The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-03 00:00:00

DELAY OF BUSINESS IN COURT.

Lord Campbell, having called upon the gentleman both
within and without the bar, without receiving any response
except mere matters of course, said he felt very much sur-
prised, after the intimation given by the court yesterday,
that counsel should move an application for new trials as
early as possible, and that the Court would take them the
first thing this morning. Notwithstanding that intimation,
he (Lord Campbell) had gone through the entire bar and
could not find a single case in which counsel were prepared
bo move. The Court would not refuse to hear the applica-
tions later in the day, but he hoped for the future counsel
would assist the Court in disposing of the business before
then. The Court then proceeded to hear the arguments of
Mr. J. Brown in a part-heard case of little interest.

The delay in the Court arises from attornies not instruct-
ing counsel to move for new trials in sufficient time.

COURT OF ERROR.

Sir A. Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas ; Mr. Baron Watson, Mr. Baron Channell, Mr.
Justice Crompton, and Mr Justice Crowder, entered the
Court-of Exchequer this morning for the purpose of fixing
the days on which courts of error will be held.
The Lord Chief Justice announced that the Court would
meet on the 26th and 27th of Nov., to hear errors from the
Court of Queen's Bench. On the 29th and 30th Nov.,
from the Common Pleas; and on the Ist and 2d Dec.,
from the Court of Exchequer.
THE LATE FRAUDS IN THE CITY.-IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Mr. Baron Watson delivered judgment in an important
case arising out of the late city frauds by Paul and Maninl,
who were poor-law collectors in the city of London, and
had absconded with large sums of money which they
had collected from the inhabitants. The poor-law autho-
rities had made a rate upon the parish of St. Stephen.
Coleman-street, in order to make good the defacations, and
the case went to the Court of Queen's Bench, who decided
that the parish was liable. Mr. Waddington, of the dis-
sentient parishioners, brought it to the Court of Error, and
lodgment stood over from last session.
Baron Watson said that Paul and Manini, the two col-
Aors, absconded with considerable amounts. They were
.ppointed by the Poor-law Commissioners. Manini ab-
sconded in December, 1856, his defalcations amounting to
£2,407. His sureties amounted to £5OO, but they were
found to be utterly worthless. Paul also absconded, and
his defalcations amounted to upwards of £2,000,- and
his sureties turned out also to be worthless. upon this
a new claim was made upon the parish of St. Stephen,
Coleman-street, to the extent of £2,800, and a rate was
made upon the parishioners for that amount. The opinion
of the Court of Error was, that it was not lawful to make
a poor rate for payment of a past debt. The question
raised was whether the orders of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners lately made justified an alteration in the law. The
members of the court thought it was never the intention of
the Legislature to authorise the imposition of a rate under
such circumstances, and were consequently of opinion that
the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench affirming the

liability of the parish to the rate must be re-
versed. A court of law was certainly not justi-
fied in departing from the present law, which -had
been acted upon since the time of Queen Elizabeth, and
that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide a remedy,
if a remedy were considered necessary. It was quite clear
that a poor-rate could not levied in 1858 to pay a butcher's
bill contracted in 1856, and the Court therefore decided that
the parish of St. Stephen's, Coleman-street, were not bound
to pay anything under the order. The judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench must- be reversed, all the parties
to pay their own costs.
The Court then adjourned till Friday the 26th.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Wore the Lord Chief Baron.)
KEETLE V. BROWN.

Mr. Hoggins moved for a new trial in this case, which
was tried at York and a verdict given for plaintiff, damages
£5O. It appeared that the plaintiff had a quarrel with the
defendant in his counting-house, and was requested to leave
after he had been called a scoundrel. He remained some
time after, and then was forcibly put out. The defendant
said he used no more force than was necessary, and that
he never used the expression attributed to him. The
action was not brought to recover damages for any cor-
poreal injury, but for the insult, and the ground of appli-
cation was that in consequence of certain observations of
the learned judge who tried the case, the jury misconstrued
the question, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with
£5O damages. These damages, it was thought, were ex-
cessive, and it was to reduce the amount given that the
rule was now asked for.
The Lord Chief Baron asked the learned counsel whether
the defendant's counsel was in court, and on being informed
that he was not, said he thought before the rule was granted
he had better be seen, in order to ascertain whether some
arrangements could not be come to, as he (the Lord Chief
Baron) thought the damages were more than ought to have
been given. In the event of no arrangement being come
to the learned counsel could then have a rule nisi.