The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-10 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

RATING OF LITERARY SOCIETIES.- THE QUEEN V. THE
JUSTICES OF BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. MILLER, on behalf of the parish officers of the
borough of Birmingham, applied to the Court for a rule
calling upon the justices of Birmingham to show cause
why they should not issue a warrant of distress against
certain parties who bad been rated to the poor for pre-
mises occupied by them, and described as the " Bir-
mingham Library." The parties claimed to be exempted
fr,ra payment of the rates under the 6th and 7th Vie.,
cap. 36, which exempted literary and scientific so-
cieties from being rated to the poor, but the
parish contended that the Birmingham Library
did not come within the meaning of that
Act, and accordingly the parties were summoned before
the magistrates for the rates, but the justices refused to
grant a warrant of distress, on the ground that Mr. Tidd
Pratt's certificate, which had been conceded to the li-
brary, ought to be taken as a sufficient proof that the
conditions of the 6th and 7th Vic. cap. 36, had been
complied with by the defendants. The Court of Queen's
Bench, however, had decided in the case of the Queen
against Phillips, that the obtaining of the certificate was
only one of the conditions precedent required by the Act,
and it was by no means conclusive that the granting of
that certificate was a sufficient guarantee that all the other
conditions had been complied with. Now the Act of Parlia-
ment required that all societies instituted for the purpose
of promoting science or literature, to be exempt under its
provisions from the payment of poor-rates, should be
supported by voluntary contributions; but in this case
the library was supported by each member paying an
entrance fee of 21.25., and an annual subscription of 1/. ls.
This library could not, therefore, be said to be supported
by voluntary contributions, any more than that a railway
was supported by voluntary subscriptions. The next
condition required by the Act of Parliament was that
the institution should divide no dividend amongst its
members. It was true that in this case the parties did
not pay dividends, but one of the rules of the library
gave the members power to dispose of their interest
in the concern at a profit, if they could ever
do so, and it was apprehended that this rule would place
the institution beyond the provisions of the Act. There
were many literary institutions more or less interested
in the settlement of these points, and it was that reason
which induced the Learned Counsel to introduce them;
but the chief point he intended to rely upon was grounded
on the decision in the case of the governor of the poor•
house of Bristol against Waite, which established the
Principle that a party could not maintain an action of
replevin against parish officers for a distraint for rates,
where an appeal bad not been made to the rate. Now,
in this case the parties had been assessed since 1843, but
they had never appealed, and it was now too late for
them to object to pay.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said the question ought to be
inquired into, and granted a rule.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
PHILLIPS V. COOL
This action was tried at Guildhall during the last sit
tings, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, da.
mages 297 L
Mr. CROWDER now moved for a new trial on the
ground of misdirection. The plaintiff is the owner of u
vessel which had arrived in the London Docks with a
cargo from the Mauritius, and he directed the defendant
who ,is a broker, to put what is called " a atop
upon the cargo, as security for the payment
of the freight. A part of the cargo belonged
to Messrs. Gower and Co. who sent a lights r.
to the docks for the purpose of having; their goods taken
Ire m the ship before they were landed. The mate
allowed the goods to be placed in the lighter, and hay
ing given an order to pass them, they were taken to St.
Katharine's Docks. Messrs. Gower and Co. failed
before payment had been made for the freight, and the
plaintiff contended that the broker ought to have put
a stop upon the goods when in the London Docks,
and as he did not do so, held him liable for the
amount which was found by the verdict. At the trial
the Chief Baron who tried the case left it to the jury to
say, whether under a general order to put ftoptupon
goods which were afterwards transferred to another dock,
it was the duty of the broker to follow them for the
purpose of securing the freight. The Learned Counsel
contend, d that this was an unheard-of duty devolving
on the broker, and said that the brokers in the City
were extremely dissatisfied with it. If the case was
tried over again Le felt convinced that it would end in a
very different result.
The COURT took time to consider.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
IN RE RICHARDSON.

This bankrupt had carried on business as a hosier in
New Oxford-street, and to-day was fixed for his cer-
tificate.

Mr. LAWRENCE said the bankrupt was not in attend
ante, and, in fact, had absconded after passing his last
examination.

His Horaoun asked how a day came to be named for
the certificate, if the bankrupt did not mean to come up?
The official assignee said it was pretty well understood
that the bankrupt dad not mean to come up at the time.
The only point of interest in the case was an applica-
tion on behalf of the Messrs. Everett and Hill, auc-
tioneers, &c., to prove for 101. for letting a house for
the bankrupt. On the last meeting the bankrupt posi-
tively swore that the house was let by has exertions and
not by the claimants, and the case stood over.
His floacoun said that he had no doubt in the case.
The only question was one of amount, and allowed the
claim at the rate of 5 per cent on the first year's rental
and good will.

SECONDARIES'.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
MELVILLE AND'ANOTHER V. HOLMES, EXOR, ETC.

This was an action for breach of covenant on a bond.
The plaintiffs sued on behalf of the managers and
directors of the National and Provincial Bank. The
facts of the case were these :
In 1838 the deceased William Holmes, with others,
entered into a joint and several bond to the above joint-
stock branch bank at Boston, Lincolnshire, by which
they guaranteed to secure the repayment of all sums
of money and interest thereon, advanced by the bank to
one Robert Queenborough, so that the total amount of
principal did not exceed 1,0001. An account was
opened in 1838, and continued till March 1846, when
the balance found to be due from Qu, enborough
amounted to 1,0331. 10s., but some portion having been
received from the other sureties, the claim against the
preltent defendant R as reduced to 630/., and a verdict for
the amount was immediately returned.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Alexander John Cochran was brought up on his bail
before Mr. Jardine to answer the charge of embezeing
various sums of money, amounting in all to more than
3501., the property of his employers, Messrs. Mayhew,
of Carey-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, solicitors. The
case has been before the Court before, but not fully gone
into, owing, it would seem, to negotiations that were
pending for an arrangement with the prosecutor, there
being some difficulty on the question of law as to em-
bezzlement, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the
prisoner's relation to Mr. May hew, sen. (the prosecutor),
as a servant. lie had been employed as clerk to
Messrs. Mayhew, jun., and Reynolds, who were
partners, but have ceased to be so. The prisoner was
partially employ ed to collect rents and other monies for
the elder Mr. Mayhew, sad for the alleged embezzle-