The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-09 00:00:00

M'KESNA v. rArE.

This case came before the Court upon a writ of error from
the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland,
affirming a decision pronounced in the Court of Exchequer
there against the defendant. An action was brought by the
plaintiff in the Court of Exchequer of Pleas in Ireland against
the defendant under the following circumstances :—The
plaintiff in error is a publican, carrying on business in
Dubin, and is duly licensed under the 3d and 4th
of William IV., and the 6th and 7th of the
same King, to sell spirituous liquors by retail.
to be drunk on the premises. Being desirous of taking out
a license as a tea-dealer, be applied to the defendant, who is
the officer of Excise for the Dublin district, to grant him a
license, having. first duly complied with all the requisites of
the statute. The defendant refused to grant the license,
stating that the recent Act, 6th and 7th of William IV., in-
capacitated a publican from taking out such a license. The
plaintiff being advised that he was not incapacitated, brought
an action on the case against the defendant. The declaration
in that action contained two counts. The first alleged that
the plaintiff was a person duly licensed to carry on the trade
and business of a retailer of spirits, to be consumed on the
premises, and was desirous to trade in• and sell coffee,
tea, cocoa-nuts, chocolate, and pepper, and for that purpose
duly made entry of a certain room in a certain house in the
Dublin Excise district. That the defendant was the collec-
tor of Excise for the Dublin district, and a person employed
to grant Excise licenses within that district required to be
taken out by persons carrying on any trade or business sub-
ject to the Excise laws. 'That the plaintiff' being so licensed
to retail spirits, and being entitled to receive such a license,
applied to the defendant for a license to trade in coffee, &c.
That he paid to the defendant the amount of duty legally im-
posed upon such license, and demanded from the defendant
that he should grant hint such license ; but that the
defendant disregarding his duty in that behalf,
refused to grant the plaintiff the license he required. The
second count was similar to the first, with the exception that
it alleged a tender of the amount of duty instead of payment,
and also stated that the plaintiff was a person duly licensed
to carry on the trade of a retailer of spirits to be consumed
on the premises, but not to sell spirits to any other retailer.
To these declarations the defendant demurred generally, and
, the plaintiffjoined in that demurrer. The case came on be-
I fore the Barons of Exchequer in Ireland, when the question
raised between the plaintiff and defendant was, whether or
not it was the duty of the defendant to grant
to the plaintiff the licence he roquired, the de-
fendant contending, that by the true instructions
of the statutes the same person could not hold a licence to
deal in tea, coffee, &c., and a publican's license; and that,
whichever was first obtained incapacitated the party frota
obtaining the other. On the part of the plaintiff, on the
other hand, it was argued, that a person licensed to deal in
tea, coffee, &c., was not by the statute incapacitated from
holding the licence of a publican, and that a publican was
not incapacitated from obtaining a license to deal in tea,
coffee, &c. ; and that, even if the defendant's view of the
3d section of the 6th and 7th of William IV. was correct, that
the business of a publican and tea-dealer could not be carried
on at the same time by the same person, such a fact could not
authorise the refusal of the defendant to grant the license.
Judgment was given for the defendant without any more
formal argument, in order that the opinion of a Court of
Error might be taken, and the matter brought to the House
of Lords for its consideration and dual judgment. A writ of
error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, and
the decision was affirmed, and from that judgment the pre-
sent writ of error was brought.
Mr. Napier, of the Irish bar, and Mr. Peacock were counsel
for the plaintiff in error, and the Attorney-General and Mr.
J. P.Wilde appeared for the defendant.
Their Lordships, at the conclusion of the arguments, stated
that they would give judgment on Thursday.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S SITTINGS.
It is generally understood to be the intention of the Lord
Chancellor to sit in the House of Lords to hear appeals on
Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and in the Court of
Chancery on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays.

ROLLS' COURT, Feb. 8.
His LORDSHIP was occupied all the morning in hearing
motions, which were of no general interest.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Feb. 8.
(Before the VICE-CRANCELLOM. of ENGLAND.)
his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his
Court in Lincoln's inn to-day and heard motions.

ALLEN v. wir.LiAms NS EXEAT REGNO.
Mr. C. HALL applied to-day in this case for a writ of ne
Exeat Regi o against the defendant under the following cir-
cumstances. The bill was filed by the plaintiff; a lady, named
Allen, against the defendant, for the recovery of a legacy of
90/. The plaintiff was also entitled to two other legacies of
a similar amount bequeathed to her two sisters, who had since
died. The defendant was the executor under the
will, and the affidavit upon which the applica-
tion was made stated that, after giving credit to the
' defendant for the expenses he had been at, and the money
received, he was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of
18 it., and 301. for interest. The affidavit further stated that
the defendant Williams had offered the plaintiff 88/. to com-
promise the suits, and that upon the plaintiff's refusing to
accept that sum, in order to terrify her to do so, the defen-
dant had, with an oath, stated that he knew he would be
defeated in the suit; that he had no ties in the country, and
that he would resign his living, put on his hat, and take the
first railway and go to Belgium ; that he would not go
to America, where, by the international laws of the
two countries, lie should be made amenable to the
defendant, but that he would go to a country where the law
could not reach him, and that he would never pay to any
of the plaintiffs in this cause a single shilling of their demand,
and that he repeatedly affirmed this with an oath. Under
these circumstances the Learned Counsel trusted his Honour
would grant him the ;Ne exeat Reg-no marked in the sum
of 214/.

His Honour immediately granted the writ marked with
the required sum.

SMITH V. LADBROOKK.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied
his Honour the rem iinder of the mornin-

morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. Bitusric
This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the
Lord Chief Justice, before whom the cause was tried, had
rejected evidence on the part of the plaintiff which was
essential, and which would have materially affected the ver-
dict of the jury. The facts were simply these :—The plaintiff
was next of kin of a person named Elizabeth Allen, who died
in 1840, and who it was contended was the daughter of John
Hollin?, who was described as a substantial yeoman resident
in Staffordshire or Worcestershire. By this relationship site
would have been entitled to the property of a relative de-
ceased. Mrs. Allen was stated to have married a jeweller,
which match being below her rank in lite led to a separa-
tion between her and her relatives, with whom all inter-
course from that period terminated. It was further stated
that Mrs. Allen lost her husband 25 years before her death,
during which time she was living in great indigence. The
evidence in support of the plaintiff's case was the statement
of the grandson of Mrs. Allen, who deposed that he bad
seen his grandmother write, and that a document corrobora-
tive of the foregoing statement was in her handwriting, and
the depositions of a person named Loyd as to certain obser-
vations confirmatory of the sante. The evidence rejected
were two declarations, one written by the deceased Mrs.
Allen, and another by her brother-in-law, as well as certain
interrogatories to elucidate the pedigree of Mrs. Allen.
The defendant denied the alleged relationship, and the jury
found in his favour.
The case came before the Court last term, when the argu-
ments were concluded.
His Hosroaa delivered judgment to-day, and having gone
through the short-hand writer's notes, the notes of the judge,
the evidence pro and con., affidavits made subsequent to the
trial, cum muftis aliis, decided that there should be a new
trial on the second issue, on condition that the plaintiff
should sue in right of Mrs. Shields, as sole administratrix of
Mrs. Allen ; that Richard Hollins left Mrs. Allen clearly his
sole next of kin, or one of his next of kin, and that she was
entitled to a residue of his property.
The costs were reserved.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Feb. 8.
(Before the Loup CHIEF BARON.)
BARKER V. BRADLEY.
RAILWAY ADVERTISEMENTS.—This actiovnwsa7si.
,being a
brought by
plaintiff, an advertisin agent, to recoer
balance of a larger sum for advertisements inserted in the
*
various London papers on behalf of a company,
Company," called " The
Dutch Hanoverian Railway
of its naot zealous supporters. which the
de-
fendant was a director and one
Mr. William Dickinson, the secretary, lleadndtoulpsorost'oe
liability.
the orders for the insertion of the
advertisements,waca
Upon examination this
establish the defendant's
witness stated that all the directors, the defendant amongst
the number, had subscribedsum
a
sum of 101. each for "contingent
whichdisbursements,"was afterwards. returned on the
deposits being paid the shareholders. Witness also stated,
ruens
do leur
tt
ei eines, tht
oa t
goente t
ho
ef tandev de
ri
--
rectors, named Collins,
and which appeared on thehd
a
tisements inserted through an agent, the board undertaking
to indemnify that gentleman. It was also shown, that all
the directors, except the defendant, subscribed large sums to
the company to defray the expenses of tha work now in
operation.it
is
Phis being
the plaintiff's case, the Learned COUNSEL, on
the part of the defendant, submitted to the Court that the
plaintiff must be nonsuited upon the following grounds;—
First, that Collins having undertaken to procure the insertion
of the advertisements upon being indemnified by the board,
that he. Collins, and not the defendant, was liable.
The Loup CHIEF BARON, on this point, recalled the se-
cretary, who, in answer to his Lordship's question, stated
that Collins failed to get the advertisements inserted, and
to
therefore
the pla stiff , the secretary, gave the necessary instructions
Upon this the Learned Counsel for the defendant still
urged the nonsuit upon another ground, namely, that
Dickinson had no authority to pledge the defendant's
credit; further, that Bradley bad intended the sum of 101.
to cover contingent disbursements, and declined to be-come
liable for anything beyond that :ntn. The Learned Counsel
further submitted that this was not the plaintiff's action,
but that of the company suing their co- director, the de-
' fendant ; that there was no evidence to go to the jury.
The Lora) CHIEF BARON said he would reserve the points
raised by the defendant's counsel, but that he was of opinion
there was abundance of evidence to establish the defendant's
liability, and be would put it to him, the defendant's counsel,
whether he bad not better address the jury.
Upon this some discussion took place between counsel upon
both sides, and it was ultimately arranged that a verdict
should be taken by the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with !
liberty fur defendant to move to enter a nonsuit if the Court
shou!d be of opinion that the plaintiff ought to have been
Lonsuited.

Mr. Watson and Mr. W. Ogle appeared for plaintiff, ari
Mr. Hoggins for defendant.
(fittings at Prius, before the Loan CRIEF ,BARON
Common Juries.)
ALLEN C. SIIARPE.
In this cause Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Ogle appears.'d. fo r
the plaintiff, Mr. Whitehurst and lan Pashley for th
defendant.
The action was brought to recover the value of certain
goods, the property of the plaintiff, which 'had been sei2e4.
by tile defendant, in his cvacity as collector of taxes.
Tl.e question to be decided, which was one of some impor.-
tance to the keepers of " commission stables," w4s, whether 7
a party holding what are termed commission stables for the.,
sale of horses, who was not a purchaser of them, but merely'
received a commission on their sale, was liable for the pay- -
ment of the horse dealer's license.

The plaintiff was the proprietor of the commission stables
in St. Martin's-lane, known as "Aldridge's," and where
sales of horses were regularly made, and until the period of
the sale arrived, the horses intended for sale were kept, but if
not sold at the sale they were returned.
The defendant, being a tax-collector, had charged tl .a
plaintiff wit h the amount chargeable under the horse-dealer le
1 e made a claim for the sum of 27/1 10s., which r all
being paid, defendant put in an execution and seized the go• 344
of the plaintiff in satisfaction thereof. The present action_ of
replevin was therefore brought.
The Court decided, after having heard the evidence ire the
case, that an action in the form of replevin eculd not be
maintained, and it was finally arranged that a vez, lict should
be taken for defendant, iubjeot to the case being mar 7e Apetia 1,
for the purpose of coming on for argument before the Cc utt...

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. S..
WILKINSON V. BE.ADEN.
This was an action to recover 211. 7s. 6d. for work and
labour. The defendant denied his liability beyond if
The plaintiff is a manufacturing engineer, carvin lc on
business in Crosby-place; the defendant, Captain Be: td en,
was formerly an officer in the navy and was stated t d IA
a gentleman of great mechanical skill.
It appeared that the defendant had invented a plan, , by
which a person sitting in a carriage might, by touchi: if,;
spring, raise or lower the top of the 'vehicle, and that he rill"
ployed the plaintiff to construct a practical model, with
which, it seemed, he was satisfied.
A great number of witnesses were examined. Those on
one side :dated that the charge was a fair one, whilst t. /col
on the other held that it was too high.
The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintif r lot
17/.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURI.‘,..
OLD COURT.
(Before the Enconnan.)
James Manning, James Shanley, and George Smith, arias
Houghton, were indicted for a burglary in the house o.F,'
George Haynes,i in the parish of St. Pancras.
Mr. Haynes said that he was the master of the prise Tier
Manning, and that the latter must have been cognizant That
there was a considerable quantity of copper coin in the &bop
on the night when the robbery was committed.
W. Hayden, a butcher boy, deposed that about one o' el ock
in the morning be saw the prisoners Smith and Sb as ley
coming out of Mr. Hayne's shop-door with two bags . that
appeared to be very heavy in their hands, and that aas (lost
immediately after they had shut the door Smith's hat fell
off and a quantity of halfpence rolled out of it. . He ida ad- .
fled the prisoners.
Police-constable 195 G stated that he took the prisot era
into custody at a coffee-shop in Wortley-street, and that he
found the sum of 21. 18s. 43/4d., of which he took possessie.n.
Former convictions wore proved against Sh. anler and Smith.
The jury found all the prisoners Guilty, a nd ghanley and
Smith were sentenced to ten years' transportation, and Man-
ning was sentenced to twelvemonths' imprisonment, with hard
labour.

George Simmons, a pork butcher, was ind icted for cutting
and maiming Sarah Woods, with intent to do her grieyons
bodily harm.
It appeared by evidence of the prosecutrix that she went
into the prisoner's shop to buy a saveloy ;that some difference
arose between them, and that while she had hold o 1• the
saveloy the prisoner struck at it with a cleaver a.ad cut of f the
end of her finger.
It was contended, on the part of Simmons, that this was
quite an unintentional act, and the effect of accident.. The
jury believed him, and he was Acquitted.
This concluded the busineila of the Old Court; the jury
were dismissed, and the sessions were adjou med till the Ist
of March.