The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-09 00:00:00

CLERKENWELL.-(THIS DAY.)

Jane Milburne was charged with stealing some plate, the pro.
perty of her employer, Mr. Augustus Ironmonger, of Mlddle.lane.
Hornsey.
The prisoner was employed as charwoman at the house about a
fortnight ago. The plate was missed soon after her departure, and
yesterday the prisoner was found pawning a silver spoon, in I.ling.
ton, and given into cust')dy.

Mr. Ironmonger identified the spoon as his property, and she
was committed for trial.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COUI?7', May 8.
1/4Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERInox.)
QUI TAM ACTIONS,-110BBS V. HARVEY.
• Mr. PEACOCK said he was instructed, on behalf of the defendant,
to move for a rule to show cause why the plaintiff should not give
security for costs, and the proceedings be stayed in the meantime.
He moved on the affidavits of Alexander Dobie, the defendant's
attorney; of David Smith, of Edinburgh, writer to the Signet ;
and of Augustus George Lyon, clerk to Mr. Dobie,
who stated that this action was brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant, to recover penalties from the Globe news.
paper, by virtue of the 6th and 7th Wm. IV., entitled," An Act to
prevent the advertising of foreign and other illegal lotteries.'' The
affidavit of Mr. Dobie stated, that the declaration in the cause con-
tamed 73 counts, each claiming a distinct penalty, amounting
In the whole to 3,6501. was delivered to the deponent about the
28th of April last—that the plaintiff had served several processes
in a similar form against John George Chapman, John Ebenezer
Eve, Charles Baldwin, Murdo Young, Thomas Payne, Charles
Reynell, Miller, Innett, and others, but had not yet declared
therein. And David Smith in his affidavit stated that a similar
action was brought under the said statute by the
present plaintiff, which war; at present pending in the
Court of Session of Scotland, against Thomas Allan and Co., and
others, for whom deponent acted as attorney—that he applied to
the Court of Session to compel the present plaintiff to give sect*.
city for costs in that action, on the ground that the plaintiff was
residing out of Scotland, and was then domiciled in England—
that such application was opposed by the plaintiff on theground that
he was then domiciled in Scotland, and that it was afterwards
stated in his behalf that he was a Scotchman, a native
! of Brechin, where he was brought up, and served his apprentice.
ship with Messrs. Speed and Nile, writers ; that he afterwards
came to Edinburgh, and was employed as a writer by Mr. A. Ste-
venson, writer to the Signet; and Mr. NV. Muir, solicitor, in the
Supreme Court for about five years, and that he was never out of
Scotland till the 28th of September, 1844, when he sailed from
Granton Pier, and that he arrived in London on Sept. 30, but that he
never intended to reside in England ; that he was in no situation
there, but was merely engaged in attending some private affairs
of his own; that he did not anticipate being detained there but a very
few days, and lived in furnished lodgings, taken and paid for from
week to week. The same deponent also stated that the plaintiff was
married on the 16th of March, 1843, to a daughter of Mr. Patrick
Ilutchieson, a writer in Edinburgh; that he and his wife re-
sided at his mother-in-line's, and that they afterwards re.
moved to Stockbridge, near Edinburgh ; that they afterwards
went back to Mrs. Hutchinson's, where a considerable portion of
their furniture still remained ; that they always had, and now had,
a constant residence in Scotland—that on the 2d of March he re-
turned to London. Mr. Smith also stated that such statement in
writing GI the plaintiff was binding on the party on whose behalf it
was made, according to the practice of the Court of Session,
just as if the same had been aworn to according to the practice of
the courts of England, and that the above statement was trueas he
was informed and believed.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Take a rule.
Mr. PEACOCK said he wanted to show that the permanent resi-
dence of the plaintiff was in Scotland, and that it was no answer
to the application to say that he was in this country when the ac-
tion was commenced, unless the affidavit stated that he resided and
intended to continue to reside in the country.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—You may take a rule,' but without a
stay of proceedings.
Mr. Peacoce said he made the application for security for costs,
and they had given the other party notice.
Mr. Justice Col.ristime—You know you can have no stay of pro.
ceedings on the last day of term.
Mr. PEACOCK said that perhaps his Lordship would allow him to
take the rule in this way—a rule to show cause why in the mean.
time the proceedings should not be stayed,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said he could not do that, or that
would, in effect, be staying the proceedings altogether. They
could only be stayed during the pendency of the rule.
Mr. PEACOCK did not ask to make the pending a stay of pro.
ceedings, but merely why security should not be given, and in the
meantime proceedings stayed.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—When cause is shown it becomes part
of the rule, which upon the rule being made absolute the proceed-
ings should not be stayed.