The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 24.
THE NULL AND SELBY RAILWAY.
Sir WM. FOLLETT said in this case a rule had been ob-
tained for a writ of certiorari to bring up the informations
taken before the Coroner, with a view to their being
quashed. The case was one of those accidents which had
lately occurred, and he must observe that if any power was
given to Coroner's juries to punish in case of accident,
there should be some mode of regulating the proceedings.
He bed several objections to make to the verdict. In
the first place the jury bad found only one gene-
ral verdict on view of three bodies of persons who
had been killed, although the cause of death in each
of the three cases might be altogether distinct. The
inquisition could not be taken upon the three together. In
the next place, the deodand of 500/. was general, although
Rt might apply to one death, and not to the others—they
.Iving found that the steam-engine and the railway car..
,i-73 were moving to the deaths of the parties, and levied
a rieoiand of 500/ Anwher objection was, that where the
Inquest Jury only affixed their marks, these marks should
.e attsted, which had not been done in the present case.
Aaother objection was, that in the statement of the
cause of the death, it was said that they had bean ocea-
st.an:d by the filling of a large mass of iron off the car-
riages, by whioh the carriages bad been overturned, and,
filling upon the parties, had occasioned their deaths.
New, although the carriages were there distinctly alleged
to h.) the cause of the deaths, the deodand bad been levied
t.pon the steam-engine.
Lord DEN M interrupted the Learned Conusel by ob-
serving, that it would be better to have the case put into
the Crown paper, when the arguments would come fully
before the Court.

THE QUEEN V. HUDSON.
In this ease a rule had been obtained for a quo werranto,
upon the defendant to show by what authority he
.aimed to be a councillor of the borough of Totnes, he
,t being entitled to be on the burgess roll, and not being
oily rated to premises in the borough.
The COURT, after hearing the arguments of Mr. Erie
r erainst the application, discharged the rule.
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF SALOP.
In this case a rule had been obtained for a mandamus
Virg upon the Justices of Salon to show came why they
.!-ould not hear an appeal against en order for the removal
of William Griffin. Mary, his wife, and foir children, and
cause the next General Quarter Sessions to hear and
determine such appeal.
Sir F. PoLLocx now appeared to show cause against
the rule. The single question which their Lordships would
have to determine was whether the Crown having granted
a Court of Quarter Sessions with a separate jurisdiction
to the town of Shrewsbury, an appeal might be carried to
the Quart: r Sessions of the county and not to the Quarter
Sessions of the town. The Learned Cl having re-
furred to the terms of the 11th
section ofounse the Municipal
Corporation Act by which the jurisdiction of the boroughs
was established,
The COURT did not think that the case came within the
terms of the 11th section of the Act. At all events there
was doubt enough to warrant them in granting the rule.—.
Rule absolute.
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF BERKSHIRE.
The AT CORNEY GF.NERAL moved in this case for
rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should
not issue to bring up an order of the Justices at
PorytaZseticeass
the Quarter Sessions with a view to its being quashed.
was one of extreme im The question
regarded the jurisdiction of Borough and Count
licenses. By the 9th Geo. IV,, chap in granting alehouse
c va_
81, there was to be a meeting of . the Justices inth
rious districts of the several counties, and likewise in the
several boroughs, for the purpose of granting licenses
•
The Act pointed out the various things which the Jus.
tices were required to do, and the 27 th section provided
that any person who felt himself aggrieved by any act of
the Justices might appeal. '1 he questionaving refused a party
in the present case
was, whether the Borough Justices, h
a license on the ground that there was no occasion for the
multiplication of puhlic-houses in the town, there was any
jurisdiction in the County Justices to grant the license.
He submitted that there never was any power of appeal to
the county Justices, and if there was, that it had been taken
away by the 11th section of the Municipal Corporation
Act.

Lord 120xNMAN thought it would be better to grant the
certiorari at once, and bring up the order when the quei-
tloof jurisdiction might be determined.
:bl—r. CANNINOTON on the other side having assented, the
rule was made absolute.

LEN'S BENCH GUILDM4LL, Nuv. 24 .
Before Mr. Justice PArrEsom and a Common Jury.)
The greater part of the day was occupied in hearing
undefended cases, founded upon claims on bills of ex-
change, none of which possessed the slightest public in.
t rest.

HACON O. DEACON.
In this ease which was au action brought for the re-

covery of the sum of 671. 3s. 6d., for work and labour
done, and materials supplied, Mr. Hall read an affidavit
from the defendant's attorney, to cause the trial to be
postponed.
Mr. Justice PATTESOI4---It does not appear to me
that the grounds mentioned in the affidavit, and requir-
ing the postponement of the trial, rest on the merits of
the case ; and, therefore, in accordance with the ruse I
havn laid down, I shall decline postponing it.
Mr. HALL—Under these circumstances, my Lord,
I am without a defence, and do not mean to be seen in
the ease. .

111 r. Justice PATTESON—WeII, I shall shut my eyes,
and not see you.—(A laugh.)
Mr. C. JONES then proceeded to state the case for
the plaintiff, who was a builder in Newington, and exe-
cuted work to the amount sought to be recovered for
the defendant, a leatherseller, residing in the same place.
Evidence having been adduced, a verdict was returned
for the plaintiff, in the full amount claimed.
The Court then adjourned to the 11th December.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nor. 24.
RODEN AND OTHERS V. WOOD.
The defendant in this case being in the custody of
the Warden of the Fleet prison, under an attachment
for contempt, applied to have the rule under which he
is in custody discharged, on the ground that the plain-
tiff ought to have filed interrogatories, and that the
rub was informal. He said he could not make the ac-
counts required of him whilst he was in prison.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the charge against
him was, that he had received large sums of money be-
longing to others, and the only way to get out of his
difficulty was to give in his accounts.
Application refused.
The Court sat till six o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, NJ v. 24.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HARRISON V. WARNFORD.

SIR F. Pot-Lock moved for a rule nisi, to set aside
the execution which had issued in this case, on the
ground of collusion. Tho plaintiff bad been a servant
of the West Cork Mining Company, of which the de-
fendant had been a director. The Court were much
dissatisfied with the conduct of the Directors,
they accordingly applied to Parliament, and obtained an
Act giving the shareholders power to discharge them.
In 1838 a general meeting of the shareholders was called,
bcfcre the holding of which the defendant transferred one
of his shares to another party, by which act he disqualified
himself for the Direction—it being necessary fora Director
to hold fiftc,n shares. Of this the plaintiff was perfectly
aware, yet in January 1839, he commenced an action against
the defendant as a Director. The action was set down
for trial on the 7th November, and it was not till the 6th
of that month that information of the fact was given to the
Solicitors of the Company, nor was any defence made by
defendant, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with
621 damages.
__ .

Mr, Baron GURNEY—Was it in 1839 or 1840 ?

Sir F. Pou.ocx.—lt was in 1839, and he might as
well explain why there had been so much delay. When
the verdict passed, the Company were advised that their
remedy was in a Court of Equity; they therefore made
application to the Court of Chancery ; but, upon hear-
ing the case, the Vice-Chancellor referred the parties
to the common law. It was under those circumstances
that he now applied for a rule to set aside the execution.
—Rule nisi granted.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. JONES.

Mr. PLATT moved for a rule to show cause why the
trial of this information, which was fixed for the 28th
instant, should not be stayed till the sittings after
next term, on the ground of the absence of two material
witnesses. The information contained no less than 105
counts, but the main charge in all was that the defendant had
illegally removed certain goods without payment of the cus-
toms. The notice was given on the 2d inst. ; the defendant
was then in Paris ; he immediately came borne, and had ever
since been looking for two witnesses, without whose evi-
dence he could net safely proceed to trial, but as yet he
had been unsuccessful. He had not come to the Court to the
last moment, because he might have been answered by the
Court, saying he might meet with the witnesses to-mor-
row. •

The COURT granted a rule nisi.—Cause to be shown to-
morrow.

CASEY U, TOMLIN.

Mr. ERLE and Mr. HUMPHREY showed cause against a
rule obtained by Mr. Butt, calling upon the plaintiff to
show why he should not be dispauperised. The plaintiff
commenced an action, and sued in forma pauperis. The
defendant paid a sum of money into Court, which the
plaintiff took out, but still proceeded with his action for the
larger sum. The Learned Gentlemen contended that a
person being once admitted to sue in forma pauperis could
not be dispauperised during the progress of the suit.
Mr. 131"TT supported the rule, and

.. ,
The Coußr said the rule must be made absolute. The
plaintiff having taken the money out of Court was no longer
a pauper, and if he chose to proceed for the larger sum, the
defendant had a right to have some security for his costs.—
Rule absulute.

SHERIFF'S COURT, Nor. 24.
MESSRS. WRIGHT'S BANK.
In this case a Jury was empannelled to execute an
inquiry under the direction of the Sheriff, which had
been issued at the instance of her Majesty's Commis-
sioners of Stamps and Taxes.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF, in charging the Jury,
said that he held in his "and her Majesty's Commission,
under which they were to inquire if Anthony George
Wright, Biddulph John Wright, Henry Robinson, and
Edmund William Jerningham, carrying on the business
of bankers and co-partners together in Henriefta•strcet,
Covent Garden, were indebted to the Queen in any and
what sum of money.
Mrs. Maria Roberts, of Hammersmith, stated that
she had an account with Messrs. Wright and Company,
in the joint names of herself and Ann Roberts, her sister.
The money belonged to the Crown, and was handed to
witness by her nephew, Mr. Alfred James Roberts, and
she deposited it for safe custody at Messrs. Wright's
ban:. She was in the habit of drawing the checks.
Mr. Alfred James Roberts said that he was Collector
of Assessed Taxes for the district of Hammersmith,
and in that capacity he received about 4,0001. p r
annum, which he entrusted to his aunt, the last witnes ..
to pay into the bankers. The monies had been draw.
out of Messrs. Wright's hands, with the exception c.'
2161. 55., which they still possessed, and which he in- :
tended to have paid to the Receiver-General to-mor- I
row, if Messrs. Wright had not stopped payment.
Mr. BURCHELL, having briefly addressed the Jury, 1
they found that the sum of 2161. ss. was now due from
the above firm to the Commissioners of Assessed Taxes.
It was understood that an execution would forthwith
issue for the recovery of the above amount.