The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-19 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. J. T. BUTCHER.

Mr. CLARKSON said that in this case there was an in.
dictment charging the defendant with obtaining money
under false pretences; and the motion he was instructed
t 3 make was to remove the indictment by certiorari into this
Court, an application, which, on looking into the sta-
tute, be was afraid the Court had not the power to part.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said, that on referring to tho
Act, it was clear that cases of indictment for obtaining
money nnder false pretences could not be removed by cer-
tiorari.—Application refused.

ITIGHAM V.:JESSOP.
In this case a rule had been obtained, calling upon the
defendant to show cause why the award of an umpire
should not be set aside.

Sir W. FOLLETT and Mr. ADDISON having showed
cause against the rule, and

Mr. tRESSWELL and Mr. HocaiNs having been heard
in support of it.
Mr. Justice PATTESON directed that the rule should be
discharged with costs.

THE QUEEN V. THE REV. J. KENDAL-MANDAMUS.

Sir \V. FOLLETT moved for a rule, calling on the Rev.
.1. Kendal, the master of the Earl of Leicester's Hospital
at Warwick, to show cause why a mandamus should not
issue, commanding him to affix the common seal of that
Corporation to the presentation of the Rev. Mr. Morris
to the vicarage of Arden and Nutsford. It appeared that
the hospital in question consisted of a Master and Brethren,
and had been founded by the Earl of Leicester in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, and that the living in question was in the
gift of the Hospital. The late incumbent died on the 28th of
August last, and on the 2d of October a meeting of the
Brethren had been held for the purpose of presenting the
living. Mr. Kendall attended with a gentleman who was
a candidate, and whom he wished should be presented to
the living. The Brethren were called on regularly to
vote; the majority voted in favour of Mr. Morris. Mr.
Kendal, however, refused to affix the common seal to the
presentation, contending that he, as the Master, had a
veto on the appointment, for which claim the affidavits
state there was not the least foundation.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—You may take a rule to show
Cali Se.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sitting 3 in 13anco.)
RICH'S V. WILSON.

The adjourned argument in this case, of which the par-
ticulars have already been given, was resumed this morn-
ing at the sitting of the Court.
After M. Knowles and Mr. Crowther had been beard,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—There are facts in this
case, which, as they have been stated here for the de-
fendant, give us cause to think that it ought to go before
another Jury. At the same time, we have no doubt that
the former Jury came to a wrong conclusion upon the evi-
dence. If you like to take a rule, on payment of coats,
Mr. Crowther, you may do so.
Mr. Justice MAULE—But we are not quite sure, Mr,
Crowther, that the defendant will get a verdict now.
Mr. KNowtEs applied to the Court to order the de-
fendant to give early notice of trial.
Mr. CROWTHER—I do not know what course my client
may take ; if it be necessary to give evidence
for the defendant. I did not think it necessary, nor do I
really know wby a rule for a new trial is made. In my
view of the case we arc entitled to a nonsuit.
The CHIEF JUSTICE (to Mr. Knowles)—We will not
interfere. Let the matter take its course. Perhaps they
will not take their rule at all ; but if they do, you can try
it next term.