The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-26 00:00:00

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CHAPMAN.

This was an information filed by the Attorney• Gen-
eral on the suggestion of the Charity Commissioners,
praying for a decree against the defendant for the pur-
chase of a sufficient quantity of 31. per Cent. Consols
to produce 201. a-year, and also to pay the arrears of an
annuity of that amount devised to the poor of the pa-
ri>h of Barrow-upon-Soar, by the will of George Per-
kins, dated the 6th December, 1799. The testator ap-
pointed William and Daniel Chapman his executors.
Daniel survived William, and continued to pay the an-
nuity of 201. up to the time of his death in 1820. From
that period till 1825 the annuity was paid.by his devisees,
and after that tia.e, up to 1833, it was paid by his ex-
, venter and residuary legatee. From 1833 no payment
had been ►made, and hence the present suit arose.
The MASTER of the ROLLS made a decree as prayed,
and ordered the costc to be taxed, and tound as be-
tween party and party.

COUR7' OF Q (TEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 25.
THE QUEEN V. HIGGINBOTHAM.
(Continued from our Pdper of yesterday.)
The Court took time to consider the point, and Lord
DENMAN said, that if the Court shouid be of opinion
that the defendant ought to he discharged, one of the
Darned Judges would signify the same at chambers
v:ithin the course of the next ten days.
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF WALSALL--MAN-

DAMUS.
Sir W. FOLLETT applied for a mandamus command-
ing the Corporation of Walsall to proceed to an election
to fill up certain vacancies hi the Town Council, occa•
sioned by death and a claim of exemption.
Rule absolute granted.
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM BAINES.
'rim ATTORNEY-GENERAL said tae Court bad been
pleased to intimate their intention of pronouncing judg-
ment in this case to-d:iy.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court had not yct quite
derermined.on the case, and would therefore defer pro-
nouncing judgment for the present, although as the
case had been very much in their minds it was
not improbable but that judgment might be pro-
nounced before the rising of the Court. In the
meantime be would mention that from all the authorities,
it appeared that the proper person to issue out the writ,
was the official principal of the • Archbishop, in the
Arches' Court. This appeared to have been the in-
variable practice, and in Philliman'a report, in the case
of a clereyman, it appeared that Sir William Scott had
pronounced sentence of deprivation, the Bishop himself
being present, and Sir John Nicoll had confirmed that
sentence of his own authority.
The case was not again mentioned, although the
Court did not rise until eight o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 25.
BCANDAO v. BARNET.
This was an action of trover, to recover the amount
of certain Exchequer Bills belonging to the plaintiff,
which had been deposited by a third party .with the de-
fendant, who is a banker. The defence was that the
full amount had been paid upon the deposits. The
facts were made a special case, on which the Court this
day gave judgment, that the banker's lien on the bills
extended only to the actual property of the deposition
in the bills. Verdict therefore entered for the plaintiff.
COOPER v. FOLEES.
In this case Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS obtained a rule
to show cause why a distringas obtained in June should
not be set aside, on the ground that the wile of the de-
fendant informed the plaintiff's attorney that her hus-
band was not in the country, and could not, there-
fore, present himself to be served with a writ of sum-
MODS ; and moreover that the defendant was at the
time, and still is, labouring under mental derangement.
The Learned Sergeant produced the affidavits of Mrs.
Folkes, and three other relatives, in support of this
statement.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL showed caused against the
rule, contending that the affidavits were not sufficient
evidence that the defendant was still labouring under
mental derangement, or was still out of the country.
Besides, it was not competent to the defendant to set
up his own infirmity, and the Court has held that ser-
vice on the keeper of a lunatic is good service. If the
defendant had not power to enter a common appear-
ance, he had not power to authorise Mr. Sergeant
Bompas to come here to represent him.
Mr. Sergeant BoMPAS replied, when
The COURT inquired whether any affidavits were
sworn at Boulogne, as there must be persons there
who could prove the fact of his: residence there during
the time referred to in the affidavits before the Court.
These last were not sufficient, for they only went to the
belief of persons resident in London that the defendant
was in Boulogne since 1837. (The answer was that
there was not an affidavit from Boulogne.) Their
Lordships were of opinion that there was not at pre-
sent evidence enough to set aside the distringas, thJir
Lordships giving no opinion on the merits of the case.
• Rule discharged with costs, but with leave to Mr.
• Sergeant Bowes to renew the applicaten.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nor. 25.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LEVI.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had to show cause
against a rule which called upon him to show why the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests should not payto the defendant the sum of 91. 175.6 d , under these err-
curostances. There was a house on the Rolls' Estate
which was transferred to the Crown, when that estate
was demised, the defendant got possession of the house,
and would not pay any rent, or perform any of the CDVC.'
nants of the lease. A writ of intrusion was sued out,
and the defendant allowed judgment to go by default.
It was as a matter of course that he should be fined for
his intrusion. The house was let for 301. a year, with a
covenant to keep it in good repair. The defendant was
turned out of possession on the 6th May ; however, he
(the Attorney-General) was contented to fix the fine at
the amount of rent due up to the Lady-day preceding,
Their Lordships acceded, and the fine was fixed at 841.,
which was paid. The defendant then denied his
tenancy, and said he was a mere tenant-at-will
to Charles Lewis, at three shillings a week,
but now he sought to have the sum of 91. 17s. 6d. re-
turned to him, on the ground that he had paid that sum
as laud-tax. He complained that the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests bad not returned the money, but
they could not du it. They had the authority of the
Court of Exchequer to levy 841., and they were charge-
able with that sum. 'inc defendant had no right to
complain, for had he made the application when the fine
was fixed, the allowance might have been made ; be-
sides, he was not charged with any rent from Lady-
day up to the Gth May. He was not charged with
any of the costs of the proceeding, nor was he charged
wvh a sum of 100/. lor -, itoap,. ;aift ;
..,ons, for which he

have barn.
COURT—lttvit,. 1 was a floc--it was not rent he was
_t fint-', and cannot be altered.
1

Mr. flumputtry, in support of the rule, said the
receipts were shown to the Solicitors to the Commis-
sioners, and it teas proved to be a mere mistake.
Mr. Baron PARKE—No, it was no mistake, but from
defence Set up, you could not consistently make the
demand at the trial. He then denied his occupation,
end could not very consistently set up payment of the
hod tax, which must have been paid by him in capacity
of tenant.
Tue Locu CHIEF BARON—the Court might have,
and tv,!re much disposed to make the fine lOW., only
the Attorney-General was content with 841. We cannot
alter a fine.—Rule discharged with costs.