The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-15 00:00:00

grounds, but after a short discussion .the, itirther
hearing of the case was adjourned for a week, in
order to enable the defendant to add to his affidavits.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
THE QUEEN V. THE GUARDIANS OF SHEFPY.
Mr. PAsury applied for a rule calling upon the
guardians of the Sheppy Union to show cause why
an information should not be filed against them l'or
improperly discharging their duties. Some time ago
Jane Nightingale and her child became chargeable to
the parish, her husband having left her destitute xt
Minster. She was married at Plymouth, and having
expressed a wish to be passed to her parish, the
guardians had her before them, and, it appeared gave
instructions to the relieving-officer to see her re-
moved. The master of the workhouse accompanied
her to the pier, and gave her fifteen shillings to pay
her passage with, telling her that, as soon as she got
to London, she would find a Plymouth boat. ller
passage to London, food, and a bed for herself and
child, nearly consumed the whole of the money, and
the poor creature was compelled to walk to Store-
house, near Plymouth, and to beg her way along, the
journey occupying her six weeks ! The next afk
davit on which he moved was that of Lucy kit
now an inmate of the Medway Union. She 111.0.1
similar circumstances, received 2s. 6d. to, g.
expense of her journey. She appliedefor, •i 4
into the Chatham Union, although at first tensed,
because no order had been sent with her, The was
directed, in fact, to proceed there and demand ad-
mission. The Learned Counsel said he grounded his
application on the affidavits of the clerk of the
Medway Union. Mr. Edmead, the clerk of the
Sheppy Union, had stated that the directors, finding
the settlement of Ingram to be at Chatham, requested
that union to receive her from them without the ex-
pense of an order.
The COURT granted the application.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in banco.)
The Court was occupied during the day with ar-
guments in special cases.
The majority of cases brought before the court were
sent from one or other of the chancery courts, and the
details were utterly devoid of interest to any,
other
parties than those immediately interested.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
The Court was occupied during the day in hearing
cases of appeal under the Registration of Voters Act.

TOMS, APPELLANT V. LIJCILETT, RESPONDENT.
Mr. ROMPTON stated that the appellant in this
case, Moses Toms, was struck off the last register for'
the city of London, by Mr. MTbristie, the revising
barrister.

The particulars of the case, as stated by the
barrister for the opinion of the. Court were to the
following effect. The appellant occupied the first
floor, consisting of two rooms, at 21, .Milton-stret.i.,
City, for which he paid a rent of ss. 6d. a week, and
had resided there for the last year and three quarters
The landlord occupied a shop on the ground floor, but
did not sleep there, and three other persons 'who had
distinct apartments, lived upstairs. Each of the
parties who resided in the house had separate keys;
and were at liberty to lock and unlock the front
door whenever they pleased. The door was never
bolted or fastened inside at night, and during
the day it remained open. The question tclkre..'
fore was, whether, under the circumstances stated
the occupation of the appellant was such an occupation
as entitled him to vote under the Reform Act. On
behalf of the appellant, it was, contended,thaaptaarsthoef
had a key of the, outer door, and as the landlord did
not reside in the house, but merely occupied
it, that the landlord's occupation did not prevent the'
appellant being enfranchised. On the other hand, it
was urged that as the appellant had not the exclusive
control of the outer door, he was a mere lodger, and
was not entitled to vote. The revising barrister held'
that the objection had been sustained, and expunged
the appellant's name from the register. Mr. Cromp-
ton now submitted that the appellant had a distinct
occupation of the premises, and was entitled to have
his name on the register. In support of his argument
he referred to the cases of Wright v. Town-clerk of
Stockport, 5 Manning and Grainger, p. 33 ; Pitts v.
Smedly ; and Score v. Huggett, 7 Manning and
Grainger, p. 95. In the' latter case it was decided
that the occupier of part of a house, who had the key
of the outer door, and where the landlord did not
occupy any portion of the premises, was entitled ao
vote.

MARLBRO'-STREET—(THIS DAY.)
Mr. John Brewer, a gentleman of independent
property, was charged before Mr. Bingham with
assaulting Mr. Thomas Archer, carver and gilder,
No. 3, Queen-street, Oxford-street.
The complainant stated that on Saturday night,
about half-past ten o'clock, as he was entering his
house with his supper beer, his attention was called
to the defendant, who appeared to be attempting to
commit a nuisance down complainant's area. He told
him that he must not commit a nuisance there, but if
he walked a little way down the street he wouldifind a
proper place, away from the public gaze. The de •
Pendant went away, but shortly after returned, and
spoke to two females who were in the street. Coin-
plainant thinking that the defendant had merely pre-
tended to go to the proper convenience, walked up to
him and told him so, whereupon he (defendant)
knocked him down and broke the jug containing the
beer. Complainant called out " Police," and after
some time a constable came up and took defendant
into custody.
In ireply to the charge the defendant said, on
Saturday night he was waiting in Queen-street for a
lady and her servant, who had been to the Princess's
Concert Rooms, when the complainant came up to
him, and in a very abrupt manner asked him if he
intended to commit a nuisance ? He said " Cer-
tainly not; why do you ask such a question ?" Com-
plainant replied "D
---n your eyes, if you do intend
to do so I will give you in charge." Defendant at
that moment saw the lady whom he was waiting for,
and went up to speak to her, while doing so, the com-
plainant came up, and seizing hold of his collar, called
him a d—n liar. He expostulated with com-
plainant upon his strange conduct and desired him to
leave hold of his coat collar. Complainant
refused, and a struggle ensued, the result of which
was the downfall of complainant. A constable
shortly after came up, and, by order of complainant,
took him into custody. Defendant had several wit-
nesses who witnessed complainant's strange conduct.
Mr. Harry Burke, 30, Half-moon-street, was then
called, and proved that the complainant's coi,auct
was violent in the extreme. He saw him holding
defendant by the collar, and heard him apply several
foul epithets to him.
The servant of the lady mentioned by defendant
also proved seeing complainant first strike defendant.
She also heard him call defendant by several foul
names.
Mr. BINGHAM said complainant had acted very
unadvisedly, and without the least provocation on the
part of defendant. He should therefore discharge
him.

Wm. Walker, an assistant to a chemist and drub •
gist, was placed at the bar charged with assaulting
police-constable E 103.
' It appeared that complainant was on duty in Ox-
ford-market about four o'clock on the previous after-
noon, when he saw the prisoner and another man
knocking at the door of a public-house. As it v. as
Divine service at the time he requested them ;;o desist
and to go away. They promised to do so, and com-
plainant proceeded round his beat. When he re-
turned, they were still knocking at the door, with
more violence than before. He told them to go away
'again, or he must take them into custody. He was
`on the point of leaving them when the prisoner's com-
panion came behind him and struck him a violent
blow on the back of his head. The effects of the
blow was such that he was some seconds before he
had power to look round him, when he saw the pri-
soner and the other man running up the street. He
'pursued them, and after a sharp run succeeded in
taking the prisoner into custody. The other man
w
made his escape.
The prisoner, who pleaded drunkenness as the cause
default,of his
committing
be the
imprisonedin
offence,
the Hasouse of CorrMtion fined 405., or, in
.for twenty-one days.
Mary Ann Geary was charged with stealing
iazo-
lume of the " Whole Duty of Man " from the
s op
of James Ripnell, 54, Goodge-street.
The prosecutor was in his shop on Saturday even-
ing, when he saw the prisoner come up to his shop
window, and, after looking round her, take the book
from the shelf, and walk away with it. He pursued
her and gave her in charge.
Police-constable'l4 E, said he took the prisoner into
custody, and found the book in her possession. He
also found a tin teakettle in her possession, which
quantity contained a large piece of soap and ,a • of
stay laces, the whole of which he had
ascertained she
had stolen.
The prisoner, was remanded till Thursday next.

ii
o
ingiisuied
orthtaatti
The Ministers will have a meeti n Wednesday
ng
(s to the
oin
next, t
John Ministers
the day previous to, the meeting of Parliament,
Tejoai
i n
ilsituesrsse
tol h
dinea‘'
vi,itls h m
Cabinet
Lordship's private residence in Chesham- p
laaye,e , at
iilti ii s..
grave-square.
Lord and Lady John Russell received at dinner on
Saturday evening the Austrian Ambassador and the
Countess Dietrichstein, the Belgian Minister, Niceount
Anson, Lord Glenelg, Lord and Lady Ashley, the lion.
G. Elliot, and Miss Lister.
Mr. Cobden, we understand, has announced his
intention of retiring from business in favour of his son ;
and will take up a permanent residence in the metropolis.
Mr. R. Coombes, coal-merchant, Wheeler-street,
Vauxhall, requests us to state that he is not the person
of that name charged tkt .gow7street, on Tuesday, the
2d instant.

r 17,01. 1

;

tc•

`_,:~,