The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

HAMLETS.

In this case Mr. Michael Scales had obtained a rule nisi
for bringing -up a sewers' rate made by the Commissioners of
the sewers for the Tower Hamlets, in order that it might be
quashed. The grounds on Which this application had been
made were—first, that he was not benefited by the sewers to
which he was rated; and second, that he had never been
rated to the sewers' rate untillB4l, and that he had always
resisted the rate.

Mr. KELLY now showed cause against the rule, and con-
tended, that in fact Mr. Scales did receive benefit from the
sewer, but that the Court had nothing to, do with that cir-
cumstance, that being a question of fact to be decided by a
jury upon an action of trespass, which Mr. Scales might
bring against the Commissioners when they distrained tor
the rate. Mr. Scales' affidavit did not set forth that the
rate was bad upon the face of it, and, therefore, the Court
could not interfere to quash it by certiorari. He, therefore,
submitted that the rule must be discharged.
Mr. SCALES, in reply, stated that, in 1829, a similar rate
had been quashed by this Court, since which time no attempt
had been made to impose a sewers' rate upon these premises
until 1841. Further, he contended that as his premises were
situated upon a tide stream, he was exempt from the jurisdic •
tion of 'the Commissioners of Sewers by the Act of 3d
James I. He denied that he received any benefit whatever
from these sewers, inasmuch as his premises were thirty-eight
feet above high-water mark, and therefore the water could
never regurgitate upon his premises.
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

BAIL COURT, June 10.
(Before Mr. Justice WiairrAtAx.)
IN THE MATTER OF HENEMAIART.
Mr. Stevens, in this case, moved for .4 *lle for a certiorari
to removo into Court 104 orders for the payment of 3,8211.
17s. 10d., in order that they might be quashed. One of the
orders was for the payment of 7021. 10s. 7d. fbr the consta-
bulary force of Dover. The objection to this order was, that
it purported to be signed by three Members of the Town
Council, whereas, in reality, it was signed by only two, the
other who signed having been a Town Councillor
indeed when he signed the order, but not when the
debt became due. ite had signed the order pros-
pectively, which he (Mr. S.) submitted he could not do.
'The 102 other orders related to the payment of various local
expenses, and the objection to them was that they were to be
paid oat of moneys not legally, applicable to the payment
thereof. The remaining order related to the compensation
awarded to G. W. Ledger, and the objection to it was similar
to the first.

•
A rule nisi was granted with regard to the first and last
orders, and leave was given to amendthe affidavit, which was
defective, with regard to the other orders. -

THE QUEEN V. HALL.
Mr. CHARNOCE in this case moved for two writs of habeas
corpus.
The COURT said that the proper course would be to apply
in Chamber upon affidavit founded on the commitment, a
copy of which the defendant was entitled to, but there was
no legal objection to having the proceedings removed by cer-
tiorari, as well as to have the prisoner removed by habeas
corpus.