The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-18 00:00:00

THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF MIDDLESEX.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE delivered judgment in
this case. This was an application for a writ of
mandamus directed to the Justices of Middlesex in
General Quitter Sessions, commanding them to
cause continuances to be entered to the appeal of
William Spicer, against granting to Robert Wil-
liams a licence to keep a public-house in West-
street, in the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields. It
appeared that a license had been granted to Robert
Willi Ann by the Justices at their Special Sessions,
and William Spicer, who had a public-house in the
neighbourhood of the house licensed to Robert
Williams, considered that he was a party aggrieved
by the granting of such license, and had therefore
appealed against the decision of the Magistrates.
The case turned on the construction of the act of the
9th Geo. IV. c. 61, which was an act to regulate
the granting of licenses to keepers of inns, ale-
houses, and victualling-houses in England. The
27th section, upon which the question arose, was in
these words :—" And any person who shall think
himself aggrieved by any act of any Justice, may
appeal to the next General or Quarter Sessions of
the peace." The question was, under this section
of the act, whether or not the jurisdiction of the
Justices at Sessions extended to a case like the pre-
sent, and the Court were of opinion that it did not.
They thought the words " person who shall think
himself aggrieved" meant a person who was imtne-
diately aggrieved, and not one who was only conse-
quentially aggrieved by the granting of a license to
another person in his neighbourhood. With re-
spect to the case of Spicer, he was not a party im-
mediately aggrieved. The Court were, therefore,
of opinion, that this was not a case within the mean-
ing of the act, and the rule must therefore be dis-
charged,

Mr. CAMPBELL applied for the costs.
Sir J. SCARLETT objected. It was stated in the
affidavits, that the Justices were divided in opinion
upon the question, and were desirous of having the
opinion of the Court.
The COURT, upon this statement, refused to give
the costs.—Rule discharged.

GRIFFIN AND ANOTHER V. THOMAS.
In this case Mr. Campbell had obtained a rule
for an attachment against John Gully (the
champion), for his contempt in not obeying a writ
of subpoena ad testificandum. It appeared that
Air. Gully had been subpoenaed on the part of
the defendant, and was in attendance for several
days successively in the early part of the term.
The cause was in the paper for trial on the 2d
instant, and on that day it was expected to come
on. Mr. Gully was in attendance till half-past two
o'clock, when a case expected to occupy the re-
mainder of the day was called on, and Mr. Gully,
having been told by his attorney that there was no
chance of this case being tried on that day, left the
Court. The case was afterwards called on. Mr.
Gully was called on his subpoena, and a verdict passed
for the plaintiff.
Sir J. SCARLETT showed cause against the rule.
Lord TENTERDEN—Looking at the whole of the
affidavits, it does not appear that Mr. Gully has
been guily of wilful contempt of the process of the

Court. Where a witness manifests an intention to
obey his subpoena, and after being in attendance
_goes away fairly and honestly we think it is too much
to direct an attachment against him.
Mr. CAMPBELL—I am certain the defendant would
have had a verdict, if Mr. Gully had been examined.
Sir J. SCARLETT—I am confident he would
not.—(Laughter.)—Rule discharged.