The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-19 00:00:00

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 18.

THE PARISH OF ST. JOHN'S, HACKNEY-CHURCH RATES.
This was a libel brought by the Churchwardens of
St. John's parish, Hackney, stating that a rate for re-
pairing the Church was due from one William Nunn.
The question for discussion was whether the rate was
admissable.

Dr. Adams, on behalf of the Churchwardens, con-
tended that it was, and the. Queen's Advocate (with
whom was Dr. Bayford) for the respondent, that it was
not. Both the Learned Gentlemen having addressed
the Court on the more technical points, stated the facts
of the case, which appeared to be as follow :—A rate
was imposed on the parish of St. John's, for repairing
the Church, and the proportion in which the respondent
was called on to pay was 4s. 3d. The rate being deemed
oppressive by a large body of the parishioners, they de-
determined to oppose it, as they considered the Church-
wardens were not empowered by law to levy any rate on that
part of the parish of Hackney. The grounds on which they
came to this conclusion were—that in the year 1763 an
Act was passed, entitled the 30th of George the Third,
for the purpose of enabling certain parties to build a
new church upon the site of the old church of St. John,
Hackney, and enlarge the churchyard attached to it.
For this purpose the parish was to be assessed in the sum
of 28,0001. by trustees, who were to be the Church-
wardens, and who were likewise to be entitled to the fees
charged upon the burial of every person not an inha-
bitant of the parish, and all fines to be levied for refusing
to serve certain parochial offices on the part of those
who were duly elected ; which sums of money were ap-
piled to the purpose of keeping the church in repair.
These powers were to remain in the hands of the trustees
(in their capacity as trustees) without reverting to
the Churchwardens or Rector of the parish, until
all the provisions of the Act were perfectly fulfilled, which
had not been yet effected. It was contended also that
the churchwardens had not been duly elected. The
parish of Hackney had, since the passing of the Act
above-named, been divided into three separate parishes,
called West Hackney, South Hackney, and St. John's ;
and, although the persons elected as churchwardens of
the entire parish might be qualified in all matters relat-
ing to the poor, yet they were not considered entitled
to levy a rate upon one portion of the parish, as trustees
for the church, without the general consent of the pa-
rishioners. It was further stated that the churchwar-
dens had more than sufficient funds on hand, arising
from burial and other fees, to cover the estimate sub-
mitted to the tradesmen for required repairs.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, as there were many points in
the case which he would wish to consider before pro-
nouncing judgment, he should defer it until the next
Court-day.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 18.
MANSFIELD AND ANOTHER V. STANFORD.

This was an action to recover the sum of 41. 10s. for
goods sold and delivered, and damage done to certain
bell wires, belonging to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are wine merchants, and the defendant
is an architect, living in the same house with the plain-
tiffs, in Pall-mall. The house is the one in which the
celebrated Almack's balls were once held, and is of con-
siderable extent, containing no less than eleven stair-
cases, with subterranean passages innumerable. It was
stated that these passages had been used frequently by
the defendant to evade certain well•known individuals
called Sheriffs' officers, and by whom he was termed
" Spring-heeled Jack." The defendant had received, at
different times, small quantities of port wine, in all
amounting to 31. 10s., which had been some time out-
standing, and for which the present action was brought;
the remainder of the amount stated in the declaration
being for damage done to s•me bell-wires belonging to
the plaintiff.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF, in summing up, said,
that upon the declaration the plaintiff could not recover
the amount of damage done to the bell-wires. The de-
livery of the wines had been clearly proved.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 31. I Os.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

James Harris, a staid-looking septegenarian, and
Maria, his wife, and some 30 years his junior, were
placed at the bar, charged with having beet► found in the
streets " drunk and incapable of taking care of them-
selves."

Sir PETER LAURIE—Why, Mr. Harris, you must be
getting on to three score and ten ? Mr. Harris—l am,
indeed, and, though I say it myself, the soberest man in
London !—(Great laughter.)
Sir PETER LAURIE—And your wife—she's the sober-
est woman, I suppose ? Mr. Harris—l'm sure she is.
For my own part, I've worked for Mr. Paterson, in Cheap-
side, for the last 15 years, and he will tell your Worship
that he never once saw me too much in liquor, or rather
too much liquor in me, all the time I've been in his em-
ployment.
Sir PETER LAURIE—And how Came SUCh a sober
couple to get so very drunk ? Mr. Harris—That's the
mystery. I went into a house in the Strand, but how
the liquor got into my poor head I can't imagine for
the life of me. We had nothing to speak of.
Sir PETER LAURIE—Why, what had you ? Mr. Harris
—We had gin first, and then some rum, and on top of
that some ale !—(Much laughter, which Mr. Harris did
not seem at all to comprehend.)
Sir PETER LAURlE—There's no mystery in the busi-
ness at all.
Mr. Paterson stepped forward to confirm Mr. Harris's
account of himself, and
Sir PETER LAURIE discharged him and the lady,
hoping they in future would mix their liquors with
little more caution.
BOW-STREET.

A youth of about nineteen years of age, who gave the
name of Ozarks Tyrrel, but whose real name was stated
to be Alfred Garlick, was placed at the bar charged with
several burglaries.
There were already several charges against him of
breaking into and robbing houses in town, and Police-con-
stable 14 N, who apprehended him, said that ho had