The Sun.
London, England, 1823-01-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 24.
Second day of Term
WILLIAMS V. ALTENUURY, IN TUE MATT ER OF BAD-
DINGTON COLLIERY.—JUDGMENT.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, as lie had promised, gave judg_
ment in this case, which had been before the Court for some
days past. It was in the nature of an appeal from an order of
the Vice-Chancellor. A sale had been decreed by the Court, in
'execution of the trusts of a will, of a colliery, and farm apurte-
nant. The first sale had miscarried in consequence*of a reser-
vation being made to the agents of the trustees and others to bid
for the property. A second sale was ordered, at which a Mr'
Bourne had become the purchaser for a sum smaller, than that
which had been bidden on the first occasion. This was
ac-
counted for by reason of a mistake having been detected in the
quantity of coal lying under the land, which was less than had
been advertised. The trustees were discontented with the sale
to Mr. Bourne and sought to have the biddings opened again.
It was alleged that a Mr. Thorne, forMerly an Officer in the
Navy, but now described as a coal and iron master, was wil-
-1 ling to have given at the sale, and was still ready to give, a
larger sum than that which Mr. Bourne had bought at, and he
had paid 9001. into Court as a deposit. Upon this circumstance
the trustees chiefly relied as a reason why the bidding should
be opened. It did appear upon the hearing before the Vice-
Chancellor that a man in very obscure station had been
employed to bid as. an *tit, and that if lie bad been de-
clared the purchaser, he would have been totally unable to
fulfil his contract. This fact had been much insisted upon
as evidence that the biddings were not made bona fide. His
Honour had, thought that the biddings should not be opened,
and in this opinion his Lordship agreed with him ; but the
Vice-Chancellor grounded his opinion upon the makfides
which infected this transaction, and he thought that if Mr.
Thorne had been really a bidder on his own account that he
might have opened the biddings : in this his Lordship differ-
ed from the Vice-Chancellor. It had been the uniform prac-
tice otall the Chancellors sittin in that Court during his
Lordship's practic-, from 'Lord Apsiey downwards, to regret
every time they had occasion, to open biddings. Though
he joined entirely in the same feeling, he did not think
he should ;be justified in refusing to do so upon all occa-
sions .when their practice had been opposed to their convic-
tions upon this subject. All the objections which applied to
disturbing sales in general were multiplied with regard to
collieries.. There were few, perhaps there were no circurn,
stances which should justify re-opening such sales. The
value of this sort of property was exposed to so many fluc-
tuations, and liable to be affected Ly so many unexpected
events, that such a measure might be most injurious to the
parties interested. A stoppage among the workmen, a frost,
a flood, and a thousand other circumstances, to which landed
and other property were not liable, made coal mines always a
hazardous, mercantile speculation. His Lordship instanced
case in which a colliery sold originally for 36,0001. had been
reduced by successive openings of biddings to 6,000/. • it af-
terwards rose to 15,000/., and at that price was finally sold. It
was for these reasons, for the difference between collieries and
almost every other property, that he was of opinion the bid-
dings should never be opened. The Court had regard not to
the interest of bidders, but to those of suitors, and upon the
general principle of protecting the latter interests his refusal
was founded. The facts of the case were not such as to induce
any departure from it. He had no doubt that Mr. Thorne was
a very honourable man, but it did not appear very clearly by
what means he had been transformed from a naval officer, to
au iron and coal-master ; the former agent clearly not a tit
purchaser. The case, however, was one in which he should
make no order respecting the costs, but would order that the
bidding should not be opened, and that Mr. Thorne should
have back the 900/. which he had deposited.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. al.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.—IN TUE MATTER OE LADY
CHARITY.
This was a petition presented by certain lessees on a farm
under the controul of this charity, and it prayed a reference to
the Master to ascertain if any, and what reduction should be
made in the rents paid on these lands. The petition stated,
that at present a rent of about 450/. was paid, and that in con-
sequence of the tall in the prices of agricultural produce, the
rent ought to be considered as much too large.
• The VicE-CuAIICELLOIt said, he could not listen to this ap.
plication, as emanating front the lessees of the charity. lithe
trustees had thought proper to petition, then the Court would
be induced to pay some attention to the application.,
Mr. CHINO, WhO appeared for the lessees, observed that
there would be considerable difficulty in the trustees petition-
ing, as they were all. of them persons of great rank, and
I must of them abroad. One of them was his Royal High-
ness the Duke of Cumberland, who was now out of the
kingdom.
Air. Kai (aim, for the trustees of the charity, said, that the
trustees, so far from desiring to petition the Court, had been
earnestly requested to resist the present application. A great
number of schools, in different parts of the kingdom, under
the controul of the charity, had petitioned the trustees to re-
sist it.
The VICE-CliAricELLon certainly could not attend to any
petition on the part of the lessees of the charity.
With respect to the casts, the VICE-CHANCELLOR di-
to pay them, unless it was proved by
V/43 made with the approbation of
raflithecettilistttleideeisa.ptettihistioanrepr

COURT OF XING'S BENCH, JAN. 24.
ARTICLES OF THE PEACE.
Mr. ADOLPHUS moved, on behalf of a person named Steel,
and two others, to exhibit articles of the peace against three
persons named Lucas.
The applicants appeared on the floor of the Uourt, and were
sworn to the truth of the articles.; which were then read. It
appeared that Mr. Steel was a silversmith, in Oxford street,
and that the other deponents were shopmen in his employ.
The principal defendant, Mr. Lucas, was a timber-merchant,
occupying adjoining premises, and the disputes arose respect.
ing a right of way claimed by Mr. Steel m the intermediate
passage. This right had been contested in an action at law,
and had been decided in favour of Mr. Steel; but Mr. Lucas
would not allow him peaceably to enjoy his privilege. The
articles set forth several acts of violence committed on Mr.
Steel and his servants, accompanied with circumstances which
induced them to believe that their lives were in danger from
the conduct of Mr. Lucas and his family.
The COURT thought they ought to receive the articles as
against Mr. Lucas and his son, but refused them as against the
third defendant.
Mr. AnoLPitus asked the amount of bail which the defend.
ants must obtain ?
The COURT. replied, that it was not usual to direct this in
the present stage of the proceedings.
THE KING v. TILE JUsTrCEs Or WARWIcEsiILitE AND THE
OUARDIAN's or TILE POOR OF TIIE PARISH OF BIR-
MINGHAM.
This case, which stood in the peremptory paper, came on
this day to be heard. The circumstances out of which it arose,
as ',disclosed by the affidavit of Willicon-Phipsen, were as
follows;—In the year 1819, a person named 11'illiran Inas-
tans was removed with his family from the parish of Aston
to Birraingham, by order of Justices, and received parochial
relief. In a short time he obtained a bituation its reporter to
a provincial newspaper, and thus acquiring a respectable sti-
pend, ceased to be chargeable to the parish, and continued to
reside at Aston. After he had followed this occupation for a
month, and had ceased during that time to receive any money
from the overseers, he was apprehended, without any previous
intimation, while taking notes of the proceedings at the public
office in Birmingham, and taken before Mr. Spooner and Mr.
Price, two Magistrates for the county of Warwick, on a charge
of returning to the parish of Aston without a certificate, after
his removal to that of Birmingham. He urged that he wits no
longer a pauper, and sought no assistance from any one ;. but
the Magistrates took on themselves to convict him of the alleged
offence, and committed him for a month to Warwick gag_
To: this prison he was Conveyed, and was not permitted to
communicate with hisemployer or his family ; and his family,
of`.course,
treated became chargeable to the parish. Vi'hen the trans.
reuactionor,Lgeneral eame known, it excited a very feeling that
Pittston% had been trea
with harshness, and :his employer,
Mr. George Edmonds, who at that time was the conductor
of a newspaper at Birmingham, published strictures on the
conduet of the Magistrates. A prosecution was subsequently
commenced against Mr Edmonds for a libel, which was con.
ducted by Messrs. Spurrier and Ingleby, solicitors, of Binning..
ham ; and at the trial, Mr. Edmond*, being advised that be
could not in law defend his observations, permitted a vertlicrof
guilty to pass against him. In the interval, betereen the con-
viction and the time when judgment could be pi ft meet.
ing of the rated inhabitants of the parish of- in liam
was held , for the purpose of passing the..aceaffris of the
'
g
late constables ,of the parish ; when, to the astonishment of
the great . body of the meeting, the hill of Messrs.. Spurner
and Ingleby for the costs of the prosecution of Mr. Edmonds,
amounting to no less a sum than 297/. 14s. 3d., was presented,
and its allowance claimed as a part of the expenses of the parish,
The parisioners, however, feeling that their opinion had never

been taken on the propriety of prosecuting for this libel on
the Magistrates, and that they had no concern in the business,
refused to pass or allow the claim. In the subsequent term
Mr. Edmonds was called .up for judgment, but, on the suggestion
of the Court, no judgment was passed, but his own recog-
nizinces were taken to appear and receive sentence, if called on.
In the January following another meeting of the rated inhabi-
tants of
.Birmingham was held, and the account of Messrs.
Spu nd Ingleby was again presented, with an addition of id
98k, l
. for subsequent costs, making a total of 3961. 19s. 9d.
Orl occasion the supporters of the. prosecution prevailed ;
thi 'bill was admitted by a small majority of the parties assem-
bled, and on the 29th of January the same was allowed by the
bmiirdians and overseers of the poor of the parish of Birming-
ham. Against this allowance Mr. Phipson, a rated inhabitant
of the parish, appealed, and his appeal came on to be heard at
the last Easter sessions for the county of Warwick. After hear-
ing the case, the Magistrates retired for about an hour; and on
their return into Court, the Chairman stated that the appeal
was dismissed. The Counsel for the appellants then asked
for a case, on which the opinion of the Courtof King's Bench
might be taken on the legality of the allowance; to which the
Chairman replied, that the Magistrates would grant a case, on
condition that the appellants would pay all the respondent's
costs ; but that if these costs were not paid, no case should be
granted.
Upon this singular decision an application was made to the
Court of King a Bench for a certiorari, to remove the order
of Justices made on the dismissal of the appeal ; when the
Court granted a *rule to show cause why such certiorari should
not issue, or why a mandamus should not be directed, com-
manding the guardians and overseers of the poor to make up
their accounts and submit them to two Magistrates, in the
course prescribed by the general law relative to such accounts.
This rule came on to be argued to-day. The merits of the
case did not at all come into discussion, but the argument was
directed to the question; how far the Court had junsdiction to
interfere, with reference especially to the 23 Gee. 111. c. 54, by
which the local government of the poor in Birmingham is
directed.

The COURT ultimately decided; that the rule for the certio.
rari should be enlarged, and that the mandamus should issue.
The right, therefore of the guardians of the poor to allow this
item of 3961. 10s. 9d. for the proscution of a libel on two Ma.
gistrates, will again be subject to scrutiny.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. 24.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
COOKE v. WHITE.

Sergeant PEL L stated the csse.—At the time the transaction
took place the plaintiff was an infant, and apprentice to a Mr.
Pitts, residing at Lambeth. On the night of the 24th of Au.
gust last the defendant called at the house of 'the plaintiff's
mother, and:gave plaintiff in charge of a watchman, for having
been concerned in a burglary, shortly before committed on the
premises of the defendant; the plaintiff' was accordingly car-
ried to the watch-house, and there detained until the following
morning, when, being taken before the Sitting Magistrate at
Union Hall, he was immediately discharged, there not having
been the slightest pretence for the charge preferred by the de-
fendant against him.
Joseph-Weaver—ls a watchman, his beat is in the Lambeth
New Cut; on the 24th of August last, the defendant requested
witness to accompany him to the house of plaintiff's mother, in,
Robert-street, Lambeth,marsh ; it was about 11 o'clock ; wit-
ness went with defendant, who knocked at Mrs. Cooke's door,
and on her answering, asked for her son ; she said he was in
bed ; defendant requested to see him on particular business;
plaintiff got up immediately; defendant asked him to go to
his house with him ; he did so ; defendant then charged plain-
tiff with having robbed his house ; plaintiff said he had warned
defendant of the intended robbery from a stispicious conver-
sation he had . overheard between some persona in a skittle-
ground, but denied having had any thing to do with them, of
he should not have told defendant of the conversation. An
officer then entered the room and asked plaintiff for one of his
shoes, which lie immediately took off and gave him ; the officer
and defendant then went with the shoe to the back part of the
house, and when they returned, defendant gave plaintiff in
charge to the officer, who not having handcuffs, tied a handker-
chief round his wrists and took him towards the watch-house.
Plaintiff was asked to give up the namesof the persons between
whom the conversation passed, which he had overheard and re-
lated to defendant; plaintiff expressed his willingness to do
so if he knew their names, which he 'denied being acquainted
with.

Cross-examined by Serjeant Vett7ollAlti..--Believes plaintiff
lives near defendant ; defendant's house had been robbed a few
nights before to the amount of 601. or 001. • plaintiff told de-
fendant that his reporting the conversation he had overheard as
a warning, did not agree with the probability of his having
been concerned in the robbery.
Ann Cooke.--Is mother to the plaintiff'; her son is 20 years
of age ; he is an apprentice to a gold and• silver chaser; re-
members defendant coming to her house on the night of the
24th of August last (witness corroborated the evidence of the
watchman); her son was asleep at the time; it was a Saturday
night; he was detained in custody until the Monday morning
following.
Thomas Batsford was with plaintiff on the night in ques-
tion, at the Nelson's Head, in IsTelson-square, Blackfriars-road ;
it was a Meeting of odd fellows ; accompanied him on his way
home as far as the Cobourg Theatre; it was about half-past
eleven o'clock.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant VAututax.—Has been an
odd fellow for eight months ; knew the hour from having
heard the watchman call the half hour ' • witness believes the
ff ,piainti to have been the only odd fellow taken up that night—
diought it very odd.
William Pitts—ls the master of the plaintiff, who has been
his apprentice for six years and a half, during which time he
has conducted himself with great propriety.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN would not deny the imponance
of the present case to the character of the plaintiff; but he
thought, that when the Jury had heard the case, they would
have a very different opinion of the bearing of its merits.--
No malice had been imputed, much less proved, against
the defendant ; and it would seem that he could not have
acted as he did towards the plaintiff but in error; for if not 1
to malice, to what other cause could the charge made against
the plaintiff be attributed, if not to error in the defendant ?
Much emphasis had been laid upon the communication
made by the plaintiff to the defendant, as having been made
immediately after it had been overheard, but he should
prove that such communication was not made until a fort-
night after it was known ; and what was the inference to be
drawn from that circumstance ? Why it was this—that the
Plaintiff was the associate of certain fellows (not the Odd Fel-
lows that had been alluded to), and a party with them to a
proposed burglary; he, however, thought proper to split, and
save himself tram all ill consequences of his evil association,
by disarming the plaintiff' of all probable ground of suspicion
of being concerned in the actual commission of the robbery.
' At a quarter past three o'clock the Jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 301.
Ills Lordship directed that the name of the landlord be for-
wattled to the Licensing Magistrate of the District.

CONSISTORY COURT, JAN. 24.
EIAWKINS AGAINST MACKIE, FALSELY CALLED DAWKINS.

This was a cause of nullity of marriage promoted by the
husbandatgainst the wife, by reason of her having, at the time
of her marriage with the party ymponent, a former husband,
who was then still living. .1%0 defence was made for the
wife.
Dr. LuS)IINGTON having read the evidence both as to the
fact ofmarriage and the identity of the parties.
Sir C. Rom zisox asked him how he meant to deal with the
sealed paper that had been brought in ?
(This paper contained the deposition of Mackie, the first
husband, to the facts above stated.)
Dr. LUSIIINGTON apprehended it might either be carried
into the Registry in its present state, or be destroyed. He re-
collected a case in the Prerogative Court, in which the former
course was pursued in respect of the deposition of a wife who
had been examined to her husband's interest.

The Couwt' said, the dout;ifn-tliepresent case arose, be-
Cause the witness was the first husband, and was now deceased.
The Court's predecessor, however, in a former case, did admit
such a paper de belie ease." The fact was, that there might
be most important evidence contained in such a deposnion
which the Court could not get at from any other source.
Dr. LutitttNGTOx reminded the Court, that in all prosecu-
tions for bigamy, it was customary to allow the second wife or
the second husband to be examined, in order to prove the in-
jury ; but the first husband; or the first wife was excluded from
giving evidence.
Sir C. ROBINsON then recapitulated the circumstances of
the case, which merely went to establish the facts of the first
and the second marriage; the identity of Elizabeth Mackie,
with Elizabeth, falsely called Hawkins; and the dates of the
two marriages. The first , marriage of the party with Mr.
Mackie took place in 1809. The second or pretended marriage
With Hawkins in 1820. Abundant evidence was adduced
to show that at this latter period Mackie was still alive: and
upon the proofs adduced, the Court felt itself bound to pro-
nounce the sentence of the law, that the marriage of Elizabeth
Mackie with Hawkins was null and void.

bINOtILAIt REMEDY roa lIOOPING COUGH.—
Dr. Archer, an American Physiciani has announced, that the
hopping-cough may be certainly -cured by vaccinating the pa-
tient in the second or third week after the commencement of
the disease.—(Noureau Journ. de Med. Sept. 18'224