The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-10 00:00:00

XXPARTE SITUTTLEWORTH.

Mr. PARRY applied for a writ of habeas to bring up,
and discharge from custody, the body of Mrs. Shuttle-
worth, now in custody as a lunatic.
The Learned COUNSEL stated that he made the aprli-
cation upon three or four affidavits. The first of them
was made by Mr. John Quail, a Member of the College
of Surgeons, who had known the lady in ques-
tion for five years, as she had been d uring
the whole of that period residing with him as a pati-mt,
for bodily and not mental disease. On the 9th of Au-
gust last, the lady, while in a carriage with the depo-
nent, was violently seized by a policeman, who acted
under the directions of some other parties, who acted
upon what he believed to be a medical certificate. On
that certificate being shown to the policeman he gave his
assistance, and the lady was removed to a lunatic asy-
lum belonging to Dr. Millingen, at Battersea. The de-
ponent stated that he knew the lady was of sound mind
at the time she was taken. The friends of the lady had
been unable to obtain a sight of the certificate, either from
the commissioners of lunacy or from the keeper of the asy-
lum. He (Mr. Parry) made an application to Mr. Justice
Erle at Chambers, and he there saw the certificates.
Mr. Justice Erle declined to interfere on the certificates,
but permitted him to make the present, application. The
certificates did not state the ground upon which the
party obtaining the certificate believed the person to be
of unsound mind. In the case of Fell, a lunatic, the
3d vol. of Dowling and Lowndes, page 373, which was
discussed before his Lordship, it was not held necessary
to state these grounds upon the certificate, but by the
Act Bth and 9th Victoria, sec. 46, chap. 100, it was
ordered that every physician, surgeon, or apothecary,
signing any certificate shall state the facts from
which he believed the party to be of unsound mind.
The affidavit stated that there were no sufficient
grounds for the custody of the lady alleged upon the
certificates as required-by the 45th section of the same
Act. He had the affidavit of Thomas Austin, who had
known the lady thirty years, and who believed her to
be of sound mind, as also the affidavits of Edward
Everall and Caroline Peachey, her servant. The lady
had always lived in strict retirement upon a pension of
1001., and the parties proceeding against her were utter
strangers to her. Under these circumstances, it would
be no injustice to the interests of lunatics in general if a
writ of habeas were granted. All access was denied to
the lady, and there was no affidavit from her.—Mule
granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WELBY V. BROWN.
In this case the particulars of which were given in
The Sun of last Tuesday, and which was tried upon that
day before Mr. Baron Platt at nisi prius
Mr. MARTIN moved, pursuant to leave given at the
trial for a rulo calling upon the defendant to show cause
why the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
for the whole amount. The question for the decision of
the Court was the amount of liability attaching to an
overseer for orders given by him during his year of
office in matters connected with parochial business, and
also whether he was held liable for services rendered to

the parish in consequence of orders so given in after the
expiration of his year of office.
The COURT held that the verdict was good, and ought
not to be disturbed. The fact of the plaintiff having
made out his account to the defendant, a circumstance
strongly relied upon by the Learned Counsel in the pre-
sent motion, was not sufficient to render defendant liable
for the payment of the same.—Rule refused.
SWEARING IN OF THE LORD MAYOR.

This being the day for swearing in the Lord Mayor
upon his accession to office, the Court was crowded to
excess by persons anxious to witness the ceremony. At
two o'clock the Lord Mayor, attended by the Civic
authorities, entered the Court, when the usual oaths
were administered to him by Mr. Baron Parke, the
Lord Chief Baron being prevented from attending in

consequence of a domestic calamity.
The usual invitations to the Judges to attend the ban.
quet were then given and accepted, and his Lordship and
the other members of the Corporation withdrew.
Their Lordships then proceeded to dispose of several
motions, none of which presented any feature of public
importance.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Banco.)
COULING V. COCKS.

This case was tried at the last Surrey assizes, before
Mr. Baron Parke, and a verdict given for the plaintiff
on all the issues but one. An action had been brought
by the plaintiff against a person named llolks, on which
the defendant was subpcciated as a witness. He failed to
attend, and in consequence the plaintiff was obliged to
withdraw his record and pay the costs. The present
action was to recover the costs so paid. The issue on
which the verdict was given for the defendant was cn a
plea in denial that the plaintiff had good cause of action
in the case Cocks v.
Mr. Fists now moved for a rule for a new trial on this
issue, or tor an interpleader, and contended that it was a
matter of indifference to the present case, whether in
the former one there was or was not a good cause of
action—the witness was in either case bound to attend.
Rule granted.