The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-24 00:00:00

I,IIV

with corporate powers, to purchase and acquire lands,
buildings, and other properties; to nominate and appoint
numerous paid officers; to grant annuities for life and in
perpetuity, and other compensations; to levy compulsory
rates on the inhabitants of all the metropolitan parishes
—virtuOy, to monopolise the trades connected with
sepulture, and in other ways to deprive the inhabitant
ratepayers of the metropolis of the right of managing
their own affairs, and of controlling their own ex-
penditure."

Mr. JAMES WTLD, M.P., seconded the resolution,
and expressed his determination to resist the Govern-
ment scheme as propounded in the Bill.—(Cheers.)
They all agreed, he presumed, in that portion of the
Bill which affirmed that all interments in towns
should cease ; but at the same time they were unani-
mous in condemning the machinery by which it was
proposed to carry that principle into effect.—
(Loud cheers.) Allusion had been made to the
repeal of the corn-laws as a proof that Government
had a right to interfere with private interests where
the good of the public was concerned, but the Legis-
lature did not prescribe that foreign corn should only
come through certain houses.—(Hear, hear.) Nor
did it in the case of baths and washhouses assume all
control to the Government, for the management of
them was confided to local commissioners, who
were chosen by the parish.—(Dear, hear.) They.
therefore, demanded that the principle of local
management which had worked so well in this coun-
try should be fairly and properly carried out in regard
to the burial of the dead.—(Cheers.) It had been
said, in justification of the present Bill, that the ptirish
authorities had been guilty of laches in the manage-
ment of parish affairs; but if they had acted badly,
the Government Commissioners had acted worse.—
(Cheers.) Had, for instance, the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests shown such great
skill and financial ability in the management
of Crown lands as to induce them to trust a body,
similarly constituted, with large administrative
powers ?—(Hear.) In the management of dock-
yards also, Government Commissioners had shown
their incapacity to control satisfactorily any great
public undertaking. He believed Sir George
Grey and all her Majesty's Ministers were
anxious to deal fairly and properly by the people,
but the fact was that the opinion of the
country had never been fairly tested on the subject
—(Hear)—and it was only by such meetings as this
that the Government could be influenced.—(Cheers.)
All they demanded was, that the ancient principle
of parochial government should be carried into effect
in an impartial and fair manner.—(Cheers.)
The resolutions were supported by other speakers,
and ultimately carried.
A petition embodying the two resolutions was then
agreed to, and Mr. B. Osborne, M.P., was to be re-
quested to present it to Parliament.
A vote of thanks having been passed to the Chair-
man, the meeting separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 23.
(Sittings in Banco.)
DIMES v.. LORD COTTENHAM.
Mr. MARTIN moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the defendant, who had procured a rule for
a special jury, should not be directed t) attend with-
out delay and strike the special jury, in order that the
case may be tried at the last sitting in the present
term. The action was brought by Mr. Dimes against
the Lord Chancellor for assault and false imprison-
ment, and the only plea on the record was " not guilty
by statute." The question which it was intended to
raise by this action lay within a very narrow com-
pass, and there was no reason to suppose that the
trial would occupy any considerable time. The ques-
tion was, whether the Lord Chancellor, being a large
shareholder in the Grand Junction Canal Company,
was legally authorised to make an order in a case in
which the shareholders in that company were parties,
the effect-of which order was to:deprive Mr. Dimes of
his liberty. There were affidavits from various me-
dical men stating that Mr. Dimes's health was
rapidly failing under his imprisonment, and the ob-
ject of the present application was to prevent the delay
which must arise if the cause stood over to the sittings
after term, as it was well known that there was a
considerable arrear of special juries in this court.
The LORD CHIEF BARON did not understand that
the question, as suggested by the Learned Counsel,
could be disposed of at Nisi Prins, although it might
be raised there. It would ultimately be determined
by the court.

Mr. MARTIN said it was intended to raise the ques-
tion by tendering a bill of exceptions.
Mr. Baron ALDEESON—Then it will have to go to
a court of error, and there is no chance of its being
disposed of by that court at the sittings after the pre-
sent term.

Mr. MARTIN—If the case is set down for trial is
its order at the sittings after term there is no proba-
bility of its trial before December next, from the
number of special jury causes standing before it in
the paper.
The CRIES' BARON—I suppose the order, the vali-
dity of which you seek to impeach, was made by
Lord Cottenham, as the head of the Court of Chan-
cery only.

Mr. lliaanN—Oh, no, my Lord, he heard the mat-
ter, and determined it upon appeal from the Master
of the Rolls.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Then the matter must have
been brought before Lord Cottenham upon appeal by
Mr. Dimes himself, and one can scarcely think it lies
with him to dispute the jurisdiction he has appealed
to upon the ground that the judge was interested.
Mr. MARTIN said that the Learned Baron antici-
pated one of the questions the Court would have to
decide after the trial, and no doubt an important
question.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—There seems no reason
why we should depart from the ordinary course in
this case. It is not usual to try special jury cases in
term.

Mr. MARTIN reminded the Court that the plaintiff
was in prison, and, as appeared by the affidavits, in a
most precarious state of health, his disease being ag-
gravated by imprisonment.

Baron AIDERSON.—SureIy some arrangemement
might be come to by which the plaintiff might be let
out of prison pending the trial of this action. Has
any application been made to the Lord Chancellor or
the Court of Chancery for that purpose?
Mr. MARTIN was understood to reply that no such
application had been made, but that he should recom
mend the adoption of the course suggested to his
client. Meanwhile he asked leave to withdraw his
application for the present, reserving leave, which the
Court granted, to renew the motion, if necessary, on
Saturday next.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
driverL ORO
namedUGHILTe
Robert: was
An omnjilibAusi:summoned
for having by wilful misconduct damaged the carriage
of Sir Frederic Thesiger.
The carriage of Sir Frederic Thesiger, an open
one, containing Lady Thesiger, was in Cockspur-
street on Tuesday afternoon, and about to draw up at
the door of an engraver's shop, when the omnibus,
driven by the defendant, run into the carriage and did
damage to the extent of Si. Witnesses were called to
substantiate the complaint against the defendant, who
deposed that the carriage was -going at a very mo•
derate and the omnibus at a rapid pace. The coach-
man made the usual signal to the omnibus driver,
which was either not seen or disregarded, consequently
the collision occurred.
Lady Thesiger was examined, and stated that,
being in an open carriage she had a complete view of
the occurrence. She saw her coachman, who was
driving at a very steady pace, about to cross over to
Strongi'th'arm's shop, in Cockspur-street. She saw
the omnibus coming along very fast, and her impres-
sion at the moment was that the omnibus would run
into the carriage. In an instant afterwards she found
the pole of the omnibus across her chest, and the
head of one of the horses in her lap. It was a
miracle she escaped serious injury. She said to the
defendant " You were determined to do this," but
made no other observation to him. She did not
notice whether her coachman made a signal to the
defendant.

The defence was, first—that the omnibus was going
contrary,
hill at a moderate pace, and the carriage, on the
proceeding at a sharp pace. The defendant
was on
his right side of the way, and the carriage was
crossing over to its wrong side, and the coachman not
to prevent
having made the usual signal it was impossible to
avoid collision The defendant, however, did his best
!Ilia. "'el; and in his exertions the pole of
their evidence wrase
the omnibus wase
calledh. to establish these points, but
broken.
Witnesses e
which they gradually effected
remarkable for the change
which the vehicles
wore
re ected in the relative paces at
eoceeding. It was stated by
the witnesses for themy complainant that the carriage
was going about five . miles an hour, and the omnibus
at least nine miles an hour.
The defendant's witnesses, however contrived to
andh the last wit-
omnibus
abouttht
reverse the position of the vehicls
ness, a baker, declared that it w: s
was going about five miles, and thet
whencarriagee
nine miles. It was also contended thatperson
driving wished to cross over to his wrong s a
side,
not enough to make a signal to that effect to ca' it
carriages
on their right side, but that instead of making such a
signal, it was the driver's duty to drive on until he
found an opportunity of turning round, and driving
with the stream of carriages on the side he wished to
set down. .
Mr. BINGHAM said, there were two points in this
case which required consideration-4 point of law and
a point of faot. The point of law concerned the
rule of road, and the law with respect to vehicles
about to cross over the road to their wrong side. The
question of fact bad relation to the circumstances in
which each carriage was placed, and whether the
omnibus driver, having really seen the coachman's
signal, could have attended to it, but redused to do so
because be bad more weight of metal with ilim. He