The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-08 00:00:00

M'KENNA V. PAPE.

90U
92%

21%
21%
411
52

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
Dublin, 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, he 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 him such license ; but that the
defendant disregarding his duty in that behalf,
refused to grant the plaintiff the license be 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 liceuced
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-
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 from
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, 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 Gth and If th 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 final 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 Saturday&

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY).
His LORDSHIP was occupied all the morning in hearing
motions, which were of no general interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his
Court in Lincoln's Inn to-day and heard motions.

ALLEN V. WILLIAMS NE EXICAT REGNO.
Mr. C. HALL applied to-day in this case for a writ of ne
Exeat Rep 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 legac3 of
901. 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
184/., and 30/. for interest. The affidavit further stated that
the defendant Williams had offered the plaintiff 881. 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
detested 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, he 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 plaintiff's in this cause a single shilling of their demand,
and that he repeatedly affirmed this with an oath. Under
these circumstances the Learned Cour-Awl trusted his Honour
would grant him the Ne exeat Regno marked in the sum
of 2141.

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

SMITH v. LADBROOKI.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied
his Honour the remainder of the morning,
( Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. Butter.)
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
Hollins, who was described as a substantial yeoman resident
in Staffordshire or Worcestershire. By this relationship sic
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 life 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 had
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 same. 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 Homourt 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 multis 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 W 143
entitled to a residue of his property.
The costs were reserved.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
ZARSER v.• BRADLZY.
RAILWAY ADYERTISJEMHISTFL—This action was brought by
plaintiff, an advertising agent, to recover 571., being a
balance of a larger sum for advertisements inserted in the
various London papers on behalf of a company, called " The
Dutch Hanoverian Railway Company," of which the de-
fendant was a director and one of its most zealous supporters.
Mr. William Dickinson, the secretary, was called to prove
the orders for the insertion of the advertisements, and also to
establish the defendant's liability. Upon examination this
witness stated that all the directors, the defendant amongst
the number, had subscribed a sum of 101. each for "contingent
disbursements," which sum was afterwards returned on the
deposits being paid by the shareholders. Witness also stated,
and which appeared on the resolutions, that one of the di-
rectors, named Collins, had undertaken to get the adver-
tiaemoiatil inserted through all mutt 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 the work now
in
operation.
This being the plaintiff's case, the Learned CouxsEr., 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 LORD 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
therefore he, the secretary, gave the necessary instruction,
to the plaintiff.
Upon this the Learned Counsel for the defendant ll
urged the nonsuit upon another ground, namely, thatis
Dickinson had no authority to pledge the defendan
credit; further, that Bradley had intended the sum of 104
to cover contingent disbursements, and declined to 10°13_1
liable for anything beyond that sum. The Learned Counse,
further submitted that this was not the plaintiff's Isar'
but that of the company suing their co-director, the e°
fendant ; that there was no evidence to go to the jury-
The LORD CHIEF BARON said he would reserve the p?lri—
raised by the defendant's counsel, but that lie was of opinionthere was abundance of evidence to establish the defendant!
liability, and he would put it to him, the defendant's counseit
whether he had not better address the jury.
on
t
Upon this some discussion took place between counsel up
both sides, and it was ultimately arranged that a verci:tch
should be taken by the plaintiff for the amount claimed, With
liberty for defendant to move to enter a nonsuit if the Coe"'
eau
should be of opinion that the plaintiff ought to have b
nonsuited. an
Mr. Watson and Mr. W. Ogle appeared for plaintiff,
Mr. Hoggina for defendant.

CRIMINAL COURT.-THIS DAY')
OLD COURI.
(Before the RECORDER.)
James Manning, James Shanley, and George Smith, Alia.
gr
Houghton, were indicted for a burglary in the Woo °-
f •
George Haynes, in the parish of St. Pancras.
Mr. Haynes said that he was the master of the prisonert
Manning, and that the latter must have been cogaizallt tho
there was a considerable quantity of copper coin in the eh
on the night when the robbery was committed.
W. Hayden, a butcher boy, deposed that about one o'clock
in the morning he saw the prisoners Smith and Shinuleic
coming out of Mr. Hayne's shop-door with two bilge tmt
appeared to be very heavy in their hands, and that alte(Ai
immediately after they had shut the door Smith's fell
off and a quantity of halfpence rolled out of it. He 41411"
lied the prisoners.
Police-constable 195 G stated that he took the Prionella..
into custody at a coffee-shop in Wortley-street, and that
found the sum of 2L 183. 43/4d., of which he took possessil:
Former convictions were proved against Shanley and Sinit
an,
The jury found all the prisoners Guilty, and Shanley_,2_,,,
Smith were sentenced to ten years' transportation, and Dl3'
th lord
ning was sentenced to twelvemonths' imprisonment, wf
labour.
George Simmons, a pork butcher, was indictsfor cuttiffg
and maiming Sarah Woods, with intent to doer grieve°
bodily harm.
It appeared by evidence of the presecutrix that she Wen!
into the prisoner's shop to buy a saveloy ;that some differ
arose between them, and that while she had hold of t 2;
saveloy the prisoner struck at it with a cleaver and cut off t"'
end of her finger. • WO
It was contended, on the part of Simmons, that this
quite an unintentional act, and the effect of accident.

itiry believed him, and he was Acquitted.
This concluded the business of the Old Court • the il
Court; ~. I
were dismissed, and the sessions were adjourned till the
of March.

SURREY SESSIONS.-(THIS DA."
hs
TUE RICHMOND RAILWAY—RIGHT ON PAUL...Arr
--i-it
an appeal made by the Richmond Railway Company se{
a conviction of two justices of the peace for the coutitib,o
Surrey, for obstructing a pathway called " Wright's Pa...,,,t•
leading to Church path, Richmond, Surrey. The P4;c,
authorities prosecuted and obtained the conviction, but
process was served until after the decision of this appeal' th
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Taylor appeared for the responder'
and Mr. Locke and Mr. Corner for the appellants. botll
The CHAIRMAN, having heard the arguments 00 A to
sides, taid that the parish bad acted strictly legal,
Beach should, therefore, confirm the conviction of the Et4b
trates, with costs.

COURT CIRCULAR. sal
-WINDSOR, SUNDAY.—Yesterday morning the Queen sod
Prince Albert took walking exercise in the slopes
grounds around the Castle.
Prince
Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, -
Alfred, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice took vi
iug and pony exercise yesterday. aS
Her Royal Highness the Princess Helena was taker'
airing yesterday.
His Royal Highness Prince Albert hunted Yee— arld
morning, accompanied by Count Alexander Mensdorfl;
attended by Lord Camoys, Mr. Anson, the lion- CeP
Boyle, and the Hon. Captain Gordon. 00
Viscount Morpeth arrived at the Castle yesterday'
visit to the Queen.
; lelded
The royal dinner party at the Castle, yesterday, -ile,der
her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, Count Alel," the
Mensdorff, the Lady in Waiting of the Duchess of
Baroness de Speth, Viscount Morpeth, the Viscountess,'" and
and Mr. Vaughan, Captain Lord James Murray, l'l'Docif
Mrs. Ralph Neville, Mr. G. E. Anson, Sir George an waif
Couper, General and Lady Isabella Wemyss, and Lady
Hay.
The band of the Ist Life Guards attended during d_iriberse
Her Majesty's private band performed the remainder of
evening. Consort took
This morning her Majesty and her Royal `a"""
their usual early walk. e~cereise this
The Royal family took walking and P°l3-'
forenoon in the ounds around the Castle.
The Queen andgrPrin
ce Albert, the ladies and gen!ldenideivainde
the Court, and the domestic household, attended
uOO.
service to-day in the private chapel of the Castle. .The
and ltev. C. Leslia Courtenay officiated.
A deputation from the merchants and planters of CeyloOr
consisting of Mr. Samuel Gregson, Mr. P. W. Austrutherl
Mr. J. G. Frith, Mr. W. 11. Thomas, Mr. R. Christian, and
Mr. J. S. Stopford, had an interview with Earl Grey 00
Saturday, at the Colonial-office. The deputation l'o
headed by Mr. Pattison, M.P.
Dr. Ferguson and Sir Benjamin Brodie had an interrier
with Sir George Grey on Saturday, at the Home-office.
A deputation from the Health of London Associatiol4
consisting of the Rev. M. W. Lusignan, M.A., Dr. W. Veer
lius Pettigrew, Dr. Hector Gaoni, Dr. Evans Riadore, Dr. A•
Barnett, blessrs, P. Brandon, Thomas Abraham, J. F.Clarke'
Joseph Rogers, M. Davies, and Thomas Brett, had an int.!:
view with Viscount Morpeth on Saturday, at the office of p_l!
Woods and Forests, in Whitehall-place. The deputatea_
presented to his Lordship suggestions fur the heads of s
natory Bill for the Metropols.
The Earl of Powis and aideputation from the Shrop_sthill
Union Railway Company had an interview with the UV.
Hon. E. Strutt, on Saturday, at the office of the Comm
sioners of Railways, in Great George-street. Davie.
The Duke of Wallington attended the _eA,T•inev. LPG
yesterday in the Chapel Royal, St. James's. The
the daily
Wesley officiated, and preached the sermon. ;4,-„ and
service the prayers were read by the Rev. Dr. lYt.‘"i'imi was
the lessons by the Rev. Mr. Helruore. The se"""-
preached by the Rev. Mr. Bouverie. The anthem was' at
worship the Lord" (Hayes). Sir George Smart pros' ts.
the organ. The Bishop of London administered the 610.
ment. Lords Salisbury, Listowel, Ebrington, and
ham were among the nobility present. bf
The Bishop of London has appointed Mr. R. Barn Of
Gentleman of her Majesty's Chapel Royal, in the room
the late Mr. E. Hawkins.

The Marquis of Lansduwne left town on Saturday.

Y.
-0T MEETING OF THE IRISH the
There was a very numerously attended meeting 0.,f
•
Irish party" on Saturday, at their apartments in Old r4"7 of
yard, Westminster, specially convened for the pueposcons
considering the Bill introduced into the House of Consa
to
by Lord J. Russell, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Labotic?!..te
" to make further provisions for the relief of the de-4w'
poor in Ireland."

Lord Monteagle was called upon to preside. 00
Among the Members of, the Houses of Peers and Cornra.,,e.,
present were—the Earl of Mountcashell, Viscount p°7lo
raile, the Earl of Fingall, the Marquis of Sligo, the garcimr,
of Conyngham, Lord Clements, Mr. D. O'Connell, if,
G. A Hamilton, Mr. W. S. O'Brien, Mr. D. O'Conne"
jun., Mr. W. R. Collett, Mr. Robert Dillon Browne' Coll.
Acton, Mr. Robert Archbold, Sir H. W. Barron. 1111"„iee
Butler, Mr. Daniel Callaghan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr.
Power, Mr. Edward Grogan, Mr. William Henry GregTir,
Sir Thomas Estuonde, Mr. F. French, Mr. H. Grattan,
James Kelly, Mr. Anthony Lefrov, Mr. John O'Brien,
Ralph Osborne, Captain Taylor, and Mr .H. M. Tuite.
The Noble CIIAIILMAN read the clauses of the Bill serial"-
f the
It was generally agreed that the present powers 0 r
guardians were not sufficient for the due relief of the P°e
;
and; there appeared to exist an unanimous opinion as t 0 tobf
necessity of empowering and requiring union boarueled
guardians to relieve destitute persons permanently disah
by old age, infirmity, or bodily or mental defect, either in
out of the workhouse, as might be considered expedient. ~s
Upon the second clause of the Bill, which enacted t
the guardians might be authorised by the Poor-law C°tfy
missioners to give outdoor relief to persons not perinaner:
disabled, there was considerable discussion. Thep rinaof
of extending this mode of relief in food, save in case,e,,,l,
is
sudden and urgent necessity, found a number of supPorrtie
but there were some who expressed themselves antagon_.„,
to the Ministerial proposition in terms almost similar toths
which they declared immediately after Lord John lin%se of
exposition of his projected Irish policy in the 110 u"
I Commons.
The fourth and fifth—save as to the number of relieLinr.g,
officers that might be deemed requisite—sixth, se'r—ed,
and eighth clauses of the Act were briefly considert of
The ninth clause, which provided that all relief given oat be
the workhouse under the provisions of the Act 8110 r-that
charged upon the poor-rates of the whole union, and " be
no relief given under the authority of the Act shoulad
ministered out of the union to which it was charged, cA,, icy
an animated and protracted discussion. The great niss-rsod
of Members present declared themselves favourable to,
determined to support, a continuance of the al
tern of taxation by proportionate assessment on the elec
districts. of ar
It was generally admitted, however, that the mode °d
sessing the poor's-rate should only last until there W 0,,"" to
moro leisure to effect cautious and salutary change., m"
distribution The of taxation.
clause rendering the administration of relief
the Act subject to the direction and control of the For- Ar.
Commissioners having been duly canvassed, and it being
ranged that Ministers should be questioned in Corntaitteeded
to the full extent of the powers with which it was inteLrd
to invest them, the thanks of the meeting were voted tt,l;oic
Monteagle, and an adjournment shortly afterwal.di
place.

The Right Honourable the Speaker of the 11011ge
of Commons gave his second full-dress Piano:2oaq
banquet on Saturday last, at his mansion in Elit'llliathr 0
The following noblemen and gentlemen constant tile
circle:—The Right Honourable Sir Robert Peal.
Earl of Lincoln, the Right Honourable Henry
the Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, the Right Hon. Sire Jamesrod
Graham, the Right lion. Lord Granville Sonourrsthea- ry
Ernest Bruce, the Earl Jerm L Charles " `'"- le" '
Yn, ord!a boo,
the Right Hon. W. Bingham Baring, Viscount m-. 1
the
the Right Hon. Lieutenant-Colonel DAWBOLI Darner, L.
Right Hon. Sir George Clerk, the Right Hon. 11„en„r4".,
Oorry, Hon. H. Manners Sutton, Hon. Henry '""" lei
Hon. R. Gordon, Hon. James Stuart Wortley, Sir
It Crear-
Douglas, Bart., Sir F. Thesiger, Sir Fitzroy Nel,. Card-
Admiral Bowles, Mr. T. Greene, Mr. H. Bar'l (who
lie ton
well, Mr. Young, Mr. Cripps, the Rev. Andrews, chaplain to
the Speaker, who was absent from indisposition),
and Mr.
officiated in the room of the Rev G. .
Lefroy, secretary to the Speaker. 13Gsatouibi
at.lit.
SIR W. GOSSETT.—The respected Serges.
• Pore
Arms of the House of Commons is Saftag NIS 111
tio) At hie ant at Quito/ KIM.
indißposition),