The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-20 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. R. Hobbs and J. Richards, pawnbrokers, Coade's-row,
Lambeth—J. Richardson and Co., coal-fitters, Stockton, Dur-
ham (as far as regards T. Richardsou)—J. Phillips and J. Mee,
patent-bridle-manufacturers, Nottingham—W. Jopson and W.
Hinde, turpentine-distillers, Liverpool—M. Longridge and J.
M`Lellan, farmers, West and Esat Sleekburn—J. Brierley and
Co., gingham-manufacturers, Pilkington, Lancashire—J. Bar-
ker and Co., silk-manufacturers, Manchester. —W. Gething
and T. Jones, eham-cable.manufacturers, Swansea, 'Glamor.
ganshire--G.- Elkin and Co., earthenware-manufacturers,
Stoke-upon-Trent, Staffordshire--C. A. Whittuck and IL G.
Burroughs, attorneys-at-law, Bristol—J. Parnell and S. Turner,-
haberdashers, Birmingham—J. W. and W. Knowles, cotton-
spinners, Wilsden, Bradford, Yorkshire—T. Withers and Co. ,
nurserymen, Newark-upon-Trent—J. Kidd and CO., grocers,
Horsham, Sussex—R. Bourne and Co., china.manufacturers,
Fenton, Staffordshire—H. I. and M. Savory, Billingsgate—J.
Vipont and Co., flax.spinners, Scriven with Teatergate, York-
shire—J. H. Stephenson and J. Gardner, ~.irapers, Kingston-
upon-Hull—B. Bedford and Co., merchants, Birmingham—L.
Price and H. B. Wakeling, attorneys, St. John-square, Clerk-
enwell—S. Richardson and Co., wholesale grocers, Upper
Thames-street (so far as regards S. Richardson)—W. J. Baker
and J. Bird, potatoe.salesmen, Farringdon.street—F. W. Isaac
and T. Whit,, musical instrument-makers, Charlotte-street,
Rathbone-place.

A Pious WlSH.—Archbishop Laud was
a man of very short stature. Charles the First and the
Archbishop were one day sat down to dinner, when it was
agreed that Archer, the King's jester, should say grace
for them, which he did in this fashion—" Great praise be
given to God, but Little Laud to the devil."

WHALE FISHING.—AII our whale fishing
vessels have now arrived. Their success, as is always the
case, has been varied ; but the fishing, on the whole, has
been very productive, as will be seen by the following
statement :—Princess Charlotte, Captain Adamson, 31
fish, 280 tuns ; Advice, Captain Deuchars, 29 fish, 270
tuns; Thomas, Captain Thorns, 28 fish, 273 tuns;
Dorothy, Captain Davidson, 18 fish, 245 tuns; Heroine,
Captain Welch, 30 fish, 240 tuns ; Friendship, Captain
Davidson, 29 fish, 197 tuns ; Alexander, Captain Thorns,
26 fish, 190 tuns ; Ebor, Captain Cameron, 14 fish, 180
tuns ; Horn, Captain Stephenson, 12 fish, 140 tuns.—
Total, 217 fish,
2,015 tuns. The whalebone will amount
to about 100 tons. Estimating a tun of the oil at 20/.,
and a ton of the bone at 150/., the value of the whole nine
cargoes will be 65,300/. The gross produce of tills year's
fishing brought to Britain has been calculated to be about
15,000 tuns of oil. If this be correct, the cargoes of the
ships belonging to this port will amount to between a
seventh and eighth part •f the whole.—.Greenock Intel-
tivencer.

Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN was instructed to move
for a rule Nisi for leave to file a criminal informa-
tion against three magistrates of the county of War-
wick. He made the application on behalf of the
parish of Sow against the magistrates for conspiring
together to deny justice to the inhabitants of that
parish, and for having refused to act in their ma-
gisterial capacity with the Rev. Mr. Perkins,
another magistrate of the county, from corrupt and
personal motives. Before he stated the instances of
their refusal, it was necessary that he should put the
Court in poss?ssion of the circumstances out of
what was alleged to be the corrupt motive origi-
nated. It appeared that in the spring of last year
an indictment for perjury was preferred at the as-
sizes against a pauper of the name of Smallwood,
who: had gone before the magistrates and sworn that
he was in a state of great destitution, that his
wife and eight children were starving, and
that they were without any means of subsist-
ence, whereupon two of the magistrates made an
order, without summoning the overseers, that Small-
wood should receive 255. a-week for relief. Mr.
Perkins, in his affidavit, stated that he was present
when Smallwood applied—that he (Mr. Perkins)
was vicar of the parish of Sow, and a Magistrate,
and that he told the other two Magistrates that
they had better summon the overseers, the parish
being within two miles, and lie was of opinion if
they did so that they would find that the case was
not one for their interference. The Magistrates,
however, declined, and made the order, which the
or,o.rseers obeyed. Smallwood was indicted fur
perjury, and on being tried before Mr. Justice
James Parke, he was convicted, to the perfect satis-
faction cf the Learned Judge, and sentenced to nine
months' imprisonment arid hard labour in the House
of Correction. Mr. Perkins was called as a witness
on the trial, and he distinctly proved that Small-
wood had never made any previous application to
the overseers; that at the time he swore he was
destitute he had a comfortable house with consi-
derable furniture, some of which he had buried
under ground, and that he was anything but a
pauper, as he had represented himself to be. It was
sworn, however, that although up to that time
the two Magistrates had lived on terms of inti-
macy and friendship with Mr. Perkins, and had been.
in the habit of transacting all the business of the
parish of Sow at the petty sessions, they came to a
resolution (which they thought fit to deposit in the
chest where their records were kept), stating that
Mr. Perkins having signified his intention to con-
tinue his attendance at the sessions, they (the
magistrates), however much they might regret it,
thought it tight to inform Mr. Perkins that although
for the sake of the public they would hold the petty
sessions, yet they were resolved not to act in any
'matter magisterially with him. If the matter had
rested there, their Lordships would never have heard
of this application, although be might be allowed to
call it very improper conduct on the part of the ma-
gistrates; but they went on so far as to refuse to
take any case from the parish of Sow, and the affi-
davits stated a great many instances of a denial of
justice. It appeared that on two or three occa-
sions, when Mr. Perkins was present, the two ma-
gistrates withdrew, and desired the clerk to bring
the papers which they were to sign into another
room, where they signed their names and drew
marks across the papers, so that no other per-
son could sign them. This seemed to be car-
rying rural malignity further than he (the
Learned Sergeant) had ever heard of. It was
also stated that the overseer of the parish had
on one occasion applied to these magistrates
for a warrant to execute an order which had
been disobeyed, and they said, " You know we
shall not take any business from Sow;" and the
clerk was then shut out of the room, arid the door
was bolted by the constable, who made an affidavit
deposing to the fact. The overseer also stated that
he went to Rugby, which was ten miles off, and
applied to Captain Drake, a magistrate there, who
said, " I should be happy to take your Sow cases,
but Mr. B—" (one of the magistrates against
whom the application was made) " begged it as a
personal favour that I would not take them." The
overseer said he ought to take them, as it was a
denial of justice.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—That is what we are
thinking. The question is, whether we had not
better make them do it by a mandamus..
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN said that would be a
difficult thing to effect, and he submitted that, un-
answered, this was a very great offence in magis-
trates, as it amounted to a denial of justice, arising
from personal a►a resentment. It appeared
that in various instances these magistrates had re-
fused to bear the complaints of persons from the
parish, and the Court would see that there was a
concert and conspiracy on the part of these gentle-
men to act as they had done, and that there was
sufficient evidence of their having acted from corrupt
mod vesto call upon them for an answer.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE inquired whether no-
tice had been given .to the magistrates, and being
an,wered in the affirmative,

The Court granted a rule to show cause.
SMITH V. TOPPING.

This was an action in trover brought against the
assignees of a bankrupt to recover certain casks of
spirits kept back and detained from the plaintiff.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, dama-
ges 1021.
This day Counsel appeared in support of the rule
for a new trial. The plaintiff, a merchant at Hull,
had left the wine and spirits in the warehouse of the
bankrupt, and before the commission issued a ser-
vant was sent to demand the delivery. Some de-
lay occurred, and the goods were finally detained.
The question for the Court was, whether the
bankrupt was entitled to withhold this property at
the time the act of Bankruptcy occurred.
Mr. Justice PARK said, the bankrupt in this
case had not the proper possession of the goods, and
therefore, the plaintiff had a right to recover.—
Judgment for the plaintiff.