that the order of Sessions
included two objects of compensaion, partly for the loss
of profit from the diversion of the towing-path, and partly
from obstructing the former channel ; and that these had
not been separately valued and set out. The Court was of
opinion that if both these causes had not been made out
the order would not have been good, but the mandamus
alleges the obstruction of the channel and the loss of the
towing-path, and recites that the Sessions awarded com-
pensation for that injury. The Sessions, therefore, must
be taken to have found both these facts, and their order is
made final and conclusive. Another objection was, that
the jurisdiction of the Sessions did not attach, because the
Commissioners came to no order on which an appeal
would lie. Upon the facts above stated the Court had
no hesitation in saying that the refusal of the Commissioners
to accede to Lord Boston's application was a determination
that he was not entitled to what he claimed, and conse-
quently was a proper subject of appeal. This was one of
the class of cases, which were exceedingly numerous, in

which the Court on
compelled to adopt the words of a
private Act of Parliament, The liabillities imposed u
public Companies were not inconsistenttheir benefiPcial
opqration, and it was the duty of - the Couyt to see them
executtfl, The judgment of the Court must t
for a peremptoryherefore be
inandantus.—Rule absolute.
THE RING V. THE GUARDIA:Ns 01 THE POOR OF THE
i'ABISH

OF ST. PANCRAS.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained for a ma/dy/no'
directed to the defendants, and commanding them to
obey
an 6rder or the Poor Law Commissioners appointederd unWas..der
She Act 4 and 5 Wm. IV., chap. 76. The or
dafol else 9th of July lest, and directed them to
choose a
Chairman,
Sir F. POLLOCK, who appeared on behalf of the defend;
dtsts. was not at present in a condition to shew cause against
the rule, /v4t bad been instructed to apply for a certiorart
to bring up certain orders of the Poor Law Commissioners;
in order that they might be discussed before the Cour .
Until that was done, and until an opinion was pronouneea
by the Court upon the legality or illegality, therepplicatioo
for the mandamus could lead to no satisfactory sult.
Lord DENMAN—YOU $110111(1 have questioned this order
in the first instance. If the Attorney-General does n°,.
press for a rule absolute, it must be taken as a mate 01
favour.
Sir F. PoLock would take no professional favour from
L
the Attorney-General in the.present case. If lie was en
titled to his rule absolute let him have it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then prayed that the rule for
the mandamus should be made absolute.
Mr. Sergeant AnAs—l object to the AttornerGe-
mneral's decision being taken, but I have no objection t°,
submit to the opinion of the Court.
Lord DENMAN—May I ask, who are you ?--Pluell
laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant ADAM L
I—M, ord, laman ex Pic
°,.
Guardian. The Court would find by the 38th section that
certain persons were ex officio Guardians.
Sir F. POLLOCK said if the case was to be argued to
for
all
he would argue it. The order upon which the rill°
the mandamus had been obtained was for the electing 0.3
Chairman, and that was unimportant compared with I
prior one on which it was founded. The question nect.4.
sarily turned upon the legality of the first order ; becausei
if the Commissioners had a right to direct the choice °t
guardians, in the manner they had done, they had a.
also to direct that these guardians should choose A Chair.
man, there being certain duties for the Chairman to Pr"
Gentle'
form under the Act of Parliament. The Learned
man contended that by the 39th section of the Act, Wheirje
a Board of Guardians was already appointed, they sh°lll,
be constituted in all respects as heretofore, a Board for au
ministering the affairs of the Poor. The parish of St. rani
eras having a local Act of its own, and havingßoard. °
Guardians already constituted, did not come within Pi
the
risdiction of the Commissioners, and unless the co nsent
a
the majority of the rate-payers was obtained (which P
not been done), the Commissioners could not interfere.
Mr. PRENDERGAST followed on the same side.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.) ° t fWas.Sir W. FOLLETT applied to the Court for a Wil" .0
quo warrant°, calling upon Mr. John Parry to sbovl eau,"
by what authority he held and exercised the office of Vto
Councillor of the borough of Hereford. The objecti°,ll6B
Mr. Parry's election was, that the lists of burgesses °I
Ward in which he resided were not revised by the assesne
of that Ward, but by those of the adjoining one.
---ibu
granted.
His LORDSHIP afterwards sat at Nisi Prins, and disposed
of several undefended causes.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIR D. -

BRAMAH V. ROBERTS. pae
This case, which was part heard yesterday, was Pr°eej,ft.a
with again this morning. It was not concluded when

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DA-

Sittings at Nisi Prius More Mr. Boron BoLLAN
a Commo Jury.)

SYERS V. UPI„ON. I loug
In this case the plaintiff complained of two scanu3 dr
and malicious libels upon his character, spoken by the a,
fendant on the 16th and 22d of August last. The defen
ant pleaded not guilty.
It appeared in evidence on the part of the plaintiff tl3lll,
the parties, both of whom reside in the Commercial-root
had been on bad terms, in consequence of some proeeeuiff
ings at the Clerkenwell Sessions instituted by the
the
against the defendant, and that on the evening of the 16'1:
of August, the latter was passing by the house of the Mole,'
when words of abuse were exchanged between them. '4
servant in the employment of Syers swore that Upton
at Y%
to his master on that occasion, " You rocollect wh,°ft
left the country for, you d—d old which words 'ea
on the witness's mind an impression that th‘a plaintiff t
committed an unnatural effence. It was also Proved o.'B
on the 22d of August the defendant further exkessedl l
self towards the plaintiff—" You perjured wretch,,°ir.
show you up at Billingsgate. Do you remember the Pl 4
rid crime on account of which you left Norfolk ?" grede,
crowd had collected when these observations were raa

and much scandal in consequence given.
On behalf of the defendant several witnesses were c%.1:
mined, who proved that the defendant, on the night,hie
question, the 16th of August, was quietly passing by r,
plaintiff's residence, when he was called back by an ob
eeee,
vation from Syers to the effect, " There he goes,"
_„ie
upon he returned, and said, " What do you want wit° o;
have you not persecuted me enough already ?" " N°"-did
until you cut your throat, as your damned old father
tor
before." Upton upon this said the observation Iwo °A, of
manly and an unnatural one, and the crowd used Or--
abuse towards the plaintiff. f the
Mr. Sergeant GouLBURN addressed the. Jury Writer
laintiff, contending that whatever doubt might be ~istf
toined of the origin of the transaction of the 16th of Atilbows
there could be none as to that of the 22d of the 5-

month.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 40s. damages, and 405. COlitss

,----,
ADMIRALTY COURT,-THIS PA'

(Before Sir John NicHor..) coax
In this case the master of the Petrel has been lno,i
tempt and imprisonment for having removed the/;srod
which was under the arrest of an officer of the C°ur"grtY:
an application was made to-day for the release of e'e r and
Sir JOHN NicHoL went into the facts of the Co.ce: the
said, that as the party in contempt could not hrirti•oo
vessel back, and though injustice had been done to
interested by the conduct of the seamen, he should direct
~ ,sea
him to be released from custody • but the Court elf: in
'
a hope that he would not be guilty of such con
uili
future.

THE " CERES " COLLISION. n
In this case the Learned JUDGE was assisted 11 t,W-uts
the Elders of the Trinity House, the points in 133.5 P; of
being as to the nautical skill displayed by the CaPt3l: be,
the Ceres and Hatfield,in a collision which took Pili; rot
tween the two ships in September, 1835. The Cell- bi
on board the Hatfield in midships, and stove her io'ber
which she was so much damaged that the Captain rallaps
on shore, to save the lives of the crew, and she soon beegi
a complete wreck. The owners of the lia!fiel,(l r"wir
compensation for the loss occasioned by the 'allege"
management of the Ceres. • ,eclieff
Counsel were heard, and Dr. Addison was 'Prc'el.
when our reporter left the Court.

We regret to record an extremely—melancholY 15061:11
which occurred on Friday last, in the sudden decals ay
Miss Vaughan, of Manchester-square. This amiable4l3fica
had been attending on her brother, who has been CO s
to his bed during the last five months with a droPsic"' fl-e;
of so severe a nature, that his rui • ' sph se'""s,--ag
relinquished all hope of his rec'ovne"u OnYWe"n-hdaqi
last he seemed rather to have rallied, and as Miss 11105-:3
complained of being somewhat indisposed, they vas urea
her that a week's al;sence, for change of air,
undertaken. Accord;ngly, she selected Richmond, all,
went to the Coburg Rotel, where, it since Bppears, °of
underwent a surgical ope-ation for cancer, the effectsai,
which, in one advanced in year.!: have proved beyond Weber
cal skill, for she died on the day i;:it one following, i" very
might be SA ed
sixty-second year. This lady was well known in the 'bet
highest circles of fashion, and valued in all classes for b/00
high principles and benevolence, the majority of our 0
charities being benefitted by her donations. Miss Vaug by
was possessed of large estates in Wales and Yorkshire!ties,
sides property to a great amount in the public sec". rviiid
having been heiress in right of her mother. Her 3,,noieb
brother, who also possesses considerable propertY inN 0 Ills
is now the only member of the family suniving, and
devolvec' to
death, it is reported, the large properties are to
different public institutions.—Morning PaPer• the
When the list of gentlemen nominated to sertfe 00
office of Sherifftii
Cfrom indigestion !
Saturday last, one of the parties named begged to be Oeu..ely
from s.erving e
oinfficteh,e county of Hants was called ("versed
Thoon
Court. It was of course disallowad.—Salisbury Ikraula_ve
etxbeeugsreoupnroddtubcaetdhamsuucffherieadusgchyte.ei
.io
Prince Louis Buonaparte was in May
d married Princess Matbilda de Montfort, hi —0 Calf :cos
daughter of King Jerome. A Dutch paper preten °sot.
the ex-King of Westphalia was lately heard to say at e ,o,
Bard, that his daughter, Princess Mathilda, might soitil„frod,o
or other become Empress of the French. The 53P„, dal
pretends that his son has a very fair prospect 01 0-ce
next to. ngiA
becoming King of England. the fact is, young Pearce
Jerome de Montfort is, as Goldsinith said, a c°°slooT-.0
degrees removed, of the reigning family, in Eng' .
Bons Sens.