The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-10 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 until 1841, 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 for
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 case was proceeding when we went to press.)

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
IN THE MATTER OR HENRY HART.
Mr. Stevens, in this case, moved for a rule for a certiorari
to remove 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. for 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. He 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 amend the affidavit, which was
defective, with regard to the other orders.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)
RUNNING REIN AND ORLANDO.
COLONEL FEEL V. WEATHERBY AND ANOTHER.
This case, which stood over from Saturday, for the pur-
pose of an affidavit being filed on the part of ISfr. Wood, who
claims the Derby Stakes as the owner of Running Rein, that
he was such owner at the time of the race, was again
brought before the Court this morning.
Mr. Maltrix, who appeared for Col. Peel, intimated that the
affidavit required by the Court had now been filed by Mr.
Wood, and that on the part of the plaintiff he was quite sa-
tisfied with it.
Mr. Platt and Mr. James appeared for Mr. Wood.
The COURT stated, that being the case, there was no neces-
sity for hearing the matter further, and that the arrange-
ment as to the terms of the issue, as agreed to on Thursday
last, could now be adopted, and the rule drawn up accord-
ingly.
The issues will then still be whether Running Rein was a
colt foaled in 1841, by the Saddler out of Mab, and Colonel
Peel allowed to give in evidence the acts and declarations of
Mr. Goodman, provided he proves on the trial that Levi
Goodman was owner, or part owner, at the time of such acts
and declarations.
The cause will, it is expected, be appointed for trial by a
special jury at Westminster about the first week in July.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
FRANKLIN V. NEATE.
This action was brought to recover the value of a chrono-
meter. In 1840 a person of the name of Gilbert, a seafaring
man, pledged a chronometer of the estimated value of 504 or
601. with the defendant, who is a pawnbroker, in Duke-street,
Manchester-square, for 15/. This person being about to leave
the country for some time, and being unable to redeem the
chronometer, sold the ticket to the plaintiff, who is a nursery-
man at Kensington, for 51. The plaintiff, however, could not
get the chronometer into his possession, the defendant having
refused to give him any satisfactory information respecting it
—in short, refusing to give it up.
The defendant, by his counsel, contended that the plaintiff
could not sustain the action.
Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for 401., less the amount lent by the
defendant, and interest from the time the chronometer was
pledged.