The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-18 00:00:00

oners—W. Oliver, Henrilton-row, -Battle-bridge, builder, Oct.
24, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—C. Samuel, White
Horse-lane, Mile End, cow-dealer, Nov. 7, at ten, at the Court of
Commissioners—Thomas Sykes, Bath Easton, Somersetshire,
clothier, October 27, at eleven, at tits Court of Commissioners—
J. 13iIIinge, Warnford-court, heokei.,•lloe. 10, at ten, at the
Court of Commit/sinners—J. Dewwn, Norwich, linen-draper,
Nov. 10, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—11. I'. Its
Gun-street, Artillery-ground, silk-manufacturer, Nov. 10,
at ten, at the Court of Commissioners—J. Yoole, Brent Eleigh,
Suffolk, coal-merchant, Nov. 9, at twelve, at the White Lion Inn,
Hadleigh—J. Wainhouse, Halifax, Yorkshire, dyer, Nov. 8, at
eleven, and one, at the Itlagistratee Office, Halifax—W. Jeffcoat,
Kenilworth, Warwickshire, corn-faetar, Nov. 115,
at eleven, at
the Globe Inn, Warwick—J. W, pare', Chester, commission-
agent, Nov. 0, at eleven, at the Golden Lion Inn, Chester—D.
Forster, Otley, Yorkshire, oiled leather.dresser, Nov. 8, at eleven,
at the Black Horse Inn, Otley.
CERTIFCATES—Nov. 7.
J. 'Pion/Hove and T. Swift, Blackburn, Lancashire, 0114,41-ma-
nufacturers—W. Martin; Runcorn, Cheshire, ship carpenter--
W. Keay, Phenix-row, Great Surrey-street, Southwark, coach-
maker—A. Fairbaint, King's Art.h.:474, Coleman-street, wine.
merchant—L. lire, Pinner's-et:PA+. goad-street, merchant—
J. Hill, sun. and J. Hill, jun. Wisbeelt St. Peter's, Csm-
bridgeshire, bankers—J. Sims, Nottingham, corn-factor—
J. Merrill, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, grocer—R. Stein,
Tower Brewery, Tower-bill, brewer—J. Lawton, fob-
cross, Yorkshire, woulstapler—J. Daniel, Lime-street, provi-
sion-merchant—H. Warland, Lad-lane, silk warebonsentan—W,
Gorr, Brightbelmstone, Sussex, linen-draper—B. Buckley, Wide-
tones, Claines, Worcestershire, builder—R. Salter, Manchester,
grocer..-R. Tutin, Birmingham, builder. . •

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Rotton and W. Griffith, Bishopgate-street, merchants—F.
Hooper and S. Woodward, Worcester, wine-merultauts---G. Pear-
sun and J. Staples, Homer-street, St. Mary-le-bonne, leather-
cutters—T. G. and C. Woodrotre, Stamford, Lincolnshire, drug-
gists—W. Williams and J. Wyard, Broadmead, Bristol, grocers
—T. Wood, jun. and G. Holdsworth, Bailey-hall-mill, South-
oram, Halifax, worsted-spinners—P. Howell and M. Dennison,
Liverpool, brokers—V. Zanetti and T. Agnew, Manchester,
carvers—W. Elson and W. Boler, Newark-upon-Trent, inaltsters
—J. Dalton, J. Robinson and R. Palgrave, Regent-street, St.
James's, silk mercers—J. Harrison and J. Sheppard, De-
vonport, linen-drapers.---J. W. J. and E. Packer, London—ll.
Crabb and J. Jones, Liverpool, cart anti team-owners—R.
Mitcaff, sen., and R. Mitcaff, jun., Sunderland near the Sea, coal
fitters—J. and J. Winter, Stoke-under-Bandon, Somersetaliire,
glove-manufacturers—W. I). and J. Byfurd, Whitwoo4l Mere,
Yorkshire, carthenware.•manufacturers--F. and S. Millichamp,
Birmingham; nialtsters----T. Dalton, W. Twycross, C. Harris and
T. Banbury, executors of W. Twycross, Coventry, silk-dyers—
L. Garland and H.llridgemau, Birmingham, scale-beasn makers.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OcT. 17.
THAIVE'S INN.
lIARSDIM V. ViAiTIIMAN AND ANSLEY.

This. was an action brought by the Plaintiff against two
Aldermen of the City of London for a trespass. The ob-
ject was to try whether certain houses, and among others
the Plaintiff's, situated in Thaive's lun, wee or not part
and parcel of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn. The
trespass was, in distraining under a warrant granted by De-
fendants
as .Magistrates, the sum of U. 10s. 6d. for alleged
arrears of poor rates. The declaration set forth, that on
the 31st of January, 1825, certain persons under the war-
rant of the defendants entered the dwelling-house of the
plaintiff, in Thaire's Inn, and there took and 'distrained his
goods and furniture, and wrongfolly detained the same
until the plaintiff paid 4/. Ws. ca. The defendants pleaded
—Not Guilty.
Mr. GURNEY stated that the action was brought by a
respectable inhabitant of naive's Inn, Holborn, for the
purpose of trying the validity of certain rates made by the
parish of St. Andrew's on that Inn. The. Plaintiff would
be able to prove it had beeri occupied by many persons
following the law, and at all times eonaidered extra paro-
chial. An attempt was made three years since to rate the
inhabitants of the Inn, but having failed they came again
on this occasion. He was confident the attempt would
have the same result. His Learned Friend, Mr. Sentient
might produce new evidence, but. it. was not probable the
parish could shake the plaintiff's case.
Mr. SCARLETT, on the part of the defendants and the
parish, admitted the trespass, and undertook to prove the
Inn was liable to pay the rates in dispute. The only ques-
tion he said was, whether Thuive's In was extra parochial,
and he should shew it had been rated • from the earliest
period. The legal documents to prove a place was extra
parochial were proof, first, that the place paid tithes to the
King; and secondly, by the statute of King William, two
assessors of the land tax must be appointed. His Learned
Friend would have to prove, in answer to the defendants'
ease, that tithes were paid, and assessors appointed., The
Inn had been rated to the pariah from the tune of Queen
Elizabeth down t 01766, It was theri'oceupied by Lawyers,
and in consequence of their having 'stolen a deed it was
called Thieve's Inn.(—A lough.)--The parish did not like
to have any dispute with Lawyers, end the Inn remained
some time un-rated. The Inn had been considered in the
parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, as early as the reign of
Edw. 111, In the will of a respectable citizen olLon-
don, named Thave, to whom the Inn originally belonged,
it was described as being on the south side of Holborn, in
the parish of St. Andrew. In succeeding conveyances, it
had always been described as part of the parish. Having
got into the hands of the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn, it was
sold by them, and conveyed by Lord Mansfield, their True-
tee, as being in the pariah of St. Andrew. It had, in
short; been so long
liable to rates, that nothing but an Act
of Parliament could have made it extra parochial. The
Learned Counsel then produced a deal of documentary evi-
dence as well as viva wee examination to prove the Inn
had been rated. It was, however, admitted, that since
1776, no parochial rate of any kind -had been paid by the
inhabitants of the Inn.
The Loan CHIRP JUSTICE left the Jury to say whether
it was made out to their satisfaction, that Thavie's Inn not
only stood in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, but that
it hacrbeen made liable to rates. His Lordship observed,
that thneircumstancei of there having been no rate made
since 1766, notwithstanding so many new houses had been
erected, was proof that they had no right to rate.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
41. 10s. 6d.

course, not liable to pay
wAR,", AND Boma V. cr.extorr.
Pour Rates.
lantens.by the decision is, of
Emmet V.
Mr. GURNEY applied to the Court that the above causes,
the former against the printer of the C'onrier newspaper, the
latter against the proprietor of the M
as first in the orning (Amide,
. should be appointed Paper for &Way next,
on the ground that the Magistrates and clerk from Marl-
borough-street Police-otlice, who were material witnesses
in both causes, had been all this inortimg in attendance,and
during their absence the business of their attire w,„ com-
pletely at a stand.

. . ... ...
Mr. SCARLET; on the pert of the defendant, having
offered no opposition to the application, the Lord Chief
Justice, for the convenience of the public, dmired that they
might stand first in tho paper for Friday next.

It is related of George 111. that one day addressing
the Duke of Grafton, he said, a The people, my
(food Lord, are like my Wife ; though they quarrel
.„
With me themselves, they will not allow others to do
50.",--gym oath Journal,