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

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
judgment stood over from last session.
Baron Watson said that Paul and Manini, the two col-
lectors, absconded with considerable amounts. They were
appointed 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 Eiror was, that it was not lawful to make
a poor rate for payment of a past debt. The question
raised was whether the order.-s 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. Tho 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.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron.)
BEETLE V. BROWN.

Mr. Hogging 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 ho 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
£.50 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.