The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-24 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. JOHN MORRIS TREHERN.

Mr. KELLY moved in this case for a rule to show cause
why a writ of certiorari should not issue, directed to the
defendant, one of the Assistant Tithe Commissioners;
and commanding him to bring into that Court his adju-
dication of the boundaries of the parish of Eversleigh, in
the county of Southampton, and Finchhampstead, in the
county of Berks. The application was made on be-
half of Mr. Fyshe Palmer, who complained that a
large piece of land in the former parish had been trans-
ferred by the Assistant-Commissioner to the latter. The
Learned Counsel having referred to the Act 2d and 3d
Victoria, chap. 62, which authorised the application for
a writ of certiorari, in cases where the adjudication of
tin -Commissioners was objected to, on complying with
certain conditions, and having stated that these forms
had been complied with in the present case,
The otu granted the rule.

TUE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF BERKSHIRE.
Mr.' Btr.ts • appeared to show cause against the rule
obtained in' this case, calling upon the defendants to
show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue,
directed to them, and commanding them to hear and de-
termine the complaint of Joseph Russell against the.
Stewards and members of the Cheshunt Friendly,Sii4ty,
and why they should not direct the Society tg.pay,pver
to him the sum of 451. It appeared that the Society„was
established in the year 1807, and by their rules it was
provided that on the payment of a weekly subscriptiOn
the members' were entitled, in case of sickness, to a sum-
-of one guinea per week for the first six months, and half
a guinea per week afterwards. The Society went on
prosperously for some years, when the members were all
young and healthy, but when they grew old and infirm
it appeared that the tables on which their calculations
had been founded were based upon wrong principles ;
they were in the high road to insolvency when, in 1835,
they passed a rule reducing the allowance in sickness to
10s. 6d. fur the first six months and ss. 3d. afterwards.
Unfortunately, howeier, the Society had omitted to
enrol the new rule, and it was consequently of no force.
The applicant in the present case claimed the original
allowance and arrears for the time past, and the matter
was, according to the rules of the Society, referred to
arbitration ; the arbitrator gave his decision in favouj of
the Society, and Russell then appealed to two Magis-
trates, who refused to entertain the appeal on the ground
that they had no jurisdiction, and in consequence the
present application had been made to the Court. Now,
he submitted that the present was not a case for the in-
terference of their Lordships, because he knew of , no-
instance in which the matter in dispute having been re-
ferred to a third party, and adjudicated upon by him, ,
the complainant was' entitled to the interference of that
Court.

Mr. G UNNING, having been heard at some length in
support of the rule.

The COURT was of opinion that the rule ought to be
discharged and with costs.

COURT OF EXCHE UER, Nor. 23.
IN RE SOANE AND OTHERS.

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved for a rule to discharge three
persons from custody under the following circumstances.
The applicant Soane was taken into custody in the West
Riding of Yorkshire on the charge of being in possession
of a quantity of worsted without being able to show an
invoice for it, in contravention of the provisions of the
Worsted Act. The other two persons who joined in the
application,beeatne bail for him, and were put under
terms to render him on the first day of the July Assiaes
to be held,
in Bradford. Accordingly on the day
named they:
;4;5 so, -to the ,Court-house, Brad•
ford, and gaie:him intO tlyi custody of the constable
there, and then they went 'away. Soane now deposed
that he was innocent of the charge made against him ;
that the constable; after detaining him some time, handed
him over to an inspector appointed under the Worsted
Act, who took him to a public-house ; they returned to
the Court-house, where the inspector asked him if he
was going to pay any money; he said no, he had nothing
to pay with, and was innocent ; and that then the in-
spector asked the constable what he was going to do
with him, who said he had better go about his business ;
and that lie was So discharged after being in custody for
for some hours, Neither of the three persons heard any-
thing more of the matter until the 15th of September
following, when they were all taken into custody and com-
mitted to York Castle. They were. very indigent persons.
The Comer—Do you state that the recognizances have
been entreated ? .
Mr. ARCIIBOLD—They must have been so, but it ,is
not sworn ; these parties know nothing about it.
The Coutrr—Would it not have been better to have
given notice of the petition to the Attorney-General ?
He would cause an investigation to be instituted, w hich
may savell3*-itime and expense.
Mr. Al9l{,}lOLD was not aware that such a course was
necessary.:, As the term was so far advanced, he would
prefer a rule nisi for the discharge of theparties.
The CouRT---,We cannot grant that. We can only
give a rule to show cause why the recognizanees shOuld
not be discharged; and your affidavit does not-disclose
whether they have been estreated or not. There must
be something more in the case, or the Magistrates would
not have taken such harsh steps.
Mr. ARCHBOLD—The case was clear enough. The
bail ought to have given Soane into the custody of the
gaoler, not into that of a constable. The case never
went before the Magistrates, and when called upon by
another party they were bound to estreat the recogni-
, zances, as a matter of course. They were very poor,
and it would be very hard upon them to be kept in cus-
tody until next term.
The CouitT—Take a rule. to show cause why the es-.
treat of the recognizances should not be set aside and the
prisoners discharged—to be served upon the Attorney
General and the jailer Of York Castle.
A gentleman behind the hai'moved for a rule to show
cause why the Master should not review his taxation of
lto action,the
the bill of costs. The plaintiff and defendant had settled
t
defendant'sa la
Masterll attorneyNtlvaesya about
demandedto be amicablyto have tbe settled,bbill taxed
lvh e
Before n
the
45., which being- disputed respecting an item of
disallowed, the attorney went before
Baron Alderson at Chambers, who then ht the Master
right, and decided accordingly. lie nowg came before
the Court to have the order, then made, set aside.
Lord ABINGER said this was a case in which the Court
would attempt so to modify any rule they might grant
as to make the costs fall upon the attorney. They dis-
pute about 45.; the client has no interest in it; they then
incur, costs to the amount of CI. to 81. When the rule
-comes on again we will take care that such costs do not