The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-08 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY)

IN THE MATTER OF BURST.
,; ainst
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK appeared to shew cause —ag opt
rule obtained by Mr. Alexander, calling upon the party ag t 1
,
whom an award had been made, to show cause why that 7,
should not be set aside ; or why the matter should not bao
ferred back to the umpire, on the ground that the umPireho,
not justified in refusing certain evidence tendered to ther
The facts were as follows :—Mr. Benjamin Mellor (the t,
party in the award), was in the habit of sending large to,
tities of wool for the purpose of having it dressed and 'r is
to Mr. Hurst's mill at Honiton-green. The mill took fire to
December, 1832, and about 1,2001. worth of wool beloneted
Mr. Mellor was consumed. The premises had been in7sli.
for spol. by Hurst, and Mellor expected that that sum
be made good to him, to which Hurst assented when be ,04
ascertained that he was liable. The matter having been relo4,
to arbitration in the following words, " That the amount ?I_ by
loss sustained by the said Benjamin Mellor by the destrue.,old,
fire as before mentioned,of his wool in process of wooling,Oru?
scrubbing and spinning, in said mill, should be referred f::)1:50
tration," &c., evidence was tendered as to the amount of plfal,
sustained by the destruction of a quantity of raw WA: thit
the umpire refused to hear. Sir F. Pollock conterideu.A4 of
the umpire was perfectly justified in so doing, as the we'—cogitl
the award distinctly specified " wool in process," and oda
not apply to raw wool. He could see no substantial 4.ired be
for the application, and submitted that the rule Lao'

discharged.
Mr. ALEXANDER, in support of the rule, said the questi°ll;
the Court was, whether wool which had been sent to tb:dl to
for the purpose of having it dressed, and which was re. pro.
be placed in the various engines, was not really wool It tot
cess. He apprehended that it must be so considered, alt the
Mr. Mellor was entitled to compensation for it, as well
wool which was actually in the engines.tbA
urt
Lord DENMAN said it was perfectly clear to the C
° d tha;
in this reference the umpire had decided correctly, and
there was no ground for disturbing the award. The ww—rtsia
the reference were distinct, and set forth wool in four °ego
processes, and beyond this the umpire could not go.
discharged.
THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF CARDIGANSHIRE. , for
Sir W. FOLLETT appeared to show cause against P.. tip,
a mandamus obtained by Mr. Evans, directed to two Jose A
of the county of Cardigan, and commanding them t° iestjt Of
warrant of summons, and a warrant of distress, at the
_;s-- for
the overseers of the parish, against a Mr. Evan Ev,81"2, for
non-payment of poor-rates. It appeared that the lar"," I
which the rate had been assessed, had been also rated or
hadcos.
neighbouring parish ; on this ground the Justices
to grant a warrant, and in this the Learned Counsel
tended the magistrates were perfectly justified.
Mr. EVANS was heard in support of the rule. it 4,
The COURT thought the rule should be discharged. AO
peared that the rate had been improperly levied upon t,_110.0
in question ; and if there was any dispute as to vvhino tbe
the farm should be assessed for, it was not the business on the
Court to impose the burden of that investigation UP°
Justices.—Rule discharged.