The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 16, 1859.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Reranly.)
JUDGMENT.-ROTTON V. BARRON.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls said—This is a sum-
mons taken out to vary the chief clerk's certificate. The
plaintiffs who make the application here are the Commis-
sioners under the Charing Cross Improvement Act, and the
defendants are the officers of the parish of St. Martin. The
act requires that the parish shall be protected from the loss
of rate assessments on old houses pulled down for the for-
mation of new streets or parish improvements, during the
time occupied in rebuilding, and the surplus of the rates
levied on the new houses shall, after deducting the rates
payable on the old houses, be paid to the commissioners
under the provisions of the 46th section of the act. The
Chief Clerk, on taking an average account of rates
for three years on the new houses, and deducting these
from the rates payable on the old houses, certified that there
was no surplus balance payable to the commissioners. Take
the rates from 21st July, 1855, to 21st July, 1856, to be
£2,692 13s. 2d., and take the rates at 2s. 11d., if inadequate
they might raise it Is. 3d., and that would give a rate of
3s. 2d., and there would be a surplus to be applied to the
commissioners for purposes under the act of £1,794 15s. 6d.
On the other hand, take the average of three years' amount
of rates collected on the old houses, and the rates collected
on the new houses during three years, ending 31st
May, 1856, £2,448 2s. ld., and taking the rate at 2s. 6d., it
would be reduced to £1,883 ; it would be reduced above
a third, and leave a deficiency of £BB. His Honour
considered that the best criterion to ascertain the amount
of rate of the parish was to take the amount of income-tax
£25,325 minus Is. 11d. to be deducted in respect of repairs;
that would reduce it £2,305, and, deducting the old rates,
there would be a surplus of £463 9s. Bd. to the commis-
sioners, instead of a deficiency of £BB as before stated. His
Honour observed he had no power to compel the parish to
adopt any state of assignment, but the plaintiff was at
liberty to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a
mandamus to compel the parish to make a fair and proper
rate, and upon it to ascertain the amount due to the com-
missioners. His Honour considered under present circum-
stances the certificate of his chief clerk was right and must
be confirmed. His Honour confirmed the certificate of his
chief clerk with costs, with liberty to apply.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

MEDICAL MEN AND DIPLOMAS,--STREET V. ANDERSON.

The plaintiff is a surgeon and physician, and sought to
recover the amount of his bill for attendance upon defendant's
daughter.
His Honour—Are you a qualified practitioner ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
His Honour—And have you a diploma ?
Plaintiff—Yes.
His Honour—Have you it with you?
Plaintiff—No.

His Honour—You should always have it with you
The diploma is granted as much for your protection as for
the detection of unqualified practitioners, charlatans, and
quacks. Since the passing of the new Act, no qualified
practitioner should set foot in a court without his diploma.
Plaintiff said the new officers had not registered the dip-
plomas just yet, but they would be out very soon, and that
registration would answer every purpose.
Plaintiff then proved his case.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS Dili:

THAIsIES.

APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER.—Mrs.
Franks, a respectable and lady-like woman, the wife of
Nicholas Franks, a mariner, applied to the Hon. G. C.
Norton for an order of protection to secure her property
and business from the rapacity of her husband, who deserted
her three years ago.
The applicant carries on the business of a tobacconist and
cigar dealer, at No. 190, Ratcliff-highway, and by her in-
dustry and frugal habits has managed to amass a little pro-
perty, and to maintain herself and her two sons in a com-
fortable manner. Her husband was an Italian, and before he
deserted her behaved in a very brutal manner towards her.
He was once fined in that court for an assault, and was
guilty of many irregularities. He squandered her earnings,
and suddenly left her. Before he did so he said he would
return and remain with her as long as she had a penny, and
would then desert her again. She believed he emigrated to
Australia, and she had not heard of him since.
Mr. Norton immediately granted the required order, and
it was made out by Mr. Weddle, the second usher, and de-
livered to Mrs. Franks.

EXTRAORDINARY APPLICATION.—AII elderly woman,
named Susan Mason, of Bedford-row, Maidstone, Kent,
accompanied by Mr. James Johnson, the proprietor of an
exhibition called the Eastern Saloon, opposite Limehouse
Church, came before the Hon. G. C. Norton, and stated
that a month ago a woman, Catherine Walker, of Hanover-
street, Rotherhithe, applied to Mr. Yardley for the restora-
tion of her son, who, she said, was 15 years of age, and was
stolen from her when he was four and a half years of age,
and sold to Johnson for 30s. The boy was delivered to
Mrs. Walker on a subsequent day, and was still with her.
Mrs. Mason now declared that Mrs. Walker was an im-
postor, for that the boy was her grandson.
Mr. Norton—Who were his parents ?
Mrs. Mason—James and Charlotte Brotherton ; and he
was born in Canterbury. Brotherton was a basket-maker.
and married my daughter, who is now dead.
Mr. Johnson said the boy was regularly articled to him
by his mother when he was five years old.
Mr. Norton said that Mrs. Walker and the boy were now
living in Rotherhithe, and referred the applicants to the
Greenwich Police-court.

DICKSON v. THE EARL OF WILTON.

THE LATE FIRE AND LOSS OF LIFE
IN WILITECHAPEL.