The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-30 00:00:00

lIEWSON V. R0(711E.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as surviving
executor of the late Mr. Lee, collector of the rates for the
parish of Sr. Paul, Covent-garden, to recover the sum of
194.1. 6a. from the defendant, who, when the cause of ac-
tioa an a., was Vestry Clerk of that parish. The action
was tried at the Sittings after last Trinity Term, before
Mr. Justice PATTISON, and a verdict found for the de-
fendant.

The circumstances of the case were these :—Mr. Lee,
who had been an old servant of the parish, about the year
ISIS, became a defaulter in his accounts, but upon his
giving security to pay the money by instalments, he was
continued in his office of collector, and in the course of
time that debt was liquidated. From time to time bonds
were taken from him for the due performance of his duties ;
but at leneth he became so involved that he could not get any
person to become surety, and, from the kind feelings displayed
towards him by Mr. Roche, the vestry clerk, sureties
were not insisted upon ; hut it was customary for Mr. Lee
to place money in Mr. Roche% hands belonging to the
parish, it being always under stood that such money was
to be applied to the purposes of the parish. Mr. Lee
died in M a.ch 1829, and upon an examination of his ac.
counts, it was found that he had incurred a new debt to
the amount of 7481., which he had received on behalf of
the parish and had not accounted for. He left a will, in
which he named the plaintiff and his widow as joint ex
ecutors. Tile latter had since died. Various meetings of
a Committee of the parish had taken place upon the sub-
ject of deceased's accounts, and the defendant produced a
book in which all his transactions with Lee were entered,
and which showed that he, the defendant, had a
bdance of 1941 Gs, in his hands, which he had
received from Lee on behalf of the parish. That sum lie
was, prepared to pay over to the parish, but the plaintiff
put in his claim as executor to the deceased for the money,
en the ground that it was the deceased's private property,
and merely intrusted to the care of Mr. Roche. The pa-
rish at last ccepted the money, giving Mr. Roche a re-
lease and an indemnity against all liability in respect
thereof. The plaintiff then brought the present action,
which the parish defended for Mr. Roche. The question
way, whether or no there was any agreement in Lee's
time that the money was placed in defendant's hands for
the purposes of the parish, and the Jury believing that it
was, found for the defendant.

On a former day Sir James Scarlett obtained a rule to
show cause why a new trial should not he had on the
ground that there was no proof of an agreement that the
defendant held the money for the use of the parish.
To-day Mr. POLI OCK and Mr. CII ANNELL showed
cause against the rule. Sir JAMES SCARLET? supported
it. Alter Counsel had argued the case,
Their Lordships delivered their opinions sPriatiln.
They were clearly of opinion that the question as to any
agreement that the money was lodged in Mr. Roche's hands
fur the purposes of the parish was entirely one for the
Jury. They had found in the affirm 'tire, and in their
Lordships' opinion very properly so, and therefore they re-
fused to disturb the verdict.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUEB.-(THIS DAY.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. RIDDLE.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-General
against the defendant, who is a paper-maker, for sending
out a quantity of paper without its having been properly
stamped as having paid the duty. The case was tried
before the Lord Chief Baron at the sittings after Ali.
chaelmas Term, and a verdict was found for the defendant
In last term a rule to show cause why there should not
he a new trial was obtained by the Attorney-General.
This morning the LORD Cuter BARON read over his
notes of the trial, when the facts of the case seemed
to be as follows :—The defendant being a paper.
maker, and having occasion to be a good deal from
home, his wife was in the habit of transacting such parts
of the business as were then necessary, such as giving
notices for charging, &c. Some excise officers being
taking the stock of a grocer and draper in the neighbour-
hood of the defendant, found a quantity of paper lying
loose, without those stamps required to be put on it
by the maker before its being sent out. This paper was
proved to have been left with the grocer by the defendant
wife as security for a sum of 5/. which she borrowed from
him, in order, as she said at the time, to pay some duties.
A verdict was found for the defendant, under the direction
of Lord Lyndhurst, as he considered that a case of agency
had not been made out strong enough to render the defen-
dant liable, at the same time reserving the point for the
Attorney-General, so that it might be brought before the
Court.

Mr. FoLLErr appeared against the rule. He said the
point at issue here was whether the criminal acts of a
wife were to he given in evidence against the husband, so
as to render him liable to the penalties for such acts. He
considered tnat unless it could be shown in some way that
the husband had given orders connected with those act',
it would be stretching the law too far to say he was
to be
liable for all acts committed either by his wife or servant,
of a criminal nature ; fur though it had been laid down that
these informations were not criminal, still they were of a
criminal nature. His argument was, that no evidence
had been produced at the trial to show that the
husband had in any way given authority to Mrs.
Riddle to pledge the paper ; that it was never
attempted to be proved that lie was even aware
of it, and be had never been seen at all in the transaction.
He would a'so contend, that even by the defendant Vivi"_
the wife leave to conduct his business, it could not be ply
,n evidence as against him, that she had been engaged in
breaking the Excise laws, unless it could very clearly be
shown that it was done with his knowledge. Great
stress had been laid on the fact that Mrs. Riddle had bor-

r,) this money for the purpose of paying the duty, but
th re was nothing in the case to show that the money
was applied to that purpose, or that she had not math
a,vay with so much money in ally other way, and had re
.orted to this plan in order to make it up. In this view n'
the subject, it would naturally have been done without
hu.b ind's knowledge. Nothing had appeared at the trial t
show that the wife had any general authority, or authority
to send out paper, but merely that her authority extended t,
th:- giving of these notices for charging, and that, be con-
tended, could not be considered as an act of the business.
Under these circumstances he trusted that their Lordship•
wou'd discharge the rule.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in support of the rule, said
That he felt grrat anxiety as to the result of this case; for
if the Irw should be laid down that the wife of a paper-
maker could in this way part with, or send out paper,
without the husband being made liable, there would be
great facility given for the evasion of the Excise laws ; in
fact, they would be rendered almost nugatory from the dif-
ficulty of giving evidence of agency more strong than had
loyn proved at the former trial of this case. It had
been produced that in eighteen different cases Mrs. Riddle
hal, in the absence of her husband, given these notices to
the officers, and it was also proved by the Act of Parlia-
ment that paper should not he disposed of, or even manu-
factured without these notices, therefore they must be con-
sidered as part of the general business. It had also been
proved, that she, on former occasions, had p rid her
husband's duty, and he contended that these acts rendered
the case strong enough to to to the Jury.
Mr. CLARK, and Sir GEEORGE GREY, followed on
the same side ; and their Lordships, after consulting for
a short time, said they woo,d take t me to consider of their
judgment.

ARCHES COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

RIcKETTS V. BODENHAM AND OTHERS.

This was a suit for the substraction of church-rate.—
The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the Consistory
Court of Hereford, against a decision adjudging him to
pay 345/. for rates. The appellant considered the rate not
properly made, and therefore brought the case before the
Court.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON appeared for the churchwardens, and
said the rate was legally made ; that the appellant had
given in no exceptive allegation in the Court below, and
that the sentence of that Court ought to he confirmed.
Dr. DonsoN, for the appellant, contended that no pro-
per notice had been given to hie client ; and that, there-
fore, the sentence of the Court below might to be re-
versed. The appellant pleaded an improper use being made
with the church rate as his ground of objection.

Sir J. Nu.Hof, was at a loss to kunwhow the sentence
could be appesled against, and dismissed the appeal, as
vexatious, with costs.

CHOLERA MORBUS, OFFICIAL REPORT.

CENTRAL BOARD OF HEALTH.

COUNCIL OFFICI
DAILY RED

HIT.
of Cl

,L.-(THIS DAY.)
:RA CASES.

t
,1
e
A
CU Pi g
""'

4-0-ez

'"-•
E
2