The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-06 00:00:00

MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 18-23.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.'
COURT OF KING'S 4ENCII; Jart.
KING v. VOYVAER.
This was an indictment charging the defendant, Mr. Poyn.
' der with refusing to Ochre the ()Mee of overseer of the parish of
St.Ann,.lllackfriars,tO which he had been duly appointed.
It appeared in evidence that Mr. Poynder, who was upwards
of 70 years of ae, ball been_ chosen by, the vestry as overseer,
and that the Choice had been regularly confirmed by two Ma-
gistrates. His housemf business was within'the parish, but he •
slept at his country house at- Clapham, leaving a clerk named
Mcdlicott in charge orthe premises In teem: 'Thithe year 1816
he had voted for one of the candidates for the Rectory.
Upan this evidence,. ,it was contended by. Mr. SCAR LETT
that the defendant was u householder within the meaning of
the statute of Elizabeth; which the' Co 3114614-SERJEiN T dis-
puted.:
The Loan GRIEF JUSTICE suggested, that' in order to
bring this question to a solemn determination, a verdict of,
gOilty should be taken, and the facts should he brought before
die Court on a special case. 'rue point waft of considerable imr
poruince, because many of the wealthiest merchants Or tnules-
men of London parishes resided personally in the country ; and
If they were held not liable to serve parochial offices, the bur.
den would fall with increased severity on others. lie did not,
mean to iireititlfe.e the queStion, direct the atten.
' tuns of the 0+01%94 for j defendant to the rase.of, theAitir
tlecleled last -.term ~in as s which it w holden. that Orr-
, chants of Bristol, ;lot sleriiiing* their houses in the city, Ware
householders in seek a sense as to entitle them to vote for. a
Commissioner of the Court of Requests.. ,
The C031310N SERJEAN'T replied, that in. that case a ilk.
tinction was taken in.the course of the argument by Mr. Jus-
tice BATLEY, between privileges anttduties ; but that this
was _not adopted in the judgment of the Court.
The Loun J usTlCt.—Certainly hot by rue, in giv-
ing in judgment. , ,
- The Jury found thodefendantguiity,subject to a special case.
111.-AIR AND -ANOTIIEIt,,v. THORN-.

This V/43 an action by Messra. Blair and Plimpton, seeds-
num, against a farmer of I,lssex, to recover 131. 18s., being the
price of rye-seed sold in April, 1820, by sample'. The defence
was that the seed was entirely valueless, not a blade of• grass
having arisen from the hind where it'was 'sown, and that it bad
been bought as send then coming in ahoy from Kent —Verdict
,fur the defendant.

DOL'BLEDAY V. PULLEN. -
This was an action for the recovery of 2,000.1. upon bills of
exchange, drawn by the plaitititf and accepted by the de.
fend an t.
The transactions between the Parties appeared to; be of a
very complicated nature. They had embarked in working, upon
)en extensive scale, a lead miue the Co' nntyof Durham, 1U
concerns were managed by shareholders. The capital ins dis-
tributed in fifty shares, twenty-seven of which were sold for
8,0001. each, and with the 210,010. so raised, 7e,000/. was ap.
propriated in the shape of capital for working the mines, and
the romaihtler,was sunk in a• variety of other disbursements
betwemthepardes. In the course of the business the plaintiff
and defendant:separated, the latter entering into an agreement
. m
make smite advances upon the credit of the.twenty-two un-
disposed shares of the mines. Bonds and deeds were ac.
cordingly executed by those concerned, and in a subsequent ar-
rangement, four notes of LOW. each, drawn_ by the plaintiff,
and accepted by the defendant, • were paid into the banking- I
troisibibleisrs. IritatOns, at Newcastle. The :Bankers com-
pelled the pla.intiff, who MIX the drawer, to pay these bills,
UpoU'their being dlshonotired by the defendant, whose affairs
had become embarrassed, owing to the unexpected failure of the
lead-minesilheshitres of-which were the security on which he
relied for the fulfilment of his contracts, The defendant re-
fused. ix) pay the Mites on the ground that the security, on the
faith of.which they had been given, had proved utterly. unavail-
ing..--The statute of Wasialsts pleaded, it not appear.:
ing that any promise of payment ,luttl been made within the
term of years. The latter idea was established,- and the
plaintiff was non-suited..