The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-28 00:00:00

but not his name, before the murder ; and he knew
M'Cabe well. He did not see their faces, but he spoke
to their dresses and person, and swore positively that
they were the two men he had seen in the locality de-
scribed. The magistrates, after a short consuitation,
remanded the pri,•oners until next Saturday, fur further
examination. M'Cabe said he wished to account for
blood being on his basket by stating that he had pur-
chased some hearts and liver at Huddersfield a short time
before, and carried them home in it. He was allowed by
the bench to have an interview with his wife, in the
presence of the constable. Thus, at present this dread-
ful crime is involved in mystery. There is other evidence
to be adduced, with respect to the key of the unfortunate
victim's door, found in the well, a centre-bit, since dis-
covered, and other matters connected with a long chain
of circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with
the commission of this fearful crime ; but the rumours
are too vague and contradictory to warrant publicity.
The adjourned examination takes place before Mr. G.
D. Barker, Deputy Coroner, this day, when it is ex-
pected the testimony of Mr. West and other witnesses
may throw additional light upon the affair.

LAW IN TELLIGEri CE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 27.
(Sittings in Banco.)
This being the Queen's birthday, their Lordships and
the Queen's Counsel appeared in full dress. Lord Den-
man wore his collar as Chief Justice.
The Court rose early in the day, in order to enable
some of their Lordships and the Queen's Counsel to at-
tend the drawing-room.
The Court was occupied during the time it sat with
the Crown paper; but the only cause possessing any
claim to public interest was

THE QUEEN V. THE TRUSTEES OF BRIDEWELL AND ST,
THOMAS'S HOSPITAL.

This was an appeal against the decision of the Justices
of the Quarter Sessions of Surrey, by the churchwardens
of St. George's, Southwark
It appeared that the churchwardens held that the
Bridewell was liable to be rated for the support of the
poor, on the ground that it is not a free charity, as they
paid a rent of 2001. a year to the Bethlehem Hospital,
from the trustees of which they rent the land on which
it is built, and besides employ the inmates in work from
which the institution derived profit ; and, further, that
charities to be exempt from the payment of poor.rates
must be entirely free both from the payment of rent and
the following of any occupation for profit.
Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Peacock, and
Mr. Knapp, appeared in support of the appeal, and
argued the points above-mentiened at considerable
length.
The Court took time to consider its decision.

BAIL CUURT, May 27.

(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE

Mr. NooT applied for a rule to show cause why a
certiorari should not issue to bring up a certain resolu•
tion arrived at by a vestry in the township of Brighouse
in Yorkshire.

The resolution was arrived at by the vestry, and was
sent up to the magistrates for approval under the Mtn
George 111., amended by the 59th Georee 111., and also
by the sth and 6th Victoria, c. 109. The resolution was
passed relative to the appointment of two constables,
and a certain payment was awarded to them. The over-
seers denied the power to award such a payment, and
thus saddle the rates with an annual loss.

Mr. Justice COLE RIDGE doubted the right of the Cour
to interfere. There was no precedent for such an appli
cation, and the rule could not, therefore, be granted.
The Court afterwards sat at nisi pries, but no case o:
any consequence occurred.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 27.
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ill Banco.)
COLLINS v. NEWSTEAD.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE moved fur a rule for a new trial,
or that the verdict should be set aside in a case tried
at the Surrey assizes, at Guildford, on the sale of a mare
which ultimately turned out to be uniound. It was con-
tended on the part of the plaintiff that the verdict of the
jury had been given on insuffici,nt evidence, or from a
peculiar bias which had been obtained over their minds
by the peculiar testimony of Mr. Harding, one of the wit-
nesses, who was well known to them. It wascontended by
Mr. Bovil, on the other hand, that the jury had had a
view of the mare, fa- she was trotted out in the streets
of Guildford in order to show what the nature of the
ailment was to which the mare was subject, but they had
seen no reason whatever to doubt her soundness. Mr.
Greenlake, who had bred the mare, had seen her before
she went to :Halton to be soli, and then had observed no
fault about her. She had been brow ht to London partly
by rail and partly by hand, and had then been kept in a
hot stable without any work whatever, after having been
used to carry a farmer of sixteen stone weight, and the
consequence was, that if the horse had become unsound
at all, the disease had occurred since she came into the
possession of the plaintiff.
Mr. JAMES said that the mare had been purchased by
the plaintiff for Mr. Benedict, a horse dealer at Paris,
and he it was who first perceived that the mare was
labouring under lameness in her feet. The mare had
been brought from Yorkshire and placed in the stables
at Lambeth, where she had the advantage of
exercise in the ride attache d to the ese.blish-
ment, and while under supervision there she
exhibited that peculiar dotty step which indicates disease of
the venicular bone—that is a bone of a shuttlelike
form, intended by its moving backwards and forwards
to give expansibility to the hoof. Mr. Sergeant Shee,
in his address to the jury, had improperly influenced
them by representing himself as the farmer's counsel,
and calling upon them to give a verdict for a farmer in
opposition to the evidence of the veterinary surgeons of
London. In order to influence them still further he had
ealled a gentlemen in the neighbourhood of Guildford,
of the name of Harding, engaged in the same business,
who was well known to the jury, and through whose
inducement they had given their verdict.

Mr. Justice COLTMAN said that they were bound to
take the general rile of looking at the evidence on b,th
sides, and, considering the observations of the julge, as
as the evidence, he thought that the verdier, ought
not to be disturbed.

Mr. Justice MAIJLE and Mr. Justice CRESSWELL ex-
pressing their coincidence with this opinion, the rule was
refused.

BROWN V. RICIIARDSON.-RESTRAINT OF A CA. SA.
Mr. WELLS applied' for an order of the Court to re-
strain the execution of a ca. sa. pending the return of a
bill of exchange in return of a promissory note which
had been given to prevent the arrest of the applic.mt.
It app,•ared that a suit had been instituted by a person
of the name of Brown against Richardson, which ulti-
mately went to judgmetlt. To avoid this Richardson
and a friend went to Brown, and offered the promissory
notes of two other persons as security fur the debt, pro-
vided the judgment was stayed. Brown assented to this
if he was furnished with the promissory note of some
third person, but took one of the notes then presented,
engaging bath to restrain the judgment and to return
the note which he held on receiving the one which he
required. He had done neither, for, although applied
to, he had neither returned the note nor withdrawn the
ca. sa., and the application was to restrain the judg-
ment pending the return of the promissory note.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN directed the rule to be issued.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 27.
stmmoNDs V. LIUNTZ AND ANOTHER.
Mr. MARTIN appeared to show cause against the rule
obtained in this cause, which was obtained last Hilary
term by Mr. Humphrey, to set aside the verdict for the
defendant, and to enter the same for the plaintiff for 501.
or 1001. on the indebitates count. The plaintiff in the
case was a traffic-taker, and had engaged to take the
traffic upon a certain projected railway, of which the
defendants were members of the provisional committee.
The line was stated to be about 60 miles in length, and
the terms of the contract were, that 151. per mile should
be paid to the plaintiff for his services by three
instalments, the first of which was to be paid upon the
commencement of the work, the second upon tho de-
livery of the traffic tables, and the third was made con-
tingent upon the passing of the Bill. When the traffic
tables were completed it appeared that the line was
sixty- live miles in length, and a claim was made by the
plaintiff for this extra amount of mileage, and also
further sums alleged to be due for services per'oriLed by
the order of the solicitor of the company, in the
remodelling of the tables of the traffic, in consequence
of an alteration in the course of the proposed railway.
The defendant had paid plaintiff the amount of the first
instalment, 3001.; previous to the action having been ,
brought, the second also, amounting to 300/, was paid
into court. The third instalment of 3001., the Lord
Chief Baron, who said the cause decided could not be
reviewed, the condition neon the payment was made
contingent, not havin.• been complied with. The ques-
tion raised by the rule was, whether the plaintiff could
claim for his extra services and extra mileage upon the
indebitates count of the indictment.
Mr. HUMPRRET was heard in support of the rule.
The COURT decided that the rule ought to be dis-
charged.
Rule discharged accordingly.

WESTMINSTER CO UIV7' Y C 0 U RT, May 27.
(Before D. C. MATLAN, Esq.)
PARTNER V. SEARLE.
In this case the plaintiff southt to recover the sum of
19/ 19s. 6d. for goods sold and delivered.
pinion. He denied that a
_ The defendant pleaded that the statute of limitations
the
erred the greater part of the debt, and with regard to
h_reernainder a payment had been arranged.
The plaintiff stated that although he was compelled
to deduct the amount of debt contracted in 1840 by the
statute of limitations, he would not give up the other
an arra
made for paypromise of
payment—further than a very kind
(the
plaintiff) defendant (who is an undertaker) to bury him (t e
plaintiff) comfortably as soon as ever he should " his
quietus make." But he considered that a mere joke.
Defendant—A joke, indeed! Didn't I agree to bury
Plaintiff—Yes, • ngement had been
you at Kensal, with best elm coffin—rows—nails—
mourners—velvet pall—two-horse coach—feathers, &C.,
if you foregoed your claims upon rne?—(Laughter.)
but I believed you was merely joking. Besides, I don't
think I shall need your proposed kindness before the
entire debt is covered by tho statute of limitations.
it is true you promised these favours;
Therefore, if you will discharge this amount now, I will
pay you for my funeral when I require it.
The Learned JUDGE directed
the payment of the
amount not barred by the statute of limitations.
• _.-•=01...1•1111110

Mr. Burgon, of 35,
POLICE INTEL LIG ENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
fore the Lord Mayor for having refused to pay the
church-rate, amounting to 51. 2i., due to the united
tephen's I%aroo c
parishes of St. s -lb 1 and St. Benet
Sherehog. Bucklersbury, was summoned be-

The Long MAYOR—Have you got your summons,
Mr. Burgon?
Defendant—No, my Lord; I left it at home, between
the leaves of my Bible.
The LORD MAYOR—You object to pay the rate?
Defendant—l have conscientious objections to the