The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-05 00:00:00

DINNER TO SIR JOHN CAMPBELL.

" Dear Sir,—Many deputations of the electors have
waited upon me, as the chairman of your committee, to
request me to invite you to a public dinner on Monday, to
celebrate the glorious triumph of liberal principles in the
Scottish metropolis. I trust that it may be consistent
with your arrangements to accede to their request, and I
beg the favour of an early answer.
" I have the honour to be, sear Sir,
" Your very faithful servant,
" ANDREW MILLAR.
" Committee Rooms, Hanover-square, May 31.
" Sir John Campbell, Knight, Attorney-General."

"My dear Sir,—l hope I need not say that lam highly
flattered by the invitation of the electors, and that I should
have been most happy to have accepted it if I could have
done so consistently with the discharge of my public duty ;
but it is of the greatest importance that I should take my
seat in the- House of Commons on Thursday ; and for this
purpose it is indispensably necessary that I should leave
Edinburgh for London on Monday evening. •
" The pleasure of meeting the electors to celebrate our
triumph, however, is, I hope, only postponed for a short
time.
" I shall certainly present myself to thorn in the begin-
ning of September, and I trust that nothing will take place
in the mean time to render our meeting less cordial than
it would now be.
" I remain, dear Sir, yours most faithfully,
" J. CAMPBELL

" Gloucester-place, May 31.
" Andrew Millar, Esq."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 4.

THE KING V. THE CHURCHWARDENS OF HACKNEY.
This was a rule calling on the churchwardens of the
parish of St. John, Hackney, and the trustees of Dr.
Spurstow's charity, to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue .commanding them to admit Mrs.
West to the alms-houses of that charity, to which she
was elected on the 19th of November last. The rule
was obtained upon affidavits stating that an election
for the admission of two poor women to the almshouses
took place on the 19th of November in the vestry of
the parish. The candidates were Mrs. Lock and Mrs.
West. The former had fifty-six votes. The number
for Mrs. West was ninety-seven. The Chairman,
Mr. Nichol, stated that there was a majority in favour
of Mrs. West, and that it was useless to go further.
A poll was then demanded in behalf of Mrs. Lock ;
and the party who supported her at a subsequent
meeting came to a resolution that the election was
illegal. It was contended that the vestry had the
right of selecting one out of two persons nominated to
the almshouses, and that the election had never been
decided by a poll.
Mr. PLATT opposed the rule.
After Mr. FOLLETT and Sir J. SCARLETT had been
heard in support of the rule,
Lord DENMAN said it appeared to the Court that
they had no evidence before them of what ought to be
done ; therefore they could not issue a mandamus.—
Mandamus refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE 4.

WALKER V. JONES AND OTHERS.

The plaintiff, a working jeweller, residing in Rae-
street, Clerkenwell, was the owner or manufacturer of
certain breastpins termed union breastpins, consisting
of two pins united by a chain, an emerald or garnet
being set in the head of each pin. Two of these were
pawned by a man of the name of Hawkes, also resid-
ing in Rae-street, with a pawnbroker in the London-
road, near the Obelisk, of the name of Jones. This
was on the 13th of December last, and 10s. was ad-
vanced upon them, Hawkes representing them to be
jeweller's gold. On the 24th Hawkes went with nine
other pins of the same kind, and offered to pledge
them. He was recognised, and admitted having
pawned the articles. The pawnbroker complained
of having been defrauded, alleging that the pins were
not gold, and worth very little. He threatened to
detain Hawkes, and said at all events he would keep
the set of nine pins to add to the other two, and
they might all be redeemed together. Hawkes
then went away, and sent in the plaintiff and his

brother, who were waiting outside. The plaintiff
'claimed the pins as his property. He was told to go
away, but, refusing to do so; ryas given in charge to a
policeman for creating a disturbance. He was detained
from half-past two till near seven-in the evening, when,
upon being taken before the magistrates at Queen-
square police office, he was discharged. This occurred
on the 24th of December, and on the 30th, Mr. Dicas,
on behalf of the plaintiff, commenced two actions against
the defendant Jones and his sons. The first was trover
for the pins. It was tried on Monday last, and a ver-
dict given for the plaintiff. The second action, which
was tried upon this day, was for damages for false im-
prisonment, and the policeman who was called in to
take the plaintiff was made a defendant in this action.
After hearing evidence, the jury wished to return a
verdict for the defendants, but under his lordship's di-
rections they gave a verdict to plaintiff—Damages one
farthing.
Mr. Baron PARKE said they shouldcertify, to prevent
the plaintiff from having his costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT, JUNE 4.