The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-09 00:00:00

WtST V. AXDRtWS.

Mr. GURNEY moved to set aside the nonsuit in this case,
and enter a verdict for the plaintiff. It was an action to re-
cover penalties under an Act passed in the 55th of his late Ma-
jesty for the protection of paupers, and to prevent parish-officers
supplying the poor with provisions. The Bill was brought in
by Mr. D. Gilbert. The action was tried in Sussex, and it ap-
peared that the defendant was one of the Guardians of the poor -
of live consolidated parishes in that county. It was proved in
evidence that he had entered into a contract to sell sheep, to a
person named Griffiths, who farmed the poor, and the Learned
Counsel for the plaintiff' contended, that such a contract was an
infringement of the Act of Parliament before named. The de-
fendant consequently had incurred the penalty of 401. The
Learned Judge held, that inasmuch as the defendant did not
supply the poor directly with provisions, but the man with
sheep, who famed the poor, he did not come within the mean-
ing of the Act.
Mr. Justice BEST. asked who the farmer was appointed by ?
Mr. GURNEY—IIe is appointed by the Guardians of the
Poor, and the contract is obviously an infringement of Mr.
Gilbert's Act, which was passed to prevent the very thing
which the defendant had done. If half a dozen, Guardians of
the Poor make contracts with the farmer, . they have an inte-
rest in the provisions supplied, and consequently they can-
' not exercise a proper superintendence over the concerns of the
poor. In that view he submitted that the nonsuit ought to be
set aside.

The LORD Cnxzr JUSTICE—Suppose on a complaint
made to these Guardians that the provisions to the poor are
bad, and it appears one supplies the sheep, another the bacon,
and others different articles to the farmer, will they not
have an interest in upholding the supply, and consequently
the judicious controul they are expected to exercise be with-
held. _ .

The Court, considering all the bearings of the case, held there
was sufficient groutal to grant a rule to chew cause.

GURNEY V. GUYON.

This action was tried before Baron WOOD at Croydon.—The
CO3l 310 N SERJEANT this day applied far a new trial, on the

ground that. ecie :Learr,f_sti
•. The cuestimi was whether .114 sigilAtkire a th 4 plaintiff
to a warrant of attorney was genuine ? Evidence was called
to prove the plaintiff was pot in the room Ae-,instruent
was said' to haVe been igneel,'lOng eimitgfr tb[pt t - signattriure
to it. The father of the deposed,, that it was
,n9t
his son's hand.writing. The' COMM& .Serjear, t was-prepared
to call Mr. Lees, ,lnspector of ,j3ank,t cites; , and. persons from
the Frank4Alice in the General Pcst.Olfice, as being well skill-
ed in judging of but thelie.arned Jiidge "onSider-
ed such evidence inadmissible. The Jury found a verdict for
the defendant, thereby affirming tireisi7., attire to he germine. •
The C.,0313i0N SERJEANT contended, that the direction of
the Judge was erroneous, such evidence as he bad rejected hav-
ing been received by Lord Kenyon; Judge Buller,, Mr. Justice
Ashhurst, and Mr. Justice Gould, in a trial at bar.—The Court
granted a rule to slim cause. -