The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-30 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 29.

There were three Special Jury causes in the paper for
to-day. !•At the sitting of the Court the Attorney-
General v. Tipton was called on. The panel was called,
and only seven of the Special Jury answered to their
names.

Mr. Baron GURNEY inquired of the Sheriff what ex-
cuse had been made ? The officer said many of them
were out of town. Some were excused and others ivere
fined. Upon one name being called the Learned Baron
inquired who served the summons ?
`An Officer—l did, my Lord, on Saturday last.
Mr. Baron GURNEY—On Saturday last. How came
that irregularity ?
Mr. Sheriff Burchell—l gave it in due time to the
proper officer.
The officer who served the summons said it did not
lie in the district of the officer who first got it ; that
caused the delay.

Mr. Baron GURNEY-It is the duty of the Sheriff to
see that the Jury are summoned in proper time. The
Jury are fined when they do not appear, and the Sheriff
must in this case pay. a penalty of 51.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TIPTON.
- This was an information filed against the defendant
to recover penalties for a breach of the Excise laws.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared for the Crown,
and said he was happy to be enabled to state that in
consequence of an arrangement entered into between
himself and his Learned Friend Mr. Kelly, who was
counsel for the defendant, his Lordship's time, and that
of the Jury, would be saved. His Learned Friend had
consented that a verdict should pass against him for
4,0001. for duties, and upon two counts for penalties of
5001. each.—The verdict was entered accordingly.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WARLD.
The defendant in this case was formerly a supervisor
in the Excise. The Crown sought by this information
to recover from him four penalties of 5001. each, for that
(as was alleged) he dishonestly colluded with the de-
fendant in the formercase, in order to keep certain glass
made on the premises of the latter from charge, and
thereby defrauded the revenue.

From the evidence which was adduced it appeared that
in 1837 and 1838 the defendant was supervisor in Liver-
pool, and his duty as such led him to attend the Old
Swan Glassworks. He ought to have gone at unknown
periods in order to have checked the books of the officer,
but in place of that, it was given in proof that he was
daily on the premises, and superintended the weighing
himself ; in fact, that he performed the duty of
the officer. The weighing was not performed ho-
nestly, and the defendant was content to take
the weights from a man in the employment
of the Company. It was further proved that the whole of
the glass made was not put into the scale. In November,
of the latter year, the officer under the defendant gave
information, and on one day in that month the Collector
of Customs went to the premises, just after the defendant
had weighed the glass for that day. He was making up
his books. The Collector asked to see the glass, but was
told it had gone to the cutting•room, and was mixed
with the others. He went to the cutting-room and found
such was not the case. He insisted upon its being pro-
duced, which was then done, and on being put into the
scale was found to weigh 401Ibs. more than it appeared to
do by the defendant's books. It was also proved that
both he and the officer often went to public-houses with
servants of the .Company, and that the bills for what
was supplied were paid by the Company.
The Jury found a verdict for the Crown. '
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would be content to
enter the verdict on one count only.—Verdict taken ac-
cordingly for 5001.

The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Wilde, and Mr.
Jervis, were Counsel for the Crown ; Mr. Humfrey and
Mr. C. Jones appeared for,the defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 29.

VARTY AND NOPSEY V. NUNN.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, at the sitting of the Court this
morning gave judgment in the Hackney Church-rate
case, which has excited so much public attention. The
Learned Judge said, before he proceeded to &liver his
opinions as to the admissibility of the allegation in this
case, he wished to inquire of the Counsel whether he had
rightly comprehended the objections taken to the libel,
and whether they had included all the objections in their
arguments ; for he had upon the narrow examination
which the facts, as put together, allowed him to make,
found it a matter of extreme difficulty to ascertain the
objections intended to be raised against the Church-rate
in question. According to his conception of the case,
the first objection was, that the rate had been made by
the churchwardens, whereas it ought to have been made,
by the trustees ; secondly, that the rate was invalid, be-
cause it ought to have been made over the whole parish,
and not upon a part only as divided ; thirdly, that no no-
tice had been given ; and fourthly, that the rate was in-
valid, because the churchwardens had, or might have
had, funds in hand. .Were those all the objections ?
Dr. BAYFORD believed that they were.
Dr. LUSDINGTON then said he was about to consider
whether the allegation which had been offered in this case
on behalf of the party cited was sufficient answer, or any
answer at all, to the libel given in. The suit was brought
by persons representing themselves as the churchwar-
dens of St. John's, Hackney, and the libel was in the
common form in such cases. Assuming the facts to be
true, the rate was legal, and the defendant was bound to
pay the same when assessed.. But defendant had offered
this allegation in defence of his refusal to do so. The
plea was two-fold—one part denying the averments in
the libel, and the other part avoiding them. He must,
according to the well known rule, first assume the facts
to be true, and then determine whether, if true,
they would form a good defence to the suit. The
first objection was, that by ♦irtue of the local act
of George the Third, the rate ought to have been
made upon the whole of the ancient parish. Now to
dispose of this part of the question, it was necessary
to look at the law prior to 1790. The whole of Hack-
ney then formed one parish, in which was situated the
ancient parish church, which the inhabitants were
bound to repair by the common law of England. It
was not the Ecclesiastical law which imposed such bur-
thens. The principle was recognised by all the com-
mon law authorities, by Lord Coke. and before his
time in the reports. But by Lord Coke's and all the
authorities which ever had existed down to the time of
Chief Justice Tyndal, the Judges of the Ecclesiastical
Courts and the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber, all
were agreed upon this point. The principle was fur-
ther recognised by various statutes from the time of
Edward the First down to the present day. It was
indeed recognised by every Act of Parliament touch-
ing the collection of Church-rates. The legal obligation
to repair the church was then approved. This then was
the common law of the land, which could only bo altered
by Act of Parliament. The question was, whether the
local Act altered the common law of the land, which he
was of opinion it did not, although there was a great
want of clearness and specific enactment upon the sub-
ject in all the local enactments which had been passed.
He was also of opinion that it did not lie with the trus-
tees to repair the church ; indeed it was impossible that
that burthen could be placed upon the trustees. It did
riot come within the principle intended to be applied.
lie then went through all the points of the case, and
concluded by rejecting the allegation—thus deciding
upon the validity of the rate.

INSOLVENT' DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 29.

RE DAVID H. TARBOTTOM.
The insolvent in this case was a miller and corn-
dealer near Leeds, and his application to be discharged
was opposed by Mr. Woodrutfe, on behalf of .31r. Thos.
Freeman, an extensive corn-dealer and farmer, and
several other creditors.
It appeared by the examination of the insolvent, that
he had in the month of March executed a bill of sale in
favour of a relation named Saunderson, giving him com-
plete power over all his stock in trade, furniture, &c.
some short time afterwards he got wheat from the op-
posing creditor to the amount of 119/., and from several
other persons to the amount of 5001. or 600/. ; immedi-
ately after which Saunderson put his bill of sale in
force, and swept away all the property, amongst which
was the property he got from the opposing and other