The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-15 00:00:00

son to be entrusted with the education of children
whic-i was not alleged against him. Much coLtrole sy
has Wien place, and Mr. Whivon's name has teen re-
peet oily betore V-ie public. He had obtained a rule
culling upon tte l.), ,3n and Chai,te.• to show eaure why
a riiai,&inius not issue dr manding their right to
disati,n low f-otu his /Ace.
Sir FITZROY KELLY uppeii el this morning ti show
cause against Ito rule on behalf cf the Dears anti Chapter.
As many grave and important matters were involved in
the cau e, which must te solemnly arguer.', he was pre-
pared to n:nsent, on the part if his client,, to the rule
Leing male absoluts, f ,r the affidavit,, which were most
important, rendered such a course absolutely necessary.
Sir F. THESIGER, who appeared for Mr. Winston,
hoped 11. at in the meantime the order which the Dean and
Chapter had issued to the parents of the children edu-
a'ed iu the school to send them to another place, and
not to the school presided ovvr by Mr. Whiston, would
be rescinded. Pert aps his Learned Friend would un-
dertake on the part of his clients to give this pledge.
Sir F. KELLY was not instructed t) make any conces-
sion of the kind. .

Considerable discussion ensued upon this matter.
The rule was at, length then made absolute.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in 13aneo before Lord Chief Justice WILDE,
Mr. Justice MAULE, Mr. Justice CRESSIVELL, and Mr,
Justice WILLIAMS.)
TiLACKATER V. GILLOTT.
Mr. PEACOCK said he had to move for a rule calling
upon the plaintiffs to show cause why the judgment in
this case should not be arrested. The action was tried
before the Lord Chief Justice at the last sittings
for Middlesex The declaration contained two counts;
the first stated that the plaintiffs had an an-
cient ferry across the Thames from the Isle of
Dogs to Greenwich„ and that the do fondant carried on
a ferry; and the second count stated that the plaintiffs
were entitled to the ferry, aid that the defendant carried
persons across the river near the ancient ferry of the
plaintiffs. The verdict was for the defendant on the
general issue so far as related to the first count, but for
the plaintiffs on the general issue so far as related to the
second count, with ls. damages. The question now
merely arose on the second count of the declaration,
which stated that the plaintiffs, before and at the time
of committing the grievances thereinafter mentioned,
were and still are, in their capacity of trustees of the
Society of Free Watermen of the River Thames, entitled
in fee simple and inheritance to an ancient ferry for car-
rying fiot passengers and goods across the River Thames
from the Isle of Dogs to Greenwich, taking for the con-
veyance of such passenger and goods over and across
such ferry one penny for every person on foot; never-
theless the defendant, on the 7th April, 1849, and on
divers other days injuriously and unlawfully,
and against the will of the plaintiffs, car-
ried in a boat of his, the dcfeadant's , divers
foot-passengers across the River Thames near the plain-
tiffs' said ferry. The ground on which he (Mr. Pea-
cock) submived that this count in the declaration was
insufficient after verdict was, that it merely stated that
the defendant wrongfully and injuriously carried certain
persons in boats across the river near to the place where
the plaintiffs had their ferry. He submitted that that
was no cause of action. The charge ought to have been,
either that the defendant set up a new ferry to the in-
jury of the old one, or that he fraudulently carried per-
sons near the old ferry, for the purpose of enabling them
to evade ese old ferry.
The COURT refused the rule, leaving the applicants to
have recourse to their writ of error.

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)
(matiags in Banco.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SHILLIBEER.

This was a proceeling by the gown ega'.ust the de-
fendant, the proprietor of & funeral and posting estab-
lishment, to recover penalties for certain offences against
the Excise-laws, whereby the defendant had incurred
certain penalties. The proceedings w e'e tedious and
expensive, and ultimately the Crown succeeded in con-
victing the defendant in two penalties of 50/. and 201.
respective).
The defendant now appeared in person, and moved
the Court for a rule to have the costs herein ref -rred to
the, Queen's Remembrancer to be reviewed. In the course
01 his statement in support of the application, Mr. bhil-
libeer alluded somewhat severely to the injustice
of his being called upon to pay fees to the Attor-
ney-General for briefs which he did not
_intend to
support.
Mr. Baron PLATT—We have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Shillibeer (indignantly) But somebody
ought to have to do with it ; at any rate I
don't think I ought to pay it. The other
charges iu the bill of costs are also most exorbitant,
and are no doubt made with the intention of lading to
my destruction. The Act under which he was sued was
a very bungling and unintelligible one, and the post-
masters throughout the country, who were generally ig-
rant men, could not understand it, and were every day
being served out by the Excise-office. There was no
necessity, he contended, to bring the case into the Ex-
chequer, and thus incur an endless train of ex-
penses, for it might have been decided by a police
magistrate at a very small cost. There was something
at the bottom of the present proceedings unknown to
the Court, but perhaps it would not then be advisable fir
elm to make their Lordships acquainted with it. Lie
would say, however, tiait a degree of caprice and ill-
feAing bad been evinced by the Government i❑ conse-
quence of his determined oppsition to this one-aided and
injurious Act.

Mr. Baron ALDERBON observed that these remarks
were foreign to the real question, and suggested that if he
had to complain of the statute, his remedy was with the
Legislature af,er the 31st of January.
Mr. Shillibeer said that might be so, but he was
robbed first and then sent to Parliament for relief.—
(Laughter.) He could hardly trust himself to give ex-
pression to his real feelings on the subject of the scandal-
ous bill of costs; . and he could only attribute the way in
which it had been got up, to a desire on the part
of the Government to ruin, and then to get rid of him,
because he dared to expose the enormities t f the law.
lie paid no less than 2,0001.
_a year to the Excise, the
duty on each omnibus costing hiu, 2001., and yet railway
people paid nothing.
The CHIEF BARON said he was of opinion there should
be no rule in the case. With respect to the complaints of
Mr. Shillibeer they had nothing to do. and had simply
to administer the law as they found it. Per-
sons who were charged with offences against
the revenue lays 1., had to pay costs if they turned out
to be guilty ; but it they were found to be innocent they
di.i nut obtain costs; and if the defendant felt any injus-
tice in this, his complaints must be taken by petition to
the Legislature. He thought the costs had been reason-
ably and fairly taxed, and saw no ground, therefore, why
they should be reviewed. _ _

'fho other Judg4•s concurring, the rule was refused.

Mr. binllineer thanked the Court for the indul

gence shown him, and said, that as he stood there in
support of the first misters in the country, he should
take advsntsge u the hint thrown out about the 31st of
Jat.uary, anti present a petition to Pat hament, earnestly
hoping th,t, the A ttorne)-Cieneral would take the first
opportunity of setting wrong right.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Jtptice ERLE.)
THE QUEEN V. JUSTICES OF BATH.
Mr. PHYNN applied to the Court tor a rule nisi cal
ing upon the justices of Bath to show cause why t ,ey
refused to issue their warrant against a convicted offee-
der under the L'ard's-play Act, passed in the reign of
Charles the First. The Learned Gentlemae obtained a
similar rule last term, but on its being called on for ar-
gument as objection was taken to the jurat of the affi-
davit, upon which the rule was granted, which proved
fatal to the rule. The facts of the case were simply
these:—One of the porters on the Great West ru Rail-
way ha I been convicted before the justices or Bath of
following his occupation on the Lord's-day, and fined in
the peealty of ss. The justices, however, entertaining
some doubt that they could lugally enforce the penalty,
had refused to issue their wart ant to distrain upon the
goods cf the porter, and hence the present application.
The Learned Counsel conteudel that, after the convic-
tion, the duty of the magistrates was purely ministerial,
and they had clearly acted wrong in refusing to issue
their warrant,
Mr. Justice ERLE said, under these circumstances, en
action for damages would lie against the magistrate. ,
but probably no parties had suffered damage by ti e
refusal.
Mr. PHYNN apprehended that the churchward9ns who
prosecuted had suffered damage to the extent of the
eF. tine.
Mr. Justice ERLE said as the rule had already been
granted once, and only bailed upon a technical objection,
the Learned Counsel might take a second rule to show
cause. Rule nisi accordingly.
IN RE DAY.
Mr. HUGGINS appled to the Court for a rule calling
upon Mr. Wilkinson, an attorney, to show cause why he
should not give up to the Messrs. Day an account of the
actions he had brought in their name, under the follow-
ing circumstances:—During the time of the railway
mania a project was concocted under the title of the
Boston, Grantham, Leicester, and Midland Junction
Railway, but although the Messrs. Day were employed
to lithograph the plans, at an expense of 4281., no deposit
took place, and the scheme became entirely abortive.
The provisional committee were then called upon for
651. each to pay off the debts of the concern, but no
sooner was the call made, than the majority of them
disappeared. Some negotiations were then set on foot
li
by the secretary, the 'solicitor, and two or three
committeemen of the company to sue the solvent pro
moters, in the name of some of the creditors, and
ultimately Mr. Wilkinson, who bad previously had no
connexion with the project, took the matter in hand,
and upon his giving the Messrs. Day a guarantee that
that they should not be held responsible for anything
in the shape of costs, and their debt should be paid to
them out of the first proceeds that could be obtained,
they allowed him to sue some of the committeemen 10
their names. Accordingly, it was supposed that Mr.
Wilkinson had commenced no less than twenty actions;
but the first had receutly been tried at Leicester,
and a verdict returned for the defendant ; and
the consequence had been that Messrs. Day
are comps h d to pay the defendant's costs, amounting
to 207/., to avoid an execution. In another case judg-
ment had passed; against the plaintiffs by default,
and they had been forced to pay 281. costs in this in
stance; and having 'failed to obtain any inf trmaeon
from Mr. Wilkins as t the state of the other actions,
they were compelled to have recourse to this mode ef
proceeding.
Mr. Justice ERLE suggested that Messrs. Day's re-
medy against Mr. Wilkinson was by an action for
breach of contract.
Mr. IluGGrets said.no doubt that would; be their ulti•
mate.; remedy, but is the meantime they were anxious