The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-26 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF MONMOUTH.
This was a motion for a mandamus commanding the
Justices of the Court of Session for the County of Mon-
mouth to hear an appeal lodged against the decision of the
Magistrates ordering the removal of a pauper belonging to
the parish of Rhys Clydac Penman Maur. The case was
argued on the previous day by Messrs. Greaves and Talbot,
and the question to be determined was, whether or not the
notice of appeal was given in proper time, and conformably
to the rule which the Justices had laid down for the gQ-
vernal en t
of the practice off their own epurL,
mr. Justine I,4rr!sop7 now delivered judgment. lie
must, be said, discharge the rule ni;i with costs, on the

ground that the Court had no power to interfere with a
rule which the Justices had established respecting the prac-
tice of their own Court.—Rule discharged accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

POOLE V. DICAS.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS stated that this was an action
brought against Mr. Dicas to recover a sum of 321. ss.
upon a bill of exchange, accepted by a person named
Wheeler, and endorsed by the defendant. The bill, when
it became due, was placed in the hands of a notary, whose
clerk presented it for payment. That clerk had since died,
and he proposed giving his entry in the notary's book as
proof of the bill having been presented.
Wheeler's acceptance was then proved by a Mr. Hope,
who said that the bill was given to Dicas for business per-
formed for Wheeler.

Mr. Lockwood, clerk to Mr. Harrison, a notary, stated
that in Jue, 1833, the bill in question was presented by
Charles Manning, a deceased clerk in Mr. Harrison's office,
and that an entry to that effect in Manning's handwriting
was in his employer's books. The ticket annexed to the
bill was not. in Manning's handwriting, but was in that of a
person named Hawes, who wrote it, according to the course
of business, from Manning's dictation.
Mr. HUMPHREY contended that in the absence of Mr.
Hawes there was not sufficient evidence to show that the
bill was presented.
Mr. Justice GASELEE, after observing that the question
was ono of some importance, said that a case had occurred
where an entry made by a brewer's drayman was held to
be sufficient to prove the delivery of the goods after the
dravman's death.
A verdict was then returned for the plaintiff for the sum
claimed, with leave to the defendant to apply to the Court
to enter a nonsuit.

EXCHEQUER COURT.

ATTORNEY-OENERAL V. DEARE.

In 1824 his Majesty's Attorney-General filed an informa-
tion against Mr. Charles Deare, army agent in his own
right, and as executor of his late father, for a production of
books relating to their accounts as army agents during
1795, and the two following years. The action was brought
on behalf of his Majesty, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether there was any balance due to the public as ap-
pearing from these books, that, if so, it might be sued for. Mr.
Deare resisted the production of the books on the grounds
that the accounts, and all the vouchers of payments made
under them had been in 1800 deposited in the War-office
in the usual manner ; and that the whole of the accounts
had been examined, and the balances ascertained and paid
in 1806. This had been proved by a letter from Lord Pal-
merston, Secretary-at-War in 1814. Some time ago a bill
was filed by Mr. Deare against the Attorney-General and
Mr. Ellis, for a discovery from the War-office of the ac-
counts and vouchers alluded to. This bill having been op-
posed on the part of the Crown, Mr. Deare's counsel was
this day heard in support of it.
Lord ABINGER, considering it to be a question of consi-
derable importance, and expressing doubts as to whether
the Court had any power to compel the public officers to
make production of documents which might be against the
interest of the Crown, adjourned the further hearing of the
parties till a future day.