The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-11 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY -(THIS DAY

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor sat to-day in his
Court at Westminster.

THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. GAMBLE
AND NOTT.

Mr. BETUELL renewed his rnution to-day in this case
on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Electric Telegraph Com-
port), for an injunction to restrain the defendants,
Messrs. Gamble and Nott, from pirating, as the plaintiffs
alleged, a patent belonging to them for the construction
of electric telegraphs. Our readers will recollect that
the case came before the Court previous to the Christ-
mas recess, when we gave a short description of the
facts. The case will doubtless occupy the Court for a
day or two, if his Honour should hear the arguments on
both sides. Mr. Bothell, Mr. Teed, and Mr. Heathfield
are counsel for the plaintiff's ; and Mr. Stuart and Mr,
Crompton appear for the defendants.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY
(Sittings in Banco.)
This was the first day in Hilary Term. Neither the
Judges nor the Queen's Counsel appeared, in this Court,
in " full bottomed" wigs. Before the Judges took their
seats on the bench, the Attorney. General, Sir Frederick
Thesiger, and other Learned Gentlemen entitled, by their
position, to wear these flowing wigs, appeared in their
places with them on ; but on being informed by Mr.
Knowles, who appeared in the ordinary wig, that the
Judges in the other Courts would not appear in full
dress, they precipitately withdrew, and immediately after
appeared in. their ordinary costume. During the interval
much merriment was caused by counsel in flowing wigs
taking their seats, and on receiving the intimation re-
ferred to, hurrying out, and re-appearing instantly shorn
of very much of their " dignity."
THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS V. THE GUARDIANS OF
THE POOR OF BRISTOL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on behalf of the
Poor-law Commissioners, for a rule, directed to the
guardians of the poor of the city of Bristol, calling upon
them to show cause why a mandamus should not be
issued commanding them to furnish Mr. Alfred Whit-
taker, an auditor appointed by the Poor- law Commis-
sioners for the Somersetshire and Wiltshire districts,
with an account in writing of all " money matters and
things " expended by them for the maintenance. of the
poor for the half-year ending the 25th of march, 1846.
The parishes of which the defendants were the guar-
dians, overseers, &c., were incorporated by an Act of
Parliament entitled the 3d of George IV., c. 44, and
they were invested with authority over the poor, and
empowered to collect rates for their support. Last year
the Poor-law Commissioners issued an order to them,
amongst others, for the appointment of an auditor to
the district. Mr. Whittaker was elected in the month
of October, the guardians and deputy guardians voting
for him. In September he gave them notice that he should
shortly attend for the purpose of auditing the accounts,
but he was met by a resolution which the directors had
passed, setting forth that the greatest pains bad been
taken by them to have the accounts properly audited,
and that the intervention of the auditor would be wholly
unnecessary. They also objected to increasing the rates
by a salary to an auditor ; and finally came to the de-
termination not to submit their accounts to Mr. Whit-
taker until their liability to do so was declared by a
competent tribunal. They grounded their non-liability
on the 7 and 8 Victoria, sec. 32, c. 101, which autho-
rised the Poor-law Commissioners to combine parishes
or unions together, and to form them into districts for
the auditing of their accounts by the proper officer.
They contended that their district was not a parish or
union within the meaning of that Act. Now he (the
Attorney-General) held that the interpretation clause
appended to the Act put an end to this objection, inas-
much as it stated that parishes or unions should be held
to
ocal A m eactß
np—arisuhleesgorranutnedions specified as such under any
THE QUEEN V. WATSON.
This case was tried in this Court during the last term,
before the Lord Chief Justice. The defendant was in-
dicted for indecently assaulting a child, and for indecently
exposing his person in a public place, the public place
being Paddington Churchyard. He was found guilty of
the indecent expoaure. The case was fully reported in
The Sun at the time.
Sir F. DIESIGER now moved for a rule to show cause