The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-14 00:00:00

BOLLS' COURT.-('PHIS DAY•)

DUNCAN V. IWCALMONT.
The arguments of Counsel in this case, which we re°
ported yesterday, were resumed this morning,.
Mr. Turner and Mr. Roupell (who were with Mr.
Kindersley) were heard for the lefendant.
Mr. Hull appeared for the owners.

QUEEN'S BENCH-:(THIS

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF CAMBRIDGE.
In this case a rule bad been obtained calling up°_,*
the defendants to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue directed to them, and commanding theta
to make compensation to Mr. Harris, whore they had h re',
moved from the office of Town-Clerk of the I3oroug
Catnbridge.
Mr. KELLY appeared to show cause against the ride!'
and front the statement of counsel. which was °f gres'
length, it appeared, that Mr. .Harris had been ap.
pointed to the offic.! of Town Clerk in 1833. end' ills;
he continued to hold the office till January, 1036' vitemp
and be a
the new Municipal Act came into operation,
then removed by the new Town Council, and another pan,
appointed in his stead. The defendants pleaded that t.°o".
were authorised by the 9th George lv. so to remove hi b;
and further that Mr. Harris, not having taken the c'fl,l_!..
and subscribed the declaration required by the 9th ure
I V., had no interest whatever in the office, and did •
gaily hold it, and therefore was not entitled to anY
pensation.
Sir W. FOLLETT, in support of the rn" c°ll'ota 01air,
14
that Mr. Harris was legally in possession of the 0
being protected by the Annual Indemnity Act. Tbal don
gave parties who had omitted to subscribe the declarat.o
so at sal
required by law, an opportunity of doing
previously to the 25th of March in each year. TT bflesart
fendants, however, by removing him on the lit of Ja",.-;
tt
had prevented his doing so, and 'he submitted tills,:
could not be urged against Mr. Harris that be hadinsa
taken the oaths and subscribed the declaration in pre;ture
years, because it required legal proceedings in theinglug
of a quo warranto, to require him to do so,.budt 17, the fa'
his title was unquestioned, he was proteetc
de
They
Act, Jones
The COURT said this was a return to a lea-asstioa
which called upon the defendants to make corePhei-, tice
to the town-clerk, they having removed him frotai,"h:Att
under the provisions of the new Municipal Act. `,:sce I
certainly gave the Corporation the two to eat
party without any misconduct being alleged--I°°/I.llcepw
the probability that the old officers would not be ac-isitli
able to the new Corporation, or would not co-ePerAtecoot•
them. That was followed up by a provision Itic;eo:
mon justice appeared to require, namely, that 'owe.
so removed should be entitled to com ensation- „awe":
tion was, whether the town-clerk wasP entitled lied
sation for the office he held, he not having coeltd
the requisition of the 9th Geo. IV., which requir`- 'bite&
persons appointed to offices of that sort should subs
the declaration within a certain time, otherwise thet foes
would be void. At the same time another law v4.l6,llagat
which certainly qualified the 9th Geo. I V. in a ve" -bst te.
manner, and was rather anomalous. It provided I gads
election and all the acts done in the office ibould 1
provided the party subscribed the declaration Wllood
" givenmoo
time. The defendants had not, however, re,e
106
the law clerk by quo warranto, and without that be de'
not called upon to defend himself
beenbse pad
Clara ion. No opportunity havin afforded 1;00 to
y the institution of legal proceedings of !tit
teat
defend his election, the Court was of °poll" ti• . Tb
was sufficient to give him a title to compel'', a'alate.
rule for the mandamus must therefore be rogue a

BAIL COURT._(THIS PA"

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
CRIMINAL INFORMATION. THE QUEEN
The ATTORNEY-GEANEAR'AALT •
rule OW,
upons Mr. Alaric A. Watts, thernBlp.orvoepdriefotrorBoftht; trec6::.
Sliervice ice
should Gazette,
n o hteo
filedlte suety
againstcause hwhy
irn afoCrrittiaplubilitel
in iin tiheartmPaajpeesttyo,sf
sae false
rvice and
. scandalous
The adavi
affidavits
libel fortatn:
noln_lutdheed7tthn ontpJpuenaereldastin, ththenardteicfelendenonnetsainiag e 'IDO
paper. a 0
officer on whose conduct the defendant hitt of
this article cast reflections was Lieutenant
the 49th Regiment. In that article Lieut.
ipeot
was represented as having neglected his duty, ao
time in idleness at home, while abler and better
his so
cars were serving their country under the scorehtiniguti.
of India. The libel then went on to state that wt,efider
nant Hart had been appointed to the recruiting le'fitiet
while officers possessed of stronbl
ger claims and gr
merits had been passed over. It also asserted that,
,;,f
had only been in the army eleven years, Ind that t,:tri.
that period he had been for six years absent from
Lieutenant Hart, in his affidavit, denied all these 4115
dons, and stated reasons for his absence front dutlirbeis
fer his being appointed to the recruiting service. . .eur
libels were calculated to be of serious injury to I: oh
and
dnt Hart, to destroy his prospects in his pt tbe
therefore he trusted the Court would go°
rule for which be prayed.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted 1110 'e
the rule WI
sitation.—Rule granted.

/be° tsg