The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-12 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
CARR (CLERK) V. MOSTYN (CLERK).
This was an action to recover a moiety of the fees
received by the defendant as incumbent of the dis-
trict of St. Thomas, in the parish of Prescott, Lanca-
shire, for burials, marriages, and christenings in the
district chapel. The plaintiff claimed as perpetual
curate of the chapelry of St. Helens, out of which, it
was said, the district of St. Thomas was carved. The
defendant's answer to the claim was twofold-Ist,
that he was entitled to the fees in question as in-
cumbent of St. Thomas, and 2dly, that if he was
not entitled, the fees of right belonged, not to the
plaintiff, but to the minister of the mother church of
Prescott.
The case was argued during the last term, and
judgment was now delivered.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that the question was pre-
sented to the Court in the form of a special case,
and the Court had, with great reluctance, performed
the duty of a jury in disposing of it. The question
was, in fact, whether the chapelry of St. Helens
was, from time immemorial, a parochial chapelry,
the incumbent of which was entitled to receive
the fees of right payable for performinge the offices of
the church. Now it appeared in evidence that no
chapel. wardens had ever been appointed at St.
Helens, and no church•rate had ever been levied
there. There was also some evidence to show that
the chapel was endowed in the reign of James 1.,
by Lady Doraville, the minister being appointed to
read prayers in ease of the vicinity. It further ap-
peared that one of the incumbents had been a Non-
conformist. From all these circumstances, the Court
inferred that St. Helens was not a benefice belonging
to the Church of England, and that it was, in fsct,
nothing more than a " chapel of ease." This being
the case, the incumbent of St. Helens was not entitled
to any portion of the fees received by the incumbent
of St. Thomas. The judgment of the Court would
therefore be for the defendant.
Judgment accordingly.
(Sitting at Nisi Prim!, before the LORD CHIEF
BARON and a Specie( Jury.)
BULL V. RANKIN.
Mr. Crowder (with Mr. Miller) for the plaintiff,
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins (with Mr. Noggins) for the
defendant.
The trial of this case, which, as already stated,
was part heard on Saturday, was resumed at the
sitting of the court this morning, and occupied the
whole day.
It appeared that the plaintiff, who kept a circu-
lating library in Albion-place, Hyde-park, in the
month of September, 1841, made a runaway match
with one of the defendant's daughters, whilst the
plaintiff's brother, a butcher, carrying on business in
the same neighbourhood, married a second daughter
of the defendant's. The plaintiff's wife died in Jan.,
1848, soon after her confinement, and it appeared
that shortly before her death the defendant, who is a
widow, become reconciled to her daughter, and vi-
sited her. The deceased Mrs. Bull was a great pro-
ficient in music, to which she was attached from an
early age, and in 1834, when she was only eight
years old, her grandmother, a Mrs. Davis, then 73
years of age, and living with the defendant, pur-
chased a piano fur 150 guineas, and this piano
was played upon constantly by the plaintiff's
wife, and treated as her property. A writing-
desk, valued at fifteen guineas, was also purchased
for and used by the plaintiff's wife many years before
her marriage, and to recover the value of those two
articles, the piano and writing-desk, the present ac-
tion was brought. It appears that Mrs. Davis, the
grandmother, died in 1836, bequeathing all she was
possessed of to her daughter, the defendant. On the
part of the plaintiff it was shown that the plaintiff's
wife, before her marriage, usually kept the key of the
instrument in question, and that another piano had
been purchased for the younger sister, who was not
so advanced in musical acquirements.
On behalf of the defendant it was urged that al-
though the piano and desk were used by Mrs. Bull
before her marriage they were not her property, and
it was suggested in support of this view that the
plaintiff had neither claimed nor demanded them until
some months after his wife's death; and that after
the first trial of this action the plaintiff wrote to the
defendant asking her for pecuniary assistance to en-
able him to leave the country, and throwing the blame
of the legal proceedings which had taken place on the
plaintiff's father and brother.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, ob-
served very strongly upon the want of mutual good
feeling which characterised the parties in this action.
A. sum had been expended in litigation, there having
been two trials, which must have more than doubled
the value of the property sought to be recovered. The
only question, however, for the jury was, whether the
piano and writing-desk were the property of the
plaintiff's wife before her marriage ?
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for the sum claimed, 165
guineas ; but being reminded by the Chief Baron
that the piano was purchased sixteen years ago, and
could not be worth its original cost, they again re-
tired, and ultimately returned a verdict for the plain-
thiff—Damages 801.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 11.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HoLRoYD.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF GIBSON AND STUB'''.
The bankrupts were bankers at S. Alban's. This
was an adjourned hearing of their application for their
certificates. _ _

Mr. Linklater appeared on behalf of the assignees
to oppose the certificate of Gibson ; Mr. Bagley ap-
peared on behalf of Miss Markham, to oppose the
certificates of both bankrupts. Mr. Lawrence ap-
peared for Gibson. The bankrupt Sturt conducted
his own case.
It will be recollected that the first day's hearing
was devoted principally to an examination of Sturt
and others, with a view to impugn the conduct of
Gibson ; that the second day's hearing was devoted
by Mr. Lawrence to an examination of Gibson, with
a view to show that he had incurred heavy losses by
his connexion with the bank; that he alleged that

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
All the parties taken last week in an alleged com-
mon gambling-house, known as the Strangers' Club,
119, Jermyn -street, were in attendance at the court
to learn the decision of Mr. Bingham, who had taken
time to consider the evidence brought before him.
Mr. Clarkson, who appeared for the defendants,
having contended it was not conclusive enough to
warrant the bench in convicting the defendants. Mr.
Clarkson also took other exceptions against the pro-
ceedings, which mainly tended to establish a charge
against the police fur having exceeded their lawful
powers. _

Mr. BrivaHAM having requested that some three or
four of the defendants should be summoned into court
then proceeded to give the Bellowing decision.
Mr. BINGHAM—The defendants have been brought
to this court, one of them as the keeper of a common
gaming-house, the others as persons found therein
without lawful excuse. It appears that a superin-
tendent of police, acting under the Commissioners'
order, repaired to the house in question at night, when
a person on the outside made a signal to those within
by coughing and throwing a missile at the window.
The superintendent immediately caused the outer door
to be forced open, but found another door within con-
structed of iron, and so firmly secured that the pro-
cess of beating it open would have occupied a quarter
of an hour. After some time, however, that door
was opened by a person within, and the police, on
proceeding up stairs, found the defendants apparently
taking refreshment. There was a table in the room
covered with a black varnished cloth and a back•
gammon-board. No cards, dice, or any implements
for gaming were discovered, but there was a square
mark on the varnished cloth, that corresponded with
the size of a die. From the precaution taken to bar-
ricade the house, and to give notice of the approach of
the police, no doubt can be entertained that the per-
sons within were engaged in some unlawful pursuit,
and the grounds for suspecting that they were en-
gaged in gaming are so strong that the Commissioners
were fully warranted in making this attempt to ob-
tain the evidence necessary to establish the offence.
But neither a magistrate nor a jury can be justified
in proceeding to a conviction upon mere suspicion,
however strong, and there is nothing in the evidence
before me to show unequivocally that this house is a
common gaming-house, or that the defendants were
engaged in gaming. The appearances are compatible
with various other offences which the offenders might
be anxious to conceal, there is nothing to show de-
cisively that that offence was gaming, and the de-
fendants therefore will be discharged.
A solicitor, who attended for the alleged proprietor
of the house, asked Mr. Bingham to inform him where
the documents were on which which the police had
grounded their proceedings ?
Mr. BINGHAM would tell the applicant very fairly
that he would give him no assistance whatever in the
furtherance of any ulterior object he might have in
view. If he did give information or assistance, it
would be on compulsion only.
The solicitor said the police, in addition to breaking
into the house forcibly, had done mischief to the pro-
perty found therein. They had, without pretence or
lawful authority, wantonly destroyed property in the
house, and it was therefore determined to ascertain
how far they were warranted in their proceedings.
That the police were not justified in destroying pro-
perty he was certain ; for when the Act of Parlia-
ment under which the police acted was in preparation
he had called on Sir James Graham, and, after draw-
ingarctialtetsenbteiionngtuosead pfaorrticular clause in the Act, the
purposes,Aot.
N wasowinpower of destroying property, under pretence of the
ex-
pressly
the present case the police had broken up a table;
end advisedly ft out ofng the
this was illegal, as the power of ordering gambling
implements, when proved to be such, to be destroyed
was vested in the hands of a magistrate. On the part
of his clients he wished to have a remedy against the
police for this illegal act, and would, therefore, beg to
know where the documents were.
Mr. Clarkson said the documents which had been
produced before the Court no doubt would be in hands
responsible for their production. He was not sur-
prised to find that the Court would not render as-
sistance to the applicant with reference to ulterior
proceedings against other persons ; but he would
submit that he was entitled to know where the docu-
ments were, in order that they might be forthcoming
when needed.
Mr. BINGHAM had carefully considered the con-
duct of the police with reference to the complaint of
their having wantonly and unnecessarily destroyed
property, and the result was he refused to assist or
further ulterior proceedings. He would further say,
he considered the defendants fortunate in escaping
conviction; for had the table been produced in court
it might have happened that he should have given a
different decision. In reply to a question of the
Learned Counsel about the documents, he said he did
not know whether the documents were in court or
elsewhere ; but, wherever they were, the applicants
must at them how they could, fur lie would lend
no
Mr. Clarkson was satisfied, even had the table been
produced, that it would not have assisted the case.
The defendants were then discharged,
It may be necessary to repeat that the majority of
names given by the defendants were assumed. Some
persons have complained that their names have been
used,
.and they wish to have it known that they are
not the accused parties.
The alleged proprietor of the Saloon, Piccadilly, a
person named Beale, attended with his professional
adviser, Minor the decision of the Bench with refer-