The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-03 00:00:00

KITCHEN V, CROFT.

Mr. LlumPitanies moved in this case, which was tried
before Chief Justice Tyndal at the Kingston Assizes, fur
a rule to show cause why the verdict for the defendant
should not Le .set aside and a verdict entered for the plain-
tiff, with nominal damages. It was au action of trespass
and for an assault. The plaintiff was possessed of certain
land, which was vested in a man named Acton by an order
of the Insolvent Court, and the land was purchased by the
defendant from Acton, while the plaintiff was in custody
under an execution. The whole question was, whether
the land was legally vested in Acton, which the Learned
Counsel contended was not the case, as the writ was for a
sum of 20/., and by the 48th George 111., the plaintiff
having been more than twelve months in custody, was en-

titled—to his discharge, and was consequently out of the
jurisaietion of the Insolvent Court.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE thought-the meaning of the
Act was that the insolvent should in the first case make
satisfaction to his creditors by the remainder of his pro-
perty, and that consequently the land was legally vested in
Acton. The other Judges concurred, and the rule was
refused.

THE GREAT NORTH or ENGLAND RAILWAL COMPANY V. WEBB

Mr. COWLING moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiffs should not be set
aside, and a nonsuit entered by leave of the Learned
Judge. It was an action to recover the instalment due
on certain shares which the defendant had purchased
in the Great. North of England Railway Company, tried
before Mr. Baron Rolfe at the last Durham Assizes. The
application was founded upon a defect in the proceedings
of the Directors at the meeting, when the call in question
wasJesolved upon; and the Learned Counsel having re-
ferred at some length to the provisions of the Act under
which the Company had been incorporated, the Court
granted the rule.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON. )

N THE MATTER 07 THE POOR RATES OP THE PALISH OF ST.

ANDREW PERSHORE-MANDAMUS.

Mr. GREY applied to the Court tor a rule calling upon
four Magistrates of NS, orcestershire to show ....ause why a
mandamus should not issue, ordering them to issue a war-
rant of distress for the recovery of poor rates. The facts
of the c.ise were these :—A poor rate had been made for
the parish o' St. Andrew Pershore, to which a person of
the name of Thomas Woodward bad been assessed in the
sum of Si The parish was divided into six parts,
namely, the town of Pershore, in which was situated the
mother church and five chapelries, each having their
own chapel wardens and overseers, and maintaining
their own poor. Woodward had objected to pay the rate,
and had been summoned before the Magistrates. The
notice of this rate had been affixed to the door a the
church of St. Andrew, Pershorc, only inasmuch as it re-
lated solely to property situated in the town of Pershore,
and to none in the chapelries. It was contended before
the Magistrates, and decided by them, that the warrant
ought not to issue, because notice of it had not been posted
on the chapels of the chapelries, and also on the door of a
dissenting chapel in the town of Pershore, which, as was
contended, was required by the statute of the Ist Victoria,
cap. 45. Now, by the old law, the affixing the rate on the
church door only would have been held a good and suffi-
cient publication, and he contended that by the statute of
Victoria there was no necessity for such publication as had
been required by the Magistrates.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule. It appears to Inc
that they might as well require that notice should be af-
fixed upon the doors of a chapel in London.—Rule granted.