The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-10 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

THE 'KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF ST. MARY, LEICESTER.
This was an appeal against the order of two magistrates,
for the removal of a pauper named John Cuthbert. The
pauper was born in the parish of St. Mary, Leicester, to which
he had been removed from another parish in the same county,
by the order in question. The appellants had shewn that
the pauper's mother had acquired a settlement in another pa-
rish, and that therefore the order should be quashed; but the
Magistrates at session had confirmed the order of the two
Justices.
Mr. HUMPHREYS now appeared to support the order. The
appellants had no right to come before the Court and seek
to quash the order of session, as they had not shewn where
the settlement of the pauper's father had been ; because the
rule was, that the settlement of the father must be exhausted
before that of the mother can come into question. In the
case of the King v. the Inhabitants of St. Matthew, Bethnal-
green, the rule laid down was, that the child's settlement
follows that of the father, if the father's settlement can be
found, and no recourse shall be had to the mother's settlement
till that of the father can be traced no farther." Now the
appellants had not made any attempt to trace the father's set-
tlement, and therefore the mother's could not be acted upon.
For these reasons he submitted that the order ought to be
confirmed.

Mr. HILLIARD (with whom was Mr. WutTE) for the ap-
pellants, contended that the respondents were placed in 11
very serious dilemma. If the husband had no settlement,
then that of the wife was good in law ; and if the husband
had a settlement, then the onus rested with them of tracing it
out, and acting upon it. Instead of this—instead of sending
the pauper to his father's parish, they had sent it to the wrong
one, that of the child's birth and settlement, which was the
weakest of all settlements. It was a maxim of law, that ds
non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio, and,
therefore, where there was no settlement of the father proved*
the law presumed that the father had no settlement, and there-
fore:that of the mother must stand goad.

Mr. WHITE followed on the same side.
Lord DENMAN, in delivering the judgment of the Court,
said his first impression had been, that according to the rule
laid down in the case quoted by Mr. Humphreys, of the King
v. the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, it was incum-
bent on the appellants to show the father's settlement, or at at►Y
rate to show that the father's settlement could not be found•
But it appeared that to the prima facie case of the respell-
dents, that the parish of St. Mary was the birth settlement
of the child, the appellants had opposed the prima facie case
of the mother's settlement having been acquired in another
parish ; and as the birth settlement was the lowest and weak-
est, that of the mother must stand good, if not opposed by a
stronger, that of the father. On these grounds the Court
thought the Session had not done right, and, therefore the
order in this case must be quashed.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY•)

lIUSSEY V. FIELD.
Lord ABINGER gave judgment in this case, at the sittings of
the Court. It was an action brought by the plaintiff for an
infringement of his franchise in the Ferry from Haverford
West to Pembroke. At the trial a verdict was found for the
plaintiff upon one count, and for the defendant on all the other-
A rule for a new trial had been obtained on the part of tbe
plaintiff, and after cause being shown against it, the Co,urt
took time to consider the question. It appeared that the plain"
tiff was the Ferryman on two ferries on the same river, and the
defendant had put on a bog, and carried a passenger to Hoby
point. The passenger, after being in the boat, told the hof
who conducted it, that he was going to Pembroke, the
road to which was by that which went from the plaintiff'
Ferry. There were two points; the first was, whether
the defendant was bound by the actions of his serval
—that was so clear as to require no consideration, an
if so, whether the taking of the passenger in question was .11
breach of the franchise of the plaintiff. The Court eon°.
dered that there had been a struggle to keep back evidence et
the trial, and they would not allow him to benefit from it. The
Rule was discharged.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SHEARN.
Our readers may recollect this case, which has been fre-
quently reported in the columns of The Sun. It was the cage
of a French ship, transhipping goods for the purpose of smug'
glint at sea, but within three miles of the shore of Great
Britain.
At the trial for the condemnation of the vessel, Mr. JARvill
raised a point of law, in order to settle whether the ship could
be condemned if she had completed her then voyage.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said the Court had given die
statute every consideration, and were of opinion that it re.
ferred only to the voyage in which the transhipment tc,ok
place, and the vessel after that was free if it then escaped,.

SHIPPING-(THIS DAY.)

FROM LLOYD'S.

DEAL, JUNE 9.—Wind E. light breeze.--Arrived the Ac-
tive, Adams, from Teneriffe ; Harby, Gibbing, from Cadiz',
Nora Creina, Heathers, from Cork. Sailed from the River---
James Wallace, for Constantinople ; Mary, Corse, for Mon-
treal ; Thomas Wallace, Strahan, for Quebec ; Meneapea,
Mayse, for Waterford; and the Sarah, Jones, for Swansea.
PORTSMOUTH, JUNE 9.—Wind S. S. E. to N. W.
FALMOUTH, JUNE B.—Wind variable, light breezes.
POST-OF/ICE NOTICE.—A vessel will be provided for the
mail for Lisbon of the 9th instant. Letters in time this even-
ing, the 10th.
HULL, JUNE B.—Arrived the Chase, Murray, from St-
Petersburgh ; Economie, Bellker, from Stettin.
LIVERPOOL, JUNE B.—Arrived off port, the John Taylor,
Thayer, from Mobile.
WHITBY, JUNE B.—Arrived the Wol. tiart,
Gemboro, froth
Danzig.
= The Duncan and Margaret, from New York, is supposed to
be off Liverpool.