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

FLIGHT V. BENTLEY.

Mr. KNIGHT opened the plaintiff's case. The bill was
filed to enforce a landlord's rights for the recovery of his
rent against a person with whom the tenant's lease had been.
deposited by way of security, and who claimed a lien upon
it. In July, 1832, the plaintiff Flight purchased from the
assignees of Nelson, a bankrupt, the landlord of the pre-
mises in question, all Nelson's interest. Nelson bad made
a lease to Postlethwaite, which at the time of the sale had
two years and a half to run, and which expired at
Christmas, 1834. This lease Postlethwaite deposited in
1830 with the defendants Bentley, Pawson, and Woolmer,
to secure a floating balance of 2001. for two years. Postle-
thwaite became insolvent. Immediately upon his purchase
Flight applied to Bentley and Co. to deliver up the lease,
which they refused to do unless they were paid what they
claimed upon it. They were then informed that the plain-
tiff would look to them for the rent. At a subsequent
period in October they tried to abandon this claim ; but
they were two late, and the plaintiff had a right to bind
them as assignees, of which character they had not at-
tempted to divest themselves.
Mr. ROGERS (for Pawson and Woolmer, Bentley having
become bankrupt since the institution of the suit) insisted
that the doctrine now contended for would be a severe sur-
prise on innumerable persons in the city who were accus-
tomed to take deposits of leases as securities.
His HONOUR said, in this case, as the plaintiff took pos-
session of the premises without prejudice, there must be an
account of any rent he had since received, which must be
deducted from the two years and a half's rent which the
solvent defendants had to pay, and as the latter had ren-
dered the suit necessary by their refusal at first to deliver
up the lease they must pay the costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. YOUNGHUSBAND.

This was a rule for a criminal information against the
defendant for sending a challenge to a Mr. Justins. The
challenge arose out of certain disputes relative to the set-
tlement of some property upon a marriage.
Sir W. FOLLETT stated that his Learned Friend Sir F.
Pollock had intimated that cause would not be shown
against the rule, and he therefore asked that it might now
be made absolute.—Rule absolute accordingly.

IN RE THE CHURCHWARDENS OF ST. MARTIN'S, DIE-

MINGIIAM.

Mr. HILL moved for a rule for a mandamus to be di-
rected to Archdeacon Spooner, commanding him to swear
in a Mr. Gutheridge (we believe), who had been elected to
the office of churchwarden of the parish of St. Martin,
Birmingham. The applicaat had been chosen at a parish
meeting to the office of churchwarden, and he had been
churchwarden the year before. He attended at the proper
time and place to be sworn in, when the Archdeacon re-
fused to swear him into the office. If there were a rival
candidate, it was the duty of the spiritual officer to swear
in both of them, and thus to put them in a condition after-
wards to assert their claims. In this case, however, it did
not appear that there was any opposing claimant to the
office. The special officer, there Tore, had no cause for his
refusal.

The Court granted the rule.
Mr. HILL afterwards said that he believed that this
ought to be a rule absolute in the first instance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (antic:ls cure) said that if
there were two claimants, and both were refused, both
ought to apply for a mandamus, arid thus bring the question
before the Court.
The Court, after a short consultation, granted the rule
absolute in the first instance.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.