The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-24 00:00:00

DAIL COURT.

Mr. ERLE moved for a writ in the nature of a quo war-
ranto, calling upon certain persons to show by what au-
thority they took upon themselves certain offices in the
parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. Various disputes had
arisen in the parish respecting proper persons to be elected
to the offices in question. Some time since a meeting was
called, when the parishioners assembled elected a Mr.
Hawkins as Chairman. Objections were taken to the elec-
tion of that gentleman, and though the show of hands was
decidedly in favour of Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Ramsden pro-
posed Mr. Tooke, and much confusion ensued, and then a
poll was demanded, to which objections were taken. Mr.
Tooke, and those who supported him, retired to another
room, and in that room, the Learned Counsel stated, Mr.
Tooke was elected, the parishioners in open meeting not
being present. It was therefore to ascertain whether the
persons against whom he moved were properly elected that
he now applied to the Court for a writ.
Mr. Justice 'WILLIAMS desired the Learned Counsel to
take a rule.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

ELECTION CHARGES..-..-T. AND G. HANDLOCK V. THE HON.

R. GREVILLE.

Mr. EVANS moved in this case for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, as excessive, unless
the plaintiffs would consent to a fair abatement. This cause
was tried before Mr. Justice Williams at the last Assizes
for Pembrokeshire, and the verdict given for the plaintiffs,
damages 3601. The plaintiffs were brothers and attorneys
at Cardigan. The defendant was twice a candidate in 1831
to represent the county of Pembroke in Parliament, and the
plaintiffs were engaged on his side, and brought their action
for the amount of the bill they made out and delivered to
the defendant. In the opinion of the defendant that bill
was excessive in its charges, and 140/. was paid into Court,
but the Jury gave a verdict for 3601., striking off about 30/.
The Learned Counsel called the attention of the Court to
the items of charge of which the bill was made up. The
plaintiffs were engaged during fifteen days in the election of
May, 1831, and nine days in September of the same year,
and for that they had made out this enormous bill. The
first item in the bill was a retaining fee for each, to which,
he contended, they were not "entitled. The retainer was
contained in a letter written by Mr. Evans, of Haverford-
west, expressing a desire to retain the services of the plain.

~--- -

tiffs, and adding, " I hope we shall have your interest." In
consequence of that expression the plaintiffs contended they
were authorised to canvass for the defendant, and they ac-
cordingly charged five days' canvassing, at three guineas a
day. During the poll they charged five guineas a day each,
which the Learned Counsel submitted was too much, and
that there was no precedent or fixed standard for such a
charge. For their retaining fee they charged 51. ss. each.
Lord ABINGER—I have heard of an attorney charging
500 guineas as his retaining fee.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Evans—The two plaintiffs went together from Car-
digan to Haverfordwest. They made two days of the jour-
ney, and put down twenty-four guineas to the defendant for
the service -so rendered. During the polling the chief ser-
vices rendered by the plaintiffs were, that one of them,
Thomas, acted as tally clerk in a room set apart for that
purpose ; and the other, George, went up to the poll at the
head of the defendant's voters.

Lord ABINGER—That you know, Mr. Evans, is a post
of danger at some elections. It is a great pity that the par-
ties cannot settle the value of services rendered upon such
occasions as those, for neither Judge nor Jury are perfectly
competent to the task.
The rule was finally granted for a new trial upon payment
of costs, unless the plaintiffs consented to a deduction, or
agreed to refer.

ILLEGAL VOTING AT ELECTIONS-GODFREY V. CLARK.

This was tried at the last Suffolk assizes before Mr. Jus-
tice Vaughan. It was for penalties under the 7th and Bth
of George IV., cap. 53, sec. 9, which prohibited " excise
officers" from voting at elections under a penalty of 5001.
The defendant was then " keeper of an excise-office" at
Sudbury, and, in defiance of a caution that he would be
proceeded against by action if he voted, gave his vote for
the western division of the county of Suffolk at the last
election. The plaintiff • was nonsuited upon the trial, with
leave by the Learned Judge to move the Court to set aside
the nonsuit, and enter a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. BIGGS ANDREWS now moved accordingly. Rule
granted.