The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-09 00:00:00

SITTINGS AND MOTIONS,

that it was his intention not to have intermitted the sit-
tings of the Court next week, but to have proceeded hear-
ing motions ; but from the state of the motions, he found
ihat it would not be necessary for him to sit next wick,
which sitting he had been informed would he contrary to
the wishes of the profession. By an examination into the
state of the motions which he had made, he fund that
exclusive of those which were in the paper of to-day, they
were fourteen in number down to the 29th of April. 11-
was very much gratified to find, on looking into the dates
of the motions that had been made since the beginning of
last Michaelmas Term, and since the beginning of the
paper whieb the Court was now going through, there
could not have been but. fourteen or fifteen motions
in arrear at the rising of the Court for the long
vacation in September last. There had been a question
with his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, whether there
should be a Seal-day on Monday or Thursday next, but
his Honour had thought that it might as well be post-
poned till 'Thursday week; in the propriety of which his
Lordship entirely concurred.
His Lordship; then left the Court, which was at a few
minutes past twelve o'clock.

KING'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

THE RING V. EPHRAIM BRAIN.

This tv,►s an indictment against the defendant for not
taking upon himself the duties of the office of a constable
'of the City of London, to which he bad been elected.
Upon trial it appeared that be had been elected in the
room of a person named Tunnicliffe, who had left the
parish before the expiration of the year, and that notice
was given in the usual form, requiring him to attend to
take the oath of office, but he refused to take the oath or
to acctpt the duties of the office.
The Jury found him guilty.
On the part of the defendant a rule had been granted
for quashing the indictment on the ground of an insuffi-
ciency of the averments.
_ _ _

Sir .lastEs SCARLETT to-day showed cause against the
rule, and cited various eases to show that the indictment
was good.
Mr. PRENDERGAST was heard in support of the rule.
He contended, that it was not sufficient to charge the de-
fendant generally with refusing to accept the office, but it
should also have been averred that he had received notice
of his election, and of his being required to attend to take
the oath, and his refusal to comply with that notice.
Their Lordships delivered their opinions seriatim.
They held the indictment to be good. If the charge had
merely been that the defendant had refused to attend to
take the oath upon notice to do so, it would have been ne-
cessary to set out that notice and refusal. But the charge
being that he refused to take upon himself the office, it
was sufficient to aver that fact, leaving the facts of the
notice and refusal to take the oath as matters of evidence
in support of that charge.—The rule was therefore dis-
charged.

THE KING V. W. HUGHES HUGHES, ESQ. M.P.

In a former term, Sir JAMES SCARLETT obtained a
rule, calling upon Mr. Hughes to show cause why an in-
formation, in the nature of a quo warranto, should not
issue, to show by what authority he held the office of Al-
derman of the Ward of Portsoken. The application was
at the instance of Mr. Michael Scales.

Mr. Fold. Err to-day showed cause against the rule,
and entered into a detail of the circumstances at-
tending this case, all of which have been repeatedly
published. The Learned Counsel contended, that as
Mr. Scales had been rejected by the Cuurt of Al-
dermen as unfit to be one of the body (a power which this
Court had recognised when a mandamus was applied for)
it was not competent for him again to become a candidate;
that the electors had notice of Mr. Scales's ineligibility,
and therefore all the votes in his favour were null and
void. Mr. Hughes was, consequently, although he had
the less number of votes, the only eligible candidate.
That principle had been adopted on all similar occasions
by the Corporation, and also by the House of Commons
in many cases.

Sir JAMES ScikLeir contended that the rule should be
mule absolute. He denied the power of the Court of
Aldermen to reject a person elected by the wardmotee,
and cited a by-law of the reign of Queen Anne, which
made it imperative on the Court of Aldermen to swear in
the person returned to them.
After some discussion it was arranged that the quo war-
rant° should issue, and that an action by Mr. Scales
against the Corporation for a false return to the mandamus
now pending, should be postponed until the quo warrant°
was settled.

ADMIRALTY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)