The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-12 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY

HARVEY V. DOVES.
In this case the rule for a new trial was refused.

TAYLOR V. PAGE.
In this case also the Court refused to disturb the
verdict.

REGISTRATION APPEALS.
This was the first day set apart for the hearing of the
registration appeals. When the Court was about pro-
ceeding with the hearings, several applications were
made to postpone cases on account of the non-arrival of
the paper books.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE on granting the applica-
tions, severely commented on the neglect of the attornies
in not being prepared with the cases in time, and inti-
mated that the Court would in future be disposed to deal
more stringently with them.

HAYDON V. THE OVERSEERS OF TIVERTON.-SOMERSET

EASTERN DIVISION.
Mr. COCKBURN appeared on behalf of the appellant in
this case, and against the admission of the name of
Mr. Ainsworth, resident in Tiverton, on the register
of electors for the Eastern Division of Somersetshire.
The qualification claimed, as in respect of a free-rent
charge, and the objection taken was, that the respondent
had not been in a beneficial possession of the property
for six calendar months, previous to the 31st of
July. The rent charge was eight years old, but
the interest on it had been conveyed on the 29th of
January, by a deed of settlement. The first payment
for rent became due on the 25th of March, but it was
not paid till the 29th of April. He, therefore, submitted
that the respondent was not in bona fide possession of
the property, or in the reception of rents for six calendar
months, before the 31st of July, which he was required
to be by the Reform Act.
that lNir. Sergeant
thetransf LE, for
erßoYfthseprotphe respondent,erty,foravai suuabblemictotend-
sideration, into the hands of the respondent, constituted
the possession intended by the Act.
The LORD CUIEFJUSTICE said it was important that the
decisions given in interpretation of the law should be clear
and intelligible, without any hair-draw n distinctions. The
question the Court had to consider was, whether there
was any peculiar feature in this case to take it out of
the decision previously given by the Court respecting
the possession of freehold property? He did not think
any valid distinction had been made. The Court had
decided that the possession of freehold property for six
calendar months before the 31st of July meant the
actual receipt of rents, and whereas in the present case
the previous possessor, Nash, had convey 1 without re-
servation the whole of his interest to AeCrtworth,the
latter stqod in the same position as if the rent charge had
just been created, and therefore, not having received the
rent for six calendar months, the vote must be ex-
punged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvAns.)
IN RE GOWER.-PRIVILEGE OF HER MAJESTY'S
SERVANTS.
In this case, which was under the Small Debts Act,
the defendant was summoned to show cause why he did
not pay a judgment debt of 51. 18s. recovered against
him in the Court of Exchequer. •
Mr. Maynard appeared as counsel on the last occa-
sion to dispute the jurisdiction of the Court, the de-
fendant being a Groom of her Majesty's Household at
Windsor.
The Learned COMMISSIONER then intimated his
opinion that no privilege could be pleaded against the
jurisdiction of the Court, and adjourned the case in order
to give the defendant an opportunity of appearing
this day.
The case having been called on, the defendant did not
appear.
His lloNona then proceeded to recapitulate the pro-
ceedings, and held that the Learned Counsel who ap-
peared for the defendant, under the instructions of her
Majesty's Master of the Horse, had not offered any ex--
cuie, but merely pleaded that the Court had no jurisdic-
tion, he (the Learned Counsel) considered the defendant
to be guilty of contempt, and should accordingly issue a
warrant against him. If such a plea were admitted,
Peers, Members of Parliament, and others would refuse
to attend or give evidence either in law or equity-; but
it had been decided that they were bound to do so, and
even at quarter sessions a Peer had been committed for
refusing to give evidence.
A warrant was accordingly issued.

SHERIFFS' Ct) -T. (THIS DAY.)
CR- HELL.)
. to recover damages
STAPLETO(
This was an action
NBett,.opreAllAusr—. UcriodielrNsGlie
jriioffNßEuFnßc
gig.
a horse and damage done to aFROM THE DERBY.
for the loss of
The Mr. Simon
plaintiff appeared
Chelsea. On the last Derby day
the plaintiff, to go to
pae alrievde
livery
r stable
Ipel plaintiff,
keeper,
de-
fendant hired a horse and chaise of and
En
p sB statedoumr theßury
ithe
street,
aeseet:
tthhee
6r,accoems ;inhge
home
edforwonni stahfeelny,erbbuyt like many
agree-
able to the defendant—the horse and" gig arrived at
plaintiffs stables in a woeful plight. The was not. so
was t h
damaged, the horse's knees were broken, and
de-
fendant said that he got so drunk over his bad gl
laomutechrls
he did not know what he was doing, andhgisigta the
reeaTttha
ehsett
surprise was that he had not broken his nee
horse was so much overdriven, and so much injured, that.
although it was sent to a veterinary surgeon, it die a at
the end of the week. All these facts were set forth in
the declaration, and as the defendant had not pleaded to
the action, he admitted his liability. The damages
claimed were 31. 15s. for the repairs of the gigs, and 2/.
for the keep of the horse and medicine, 41. 10s. for loss
during the time the horse was ill and the gig out of
repair, and 121. the value of the horse. The defendant
had promised to indemnify the plaintiff for all loss, and
it was to be regretted that he had not kept his promise.
William Eve, groom to the said he saw the " plaintiff, was called, and
turn out" start ver comfortably, but
when it came back it was over-abused y "
even for a Derby
day." It was in a most " awful state." The horse died
in eight days.
Mr. Sibley proved the damage done to tEe gig.
Mr. SIMON said that he could not call the veterinary
surgeon, as he was out of town.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said the physic was worth no-
thioretherefng, fbr,
could the po
nothbeor orsmade oute died. That part of the claim,
The jury gave a verdict for 181. ss.

MIDDLESEX SESSION S.
(THIS DAY.)
(Before the ASSISTANT-JUDGE and a full Bench of
Magistrates.)
ASSAULTING THE POLlCE.—Jeremiah Harrington and
Mary, his wife, the latter with an infant in her arms,
were indicted for a violent assault upon Henry Fitch, a
constable of the F division of police, under the follow-
ing circumstances.

-Police-constable Fitch, 111 F, stated that on the 25th
of last month, a tradesman, named Thomas Matthews,
came to him on his beat, and required him to go and
take the prisoner into custody for assaulting him vio-
lently. Observing that Matthews bore evidence of vio-
lence upon his person, he proceeded to the prisoners'
residence, in Dudley-court, Crown-street, for the purpose
of taking him into custody, where a large mob, chiefly
of the lowest class of Irish had assembled, and when he
laid hold of the prisoner, he struck him and knocked him
down, and kicked him so severely that his ribs were
fractured, and he was taken to the hospital, where he
remained eight days. The mob encouraged the prisoner
and held witness down on the ground while the prisoner,
Mary Harrington, brought a kettle of boiling water
which the male prisoner poured over him.
Mr. PRENDERGAST appeared for the defence, and
contended that, according to the provisions of the
Metropolitan Police Act, the prosecutor was not justified
in aprehending the defendant on a charge of assault
which he had not witnessed, more especially as the
alleged assault upon Matthews was committed at an
hour when, and close by where, a magistrate was sitting.
The Learned ASSISTANT•JUDGE, in summing up, said
he did not coincide in the law as laid down by the
'lamed Counsel. Some time since the growing wants