The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-28 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.-TIIE KING V. WIIITNISHAM.

Lord DENMAN observed that in this case, which had been
argued by Mr. Austin and Mr. Gurney, the question was
whether an individual who was in the Volunteers, and had
hired himself to a master for twelve months, without declaring
that fact, was entitled to a parish settlement. On looking
into the Volunteer Acts which had been referred to, the Court
was of opinion that the Volunteers were on the same footing
during the period of training as the Militia. The party s°
circumstanced could be placed under such circumstances by
fine or imprisonment as would put it out of his power to glr
the whole of his year's service to his master, and therefore 1°
this case no settlement had been gained.

THE KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF ST. MARTIN'S.

Mr. GREENWOOD said that in this case the question waste'
whether an individual who had been apprenticed to a linen'
draper, had obtained a settlement under his indentures in the
parish of St. Martin's, Exeter, or the parish of Tiverton•
The master of the apprentice had an establishment at Tiver-
ton, and had placed the apprentice in another establishment at
Exeter, where he continued until the time of his master's death.
The Learned Counsel contended that the facts were of such
nature, as to entitle the apprentice to a settlement in the pa'
rish of St. Martin's.

Mr. CROWDER was heard in reply.
The COURT was of opinion that a settlement under the
dentures had been acquired at Tiverton, but that no settlen2
had been gained at St. Martin's.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Tab
THE KING V. THE CHURCHWARDENS AND INCUMBENT OF

PARISH OF ELSTOW.
Mr. STEER moved in this case for a rule to show cause will
a mandamus should not issue to the churchwardens and ill'
cumbent of the parish of Elstow to admit the parish clerk 0
exercise the duties of his office. The parish clerk had bee°
appointed in the year 1824, and continued to exercise his 0160:1
vial functions till the middle of last year. At that pert 0
some disputes took place between the churchwardens and the
clerk, when it was intimated to him that he was suspen°
from his office. Various discussions subsequently took place,
and the result was, that another person was appointed in 01
stead.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Hour came the churchwarden' to
appoint a parish clerk—they had no right to do so ?
Mr. STEER—In the early part of last year a new incumbeo
had been appointed to the parish, and he entered into the di'
putcs of the clerk and churchwardens, and put another pe"°,
in his stead—he having no power to do so, as the office °
for life.
Mr. JUSTICE PATTESON—The incumbent can remove a P'
rish clerk from his office for cause.
Mr. STEER-In this came no cause has been assigned;
the contrary, they have admitted that the conduct of the Cie)
has been alwas strictly proper and decorous.
COURT—Yoyu cannot have a mandamus to the churchli
dens, and only against the incumbent in case he has displa
the man and appointed another in his stead.
Mr. STEER—My affidavit states that the incumbent conets:i
red with the churchwardens in displacing him, and an aPPeo
having been made to the Bishop, he recommended the clerk
make this application.
COURT—Take a rule.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DOI

, neva'
Soon after the Court sat this morning, the Learnedej
were called out. They almost immediately after return
Lord Abinger, the Lord Chief Baron, ushering in Sir Hier
Peel, who wore his robes of office as Chancellor of the
chequer. The usual oath was administered to the illgar,
Hon. Baronet, who, after bowing to the Bench said
withdrew.

V. THE SHERIFF OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
de,
Mr. ERSKINE moved for a rule, calling up the above 4
fendant, to shew cause why he had made an excessive eh
for a warrant of debt. He moved, on behalf of an soot;
who, in his affidavit, swore teat at the time of taking out A
warrant in question, the agents of the defendant demanded t'le),
took the sum of 7s. —he protested against it as excessive, but t
persisted. When the matter was carried before the lgsg,
he reduced the sum to 45., but even that far exceeded the lei
demand. As the Court possessed the power of granting,er
lief, the plaintiff had come before them in mercy to the de' d
dant ; for by an Act of Henry VI., a Sheriff was reo44s,
liable to a penalty of 501., to be recovered in any of 12/-'s lops
jesty's Courts of Record, if he, for such a warrant is theof
now in question, demanded and took more than 4d. „ort
Learned Gentleman was proceeding to cite cases in saPreo
of his motion, when he was stopped by the Court. The/ °'
quite satisfied.--Rule Nisi granted.
rissi
The cause of Blakemore v. the Cilamorganshire it)
Company, was then called on, and Mr. Maule proceeded
hie argument for the defendants..