The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE CORPORATION OF 3IAIDENHEAD v. THE GREAT WESTERN

RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained, calling upon the
defendants to show cause why they should not pay the costs
of a mandamus which had been issued, directing them to pay
2,2821. to the corporation of Maidenhead. They had paid
the money, and a rule had been obtained calling on them to
show cause why they should not pay the costs, which had
been discharged on a technical point, and not on the merits.
A new rule had been obtained, and
The Solicitor-General now showed cause against the rule,
and contended that the application having been once refused,
it was not competent to the plaintiffs to renew it.
The Attorney-General, with whom was Mr. Hill, supported
the rule.

The Court decided that the general rule was, that where
an application had been made to. the Court and failed, such
application could not be renewed ; there were some excep-
tions, but this case did not come within them, and the rule
must therefore be discharged.—Rule discharged without costs.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
The attention of the Court this morning was devoted to
hearing motions for new trials, and technical points of
practice.
The sittings at nisi prius, before Lord Abinger and com-
mon juries, will commence to-morrow (Thursday) morning,
at ten o'clock.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WlLLan.ms.)

THE QUEEN V. TILE POOR-LAW GUARDIANS OF THE WAKE••

FIELD =ION.

Mr. Tomlinson moved for a rule to show cause why a writ
or writs of mandamus should not issue against the guardians
of the Wakefield Union, commanding them to pay to the
master of the workhouse two stuns of 101. and 5/., portions of
the salary of himself and his wife, as officers of the union
workhouse. The payment had been resisted on the ground
that in consequence of increased charges falling upon the
district, the salaries of the master and matron of the work-
house ought to be reduced. A correspondence had taken
place on the subject between the Poor-law Guardians and the
Poor-law Commissioners, the latter stating that the increase
of poverty adding to the duties of the officers of the union,
could not form ground for reducing their salaries, and they
ordered the salaries to be continued. A majority of guardians
still resisted the payment, and that was the ground of the
present application. The Court had often enforced the powers
of the Poor-law Commissioners in similar cases.

Mr. Justice Williams—The language of the Act is very ex-
tensive as to the power of making orders.
Mr. Tomlinson—lt is, my Lord. The Learned Counsel
then quoted the 46th section of the Act, empowering the
Commissioners, amongst other acts, to regulate, when they
thought tit, the amount of salaries payable to poor-law officers.
Mr. Justice Williams—Do the guardians resist their au-
thority ?

Mr. Tomlinson—They respectfully resist it, putting it as a
matter of duty on their part.—Rule granted.

INSOLVENT COURT.-(THIS DAY

IN RE WILLIAM PEEL.
The Learned Chief Commissioner gave judgment in this
case, which has been already frequently before the Court,
and hilly reported in The Sun. After entering at length into
the details of the matter, he said, that although the manner
in which the insolvent had contracted the debt with the op-
posing creditor, could not be strictly construed into a charge
of fraud, according to the statute; yet there was seldom a
ease came before the Court which was more strongly charac-
terised by ingratitude and dishonesty, and, such being the
case, he felt bound to inflict as severe a penalty
as possible on the second charge, which had
been fully proved against him, namely, making away
with his property, to the detriment of the body of his credi-
tors. The sentence of the Court, therefore, was, that he be
imprisoned at the suit of one or more of his creditors for frau-
dulently making away with his property.