The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-30 00:00:00

ASCENSION-DAY.

O❑ taking his seat this morning, his Honour the Vice
CHANCELLOR observed that he had received a communi
cation from the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
in which he stated that the Judges had tak n into consi-
deration at Serjeants'-inn, whether under the proper con-
struction of the Act it would be right to consider to-
morrow (Ascension-day) as a holyday, and they bad all
of them come to the determination that they ought not.
The Learned Judges in settling the returns bad named that
day, not regarding it as Ascension-day, but as being a day
following in a certain number. As notice had been pre-
viously given of his Honour's intention not to sit, he should
certainly not like to make any alterations which would in
the least trespass upon any gentleman ; and, therefore,
unless the Bar wished ir, he should adhere to his first de-
termin ition, and not it.

Sir EDW. SUGDEN felt glad to hear his Honour say
so, for he was sure had the Court sat every body would
have been in a state of confusion. Consultations had been
appointed for that day in consequence of the Court not
sitting.

His HONOUR observed that as the inconvenience which
had occured during the present year in consequence of the
alteration of tse terms, could not happen again ; and as
that Court could do its business as well out of term as in,
he saw no reason why they should not keep their own
bolyday.
His HONOUR, therefore, will not sit to-morrow.

COURT of KING'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)

WHITCHURCH V. CIIAPMAN•

This was an action of debt, to recover the amount of
certain penalties from the defendant, who was the clerk to
the guardians of the poor of the parish of Southampton, for
refusing to allow the plaintiff to inspect the rate-books.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Taunton, and a
verdict found for the plaintiff. On a former day a rule
was obtained, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, on the ground that the
defendant was not a person having the legal custody of the
rate-books within the meaning of the Pith George 11.,
chap. S.
Mr. FOLLETT to-day showed cause against the rule,
and contended that the verdict was a good one,
and ought to stand. He submitted that the defendant
came within the term " other persons" in the 3d section
of the 17 Geo. 11., which applied to " churchwaraens,
overseers, or other persons authorized to take care of the
poor." To show that the defendant WJil an officer so au-
thorized, he referred to the local Act for the government
of the parish of Southampton, which gave the power of
the guardians of the poor to appoint their officers. In
the cause it was proved that the rate-books were in the
custody of the defendant, and taken care of by him, and
also that he refused the inspection of them. Under those
circumstances the Learned Counsel submitted that the rule
ought to be discharged.

Mr. SELWYN admitted that the verdict could not
stand. The declaration contained two counts. The
first charged the defendant as being a person autho-
rized to take care of the poor. That was disproved,
for, by the local Act, the whole of the management and
care of the poor was vested in the Corporation of Guar-
dians, to whom the defendant was only clerk or servant.
The local Act, therefore, negatived that charge. The se-
cond charge was, that the defendant came within the
meaning of the words " churchwardens, overseers, or
other persons authorized to take care of the poor," and
that in such capacity he had the custody of the rate-books.
He (Mr. Selwyn) was of opinion that the sentence did
not apply to the defendant, who was only clerk to the
guardians of the poor, and had no management of the
poor himself. It was true, be had the charge of the rate-
books, but he was not the person i❑ whom the legal cus-
tody was, so as to bring him within the operation of this
very penal Act.
Their Lomasurrs were of opinion that the defendant
was not an officer having the management of the poor, or
having the legal custody of the rate-books, as required by
the statute. An application should have been made to the
guardians of the poor, who would have given an order on
the defendant to allow the inspection of the books. But
at all events the case was not within the meaning of the
statute, and that therefore the verdict could not stand.
The rule was then made absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

MOXIZY V. CLARKSON.

This action, which was brought to recover a sum of
641. 14s. 6d., for biscuits, &c., supplied for the use of an
East India ship, of which the defendant was captain, was
tried before Mr. Biros Bayley, at the London Sittings
after last term, and a verdict found for the defendant.

This morning, Mr. Mu. applied for a rule to show
cause why that verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted, upon the ground that it was against evidence,
that improper evidence had been admitted, and, on one•
point, that the Learned Judge had improperly charged the
Jury. The Learned Gentleman said all the evidence went
to show that the goods were supplied to the defendant, and
all the invoices were made out in his name, and were
signed by him as being correct. For the defendant it was
put in evidence, that the captain bad no interest in the
passengers ; but as that was against the usual rule of the
trade, he apprehended that it ought not to have been re-
ceived, unless it was shown that the plaintiff was aware of
the fact.

Mr. Baron BAILEY said, it appeared on his note of the
trial, that the plaintiff was aware that the goods were
i•upplied for the use of the on ners, and that he knew
Mr. Andrews, to whom he applied for payment, was the
owner.

Mr. HILL believed that the plaintiff only knew Mr.
Andrews to he the agent for the ship, in which character
he had applied to him for the money. His third point
was, that the Learned Baro❑ ought to hae left it to the
Jury to say whether the goods were supplied to the use
Captain, and not whether credit was given to him or the
owners.

The rule was granted on the first ground—the Court
thinking there was no foundation for the application on
the other grounds.

CAPEL V. CHILD.

This case was argued last Term and occupied the
Court two days. The question was as to the power of
the Bishop of London to appoint a curate for the parish
of Watford.

The LORD CIIIFF BARON this morning said, the
case was one of very great importance, and the Court
wished that it should be argued again by two civilians,
one on each side, and appointed it to come on on Wed
nesday next.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)

iir:.- . . :-_,,,:::::e: ;
- • ~,,- 4
4 •/ : , :i. ,
6,...) 'OL-41'.....:17- i-i.
pitors of Sir G. Duckett and . sr:bort ~,,,
is.
street, on the 2d of May last, it "-74siv :A )
petition should be presented to the GaAs tti fliiable
Jr.i Barber Beaumont, managing Director of the County
.Fire-office, and other persons, connected with dif-
'erent institutions and societies, which banked with the
bankrupts, to prove as agents of those societies. The as-
signees now accordingly petitioned for that purpose, in or-
der to save litigation.
THE CouaT.—Did the petitioners want the costs to
come out of the estate ? Mr. MoNTAGUE—Certainly, for
the application was made to save the estate the greater yr-
pense of each of these parties making a separate applica-
tion. Lord Eldon had granted such an application in the
ca.e of Marsh and Fontleroy's bankruptcy.
The COURT said that it was quite satisfied as to the
principle of the application, but would like to see the pre-
cedent.

~' ~}

The case then stood over for Mr. Montague to produce
the precedent.

COMMON PLEAS..-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice ALDERSON sat at Nisi Prius this day, iu
the Duchy of Lancaster Court, Westminster, and pro-
ceeded with the remanets from la-t Term.

THOMPSON 2.`. FRANCE.

Mr. Sergeant ADAMS stated the case. It was an ac-
tion brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of
1.4001. from the defendant, Mr. France, a solici!or, in
Bedford-row, •he having made a misrepresentation of the
credit and responsibility of a Mr. Henry Thompson, the
partner in the firm of Wyatt and Thompson, the ale
brewers, in Portpool-lane, which firm some time ago
by which misrepresentation the plaintiff hail been
induced to accept Mr. Henry Thompson as security for
payment of an annuity upon four lives of 112/. per annum.
The misrepresentation was contained in a letter from
the defendant, in answer to one sent by the plain-
tiff's attorney, which was to the following eff •ct :
" Gentlemen, I received your letter yesterday, inquiring
whether Mr. Henry Tompson of Portpool.lane. was a good
and sufficient security for the payment of 112/. per an-
num by way of annuity. You must be aware that Mr.
Thompson is a partner in the firm, Wyatt and Co., the ale
brewers, besides which, he has property of his own to
a considerable amount." Upon this representation the
plaintiff was induced to accept Mr. Thompson as security,
and the 1,4001. was paid over to hint. Within site
months after the house failed, and the whole stock was sold
for the benefit of the creditors.

Mr. Serjeant ADAMS said he could •how, by the evi-
dence of his witnesses, that at the time this repres. ntation
was made, he (the defendant) was acting as the solicitor
to the concern, and consequently must have known the
state of its affairs. He would also show that the house
had for some time been obliged t• resort to accommodation
hills to meet its demands, which the defendant must also
have known, and if he proved these important facts, Le
(the Learned Counsel) was certain he should have the
verdict of the Jury.

The case was proceeding when our reporter left.

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)