The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-16 00:00:00

CORBETT V. HUDSON.

This was an action against the keeper of the
Queen's Prison fur a false return to a writ of habeas
corpus. The cause came on for trial at the sittings
after last term, when the plaintiff, not being able to
prove affirmatively that the plea was false, was non-
suited. He subsequently applied for a rule to set
aside that nonsuit, on the grounds, first, that he was
not bound to give that affirmative proof, but that the
defendant was 'wound to prove the return to be true ;
and secondly, that he was taken by surprise at the trial.
Lord DENmaN now &livered the judgment of the
Court. The declaration alleged the return to be
false; the plea, which was simply not guilty, denied
that allegation. -Under this state of pleadings the
plaintiff was bound to prove affirmatively what he had
affirmatively alleged, and as he had not done so the
rule must be refused.

Mr. Cobbett, in person, then moved for a fresh
habeas corpus, expressing his opinion that the same
return woul.l again be made, and that he could then
bring the question fully before the Court.
The COURT did not see that it was certain the same
return would be made, and declined to issue a new
writ, the only ohject of which appeared to be to in-
volve both the parties in needless litigation.—Rule
refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 15.
TOMS, APPELLANT, V. LUCRETT, RESPONDENT,
Continue-d from our Afternoon Edition ofyesterday.)
Mr. GROVES was heard on the part of the respon-
dent, and contended that the decision of the revising
barrister was perfectly correct. Ile cited the case of
" Wansey v. Perkins" as bearing closely upon the con-
struction put upon the statute by Mr. M‘Christie.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, after consulting his learned
brethren, said, as the case of " Downing v. Luckett,"
No. 12 on the list, involved to a considerable extent
the same p,int, the Court was desirous that it should
be heard before they gave their decision. His
Lordship observed that it referred to a counting-
house, where the occupier had no key, but where an
agent of the landlord, acting for the convenience of
all the occupiers of' the house, had a key with which
he opened the outer door in the morning and shut it
at night.
DOWNING, APPELLANT, V. LUCKETT, RESPONDENT.
Mr. CROMPTON, who was also engaged in this case,
then read the particulars of it, which were as follows :
—Mr. 11. P. Downing had occupied a counting-house
at 11, Mark-lane, for three years, at a rent of 20/.
per annum. Six other parties, beside the landlord,
occupied offices in the same house. There was also
only one entrance to it, which was through a spring
iron gate, that was kept sometimes open and some-
times shut. There was also a large wooden gate
which was opened during the day, and shut at night.
A person, who was employed by the landlord, lived
in the house with his family, for the accommodation
of the occupiers, and for the purpose of protecting
the premises. The revising barrister decided that
the appellant was not entitled to be on the register.
Mr. Crompton's arguments, on the part of the appel-
lant, were a repetition of those urged by him in the
precedieg case.
Mr. GROVES was briefly heard in reply.
The CIIIEF JUSTICE said, in the case of Toms and
Luckett, the question referred to the Court was very
limited in its character. After stating various cir-
cumstances it proceeded to say that it was contended
on the part of the appellant, that as the landlord did
not reside on the premises, but merely occupied a
part of them, and that as the appellant had a key of
the outer door, the landlord's occupation did not pre-
vent him being enfranchised, and that he ought to be
registered. It was objected on the other hand that
Mr. Toms had no exclusive control of the outer door,
and that he was merely a lodger. Now (the Chief
Justice) was of opinion that the objection was
not well founded, and that the absence of
exclusive control over the outer door ought not
to interfere with the appellant's right to vote. It
seemed to him that the apartment occupied by the
appellant might well be considered as a separate
dwelling, and that he must therefore be looked upon
as a tenant. The revising barrister, it appeared, had
found him qualified in every other respect exclusive
of the control of the outer door; but that was not
essential to his proper qualification, and he was of
opinion that the appeal ought to be allowed, and the
appellant's name restored to the register.
The other judges concurred in the above opinion.
Appeal allowed.
The CIIIEF JUSTICE then said, that with respect
to the case of Downing v. Luckett, he was of
opinion that the circumstances were precisely similar
to the apartments in the Albany, the shops
in Burlington-arcade, and various chambers and
premises in the City, where the gates to them
formed a common entrance, and where the porters or
persons who had charge of them were men lv
placed there for the accommodation of the tenants at,(l
the protection of the premises, and not for the pur-
pose cf qualifying the landlord to vote. lie was
therefore of opinion that the appeal in this case should
be allowed and the decision of the revising barrister
reversed.
Appeal accordingly allowed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, ..Vcr. 15.
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE WILLIAM BUTCHER.
This insolvent applied to be released upon bail until
the day appointed for his hearing; but it appearing
that a detainer had been lodged at the suit of the
Crown for non-appearance before the Income-tax
inshollivs.enitlo:,
CummiAsioner3,
°lti'llthedli
:Ilea that he could not assist the
made his peace with the Crown.
—Bail refused.
This iniNsolitv,.-_Vt,Lta\VEfrLuLirtNmaNTele°;:cl':ps.;!Pli°edwifso'r an inte-
rim order of protection.
oppose
The Learned COMMISSIONER asked what was the
insolvent's income.
The insolvent said it varied; last year it was 203/.1
The CHIEF COMMISIIONER inquired whetter he
hal any proposal to make for the benefit of his ere-
ditors.
The insolvent At first was disinclined to make any