The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-11 00:00:00

PROCLAMATION.

" We, George, by the grace of God King of Mos-
quitia (otherwise called the Mosquitia territory) acting
by the advice of the guardians appointed under the will
of our late father Robert Frederick, King of Mosquitia,
do ordain and it is herby ordained accordingly—
" 1. All persons, not being our natural born subjects,
who claim the right of holding land in perpetuity
within our kingdom by virtue of grants from the Crown,
shall without loss of time produce b f ,re us, or before
the guardians aforesaid, their several grants, or such
other papers on which they found their claims, for the
purpose of being registered.
" 2. All grants of land that shall appear to us, or to
the guardians aforesaid, to have been justly and properly
obtained, or to which the parties shall be found to have
otherwise an equitable title, shall be registered in the
offices of Government at Bluefields.

3. The occupation of land by all person; not being
natives of our kingdom, which shall not be duly regis-
tered as aforesaid, is illegal, and such land shall be in
revert to the Crown.

" 4. All our magistrates are directed to facilitate the
registration of grants within their respective jurisdic-
tions, and to dispossess and expel from their usurped
lands all occupiers (not being nwural-born subjects of
our kingdom) whose claims have not been duly re-
gistered.

"5. Claims for registration may be made, at the op
tion of the claimants, either at the residence of Mr.
David Kilpatrick, clerk of the courts at Bluefields ; or
in England, at the office of Messrs. Barron and Smith,
army ag( u:s, No. 4, Upper Charles•street, Westminster,
London. " In the name of the King,
"GEORGE HOI)GSON,
" Court-house, Bluefields, Acting Commandant.
12th day of February, 1846."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT QF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 10.
(sittings in Banco.)
mu QUEEN v. suArtr.
This case which has arisen out of a church-rate contest
was argued at great length this morning. It is an applica-
tion for a rule to grant a church-rate, made in the parish of
Wakefield, tinder the following circumstances :—A meeting
of the ratepayers lAtas called in the usual way, and after
some discussion a division was taken, and subsequently a
poll of the ratepayers, which resulted in a majority of four
in favour of the rate. The opposing party contended that
the vicar, who presided, had admitted many improper votes,
and that instead of a majority being for the rate, there
would be found, on a scrutiny, a majority of one hundred
and fifty against it. Some altercation took place about the
vicar not granting a scrutiny, and a committee was ap-
pointed, the result of whose labours did not give
satifacticn, as the magistrates were appealed to
against the rate. The magistrates dismissed the application,
an the result was the present appeal to the Court of Queen's
Bench to quash the rate, on the ground of the vicar refusing
to allow a proper scrutiny into the votes, and that, therefore,
the rate attempted to be raised was illegal.
Mr. Baines, with whom was Mr. Hall, was heard in sup.
port of the rule; and Mr. W. D. Hill and Mr. Atherton were
heard against it.
At the cl6se of the argument; the COURT, after reviewing
the whole case,, agreed that it did not come within their
jurisdiction, the vicar being an ecclesiastical officer, and in
virtue of his office sole scrutator and pre.icling officer in all
matters relating to the Church. He was, therefore, in that
capacity not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.—
Rule discharged accordingly.

BAIL COURT, June 10

This Court was occupied the whole of the forenoon in hear-
ing a bill case, the particulars of which were of no interest,
except to the parties concerned.

SECONDARIES' COURT, June 10.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
THE (MEN V. MA7.111.

This was a writ of extent, and the jury were called upon
to inquire of what goods, chattels, &c., the defendant was
possessed within the hai,iwick of the Sheriffs of London. The
case had been previously submitted to a jury, but the inquiry
was abandoned for want of evidence, and the Secondary said
that it could be renewed at any time before the return of
the writ. The following are tic facts of the case :—The
defendant is the widow of an officer of the East India Com-
pany, entitled to a pension of 2051. es 3d., from a fund,
called the Royal Bengal Military Fund,i founded by
Lord Clive, and of which the board at Calcutta
are trustees. It was customary for the amount of the an-
nuities due to persons residing in Rngland to be transmitted
to the East India Company, who paid it to them or to per-
sons holding their powers of attorney. In this ease the de-
fendant resided in Calais, and had been waived (or outlawed),
and had given a palter of attorney to Messrs. Richards,
Little, and Co., East India agents, iiishopsgate-etreet, who
had received it up to January last. The question now' was,
whether the Company held the money under the board and
were bound to pay it within the City of London, or whether
the parties entitled could claim it elsewhere. .
The SECONDARY said it appeared to him that the pension
at all events could not be touched, and that the Company
were no more than agents for the payment of the dividends.
It would be better, therefore, to get the secretary to the
East India Company to attend and explain the precise
nature of the fund and rights of all parties.
Mr. WARREN now contended that the body in India were
mere tervants of the East India Company, who sanctioned
the pension end required their officers to subscribe.
Mr. Thos. Keith, a clerk in the secretary's office, was
called—He said the money was merely advanced by the
Company as a matter of convenience. They never, in fact,
had the money, but there was an account current kept, and
sent over to the Government in India, who settled with
the directors or managers of the fund. An application
was made three or tour years ago to the Directors
to advance the money for the pension on receipt of a certifi-
cate from the agent of the fund, and it was consented to,
but they would not take any responsibility on themselves.
They might pay or refuse; there was no obligation to pay.
Lord Clive's fund itself was exhausted twenty years ago.
A tedious discussion ensued in consequence of Mr. Warren
claiming to tender what the Secondary deemed secondary
evidence of the defendant's title to the pension and the
liability of the East India Company to pay.
Mr. WARREN then suggested that a special verdict should
be given.

The SECONDARY said the inquiry was as to what property
the defendant was possessed of within the bailiwick of the
Sheriffs of the City of London. In his charge to the jury,
he said it appeared to him that the pension was due in India,
and that the Company were not bound to pay. A new writ,
however might be issued hereafter if other evidence could be
brought forward.
_ _

Tire jury found there were no goods, chattels, &c.

COURT OF BAAPKRUPTCY, June 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evaxs.)
IN RE W. 11. GREEN.

CAUTION TO INSOLVENTS.—The insolvent, who had car-
ried on business in the country as a dyer, came up to obtain
his interim order and protection.
Mr. STURGEON appeared to oppose on the ground that the
insolvent had paid several of his creditors in preference.
The insolvent, in hie examination, admitted that during
the last year he sold a small estate, on which he received a
balance of about 350/., the greater part of which he had
paid away to a few creditors after he knew that he was in a
hopeless state of insolvency, as he bad offered 10s. in the
pound, but had not made any statement of his affairs to his
creditors. He had since sold off all his property.
The Laarned Coors/sm., submitted that, on this showing,
the insolvent had excluded himself from the benefit under
the Act.

The insolvent's attorney said that the insolvent had not
kept back but a small sum, and considered he was bound to
pay as far as he could.
His Hosrouß said that some of the Commissioners had laid
down a rule which he thought very just and proper, that
when a person chose when in insurmountable difficulties to
administer his own estate, that they would not afterwards in-
terfere. The insolvent ought to have come forward when
he had the money; the petition must therefore be dismissed.
The petition was dismissed accordingly.