The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-07 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

GUI LDHALL..—At two o'clock yesterday, Mr. Hewlett,
the Secondary of the Court of Common Pleas, attended
before Sir PETER LAURIE, to state the determination of
the Judges, whether they would all suffer their goods and
chattels to be distrained for the poor-rate claimed upon
their chambers in Serjeants'-inn, or would pay what was
demanded, except as to one inhabitant, by levying upon
whom the question might be put in train for discussion in
a superior Court. Mr. Hopkins, the vestry clerk, and the
churchwardens and overseers of St. Dunstan's, appeared on
the behalf of the parish.
Mr. Hewlett opened the business by begging to be allowed
to ask Sir PrrEa's pleasure whether he intended to issue a
warrant to enforce the payment of the rate, for, said he, the
gentlemen (In not mean to pay but by compulsion.
Sir PETER replied, that as a verdict had sanctioned the
rate, and that verdict had not since been disturbed, he
should unquestionably enforce payment.
Mr. Hewlett. —Then I am to understand you will grant
the warrant if the demands are not paid.—Sir PETER—Yes.
Mr. Hewlett.—Then, Mr. Vestry Clerk, produce your
demand. But I wish to explain distinctly what the objec-
tion to paying the rate is. We say that we are not within
the parish, that we bear our own burdens in every par-
ticular, pave the inn at our own expence, and support our
poor. We say we are a distinct precinct of ourselves, and
have been so recognized by an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Hopkins.—Let me set you right. The pavement
in Chancery-lane, along the front of the building, is laid
down by the city, and accordingly the inn is assessed by
the city to the consolidated rate.
Mr. Hewlett.—We will see to that hereafter.

Sir P. LAURIE, referring to Mr. Hewlett's anxiety to
have the objection of the Judges understood, said he was
sure the very respectable body he represented would not
have objected at all, if there had not been some clear and
proper grounds for doing so.
Mr. Seely, an overseer, stated the demands of the
parish to amount to 1531. but this amount was cut down
to 139/. 13s. 4d. by the exclusion of the sums due from
Sergeants Frere and Cross. The latter had been selected
to suffer a distraint, and bring his action against the Ma-
gistrate ; the former was at Cambridge, and had not in-
structed Mr. Hewlett to attend for him.

If you will give me receipts on stamps for the sums due
from each individual, I will give you my draught for the
whole sum, said Mr. Hewlett.

The parish-officers confessed that this was an unexpected
demand, which, however, they said, they would prepare
to meet in a few minutes; and while Mr. Hewlett was
indulging in a little pleasantry upon the singularity of their
applying for money without being prepared in the ordinary
way to receive it, some of the gentlemen retired to an ad-
joining room and filled up half a dozen sixpenny stamps,
and ten others of less valae.

Sir PETER LAURIE inquired where or how this question
could be fairly tried in a superior court, as the whole of.the
Judges had been summoned, and were parties in the cause.
Mr. Hewlett replied, that he supposed the parish would,
as in the former instance, assent to the cause being tried in
a particular, court by-.a rdructdar judge. Whey selected
••••••••• (blur men or
the name of the Solicitor of the parish.
An Overseer—Mr. Moorshead was our solicitor.

Mr. Hewlett—No, no; I do not wish to know who
was, but who is your solicitor. It is time we should
communicate together. The business has hitherto pro-
ceeded very unprofessionally.—(A laugh.)
Overseer--Really, we have no solicitor.
Sir PETER—Not a lawyer ! Your pariah is a most for-
tunate one, then.—(A laugh.)--However, a lawyer cer-
tainly could not have managed your cause here better than
you yourselves have done. _ _

_
Mr. Hewlett sarcastically inquired which of the Learned
Gentlemen opposito drew up the case for Mr. Sergeant
Mereweather's opinion, upon giving a receipt witk a pro-
best in it.

The Overseers evaded the question with some confusion.
Mr. Hewlett—Gentlemen, in candour you ought to give
me the name of your attorney.
Overseer—We have not selected any lawyer ; we do not
want any law.
Mr. Hewlett—l do not know whether you want it, but
you will surely have it.—(Laughter.)
Here Mr. Alderman ANSLEY came in, the law requir-
ing that the warrant of distress against Sergeant Cross
should be signed by two Justices ; and Mr. Hewlett, pre-
vious to paying over his cheque, read a protest signed by
himself, as the attorney of the parties summoned, declaring
the rate was illegally made and not lawfully demandable,
and tinder the compulsion of the Magistrates, and to prevent
the inconvenience of their goods being removed, lie paid
the sum of 1391. 13s. 4d.

Mr. Alderman ANSLEY then hesitated to sign the war-
rant as a matter of course, and his uncertainty increased
when he was informed by the City Solicitor that Magis-
trates were not bound to enforce the payment of the rate
under such circumstances; for that the Court of King's
Bench had held, upon an application for a mandamus, that
a justice should net be compelled to do auy thing that
would render him liable to an action.

Mr. Alderman ANSLEY asked if the inn had at any
former period been rated ? Sir PETER said it was rated for
the first time four years ago.
Mr. Hewlett required the vestry clerk to answer the
Alderman's question, and the reply was, that before poor-
rates were made, and from that time (43d Elizabeth) until
four years ago, the inn had paid 21. 13s. 4d. as a compo-
sition of the poor-rate. Mr. Hewlett objected to the ex-
pression " composition of the poor rate." It was, he said,
merely a gratuity of the judges for the use of the poor. He
repeated to Mr. Alderman Ansley the grounds upon which
the judges had determined to disregard the verdict of 1824,
and he mentioned an instance where St. Dunstan's threw
the burden of an illegitimate child upon the inn.
Mr. Hopkins accounted for this by stating, that:in former
times overseers were not so " enlightened" as at the pre-
tent day.
Sir PETER thought Mr. Hewlett had made a most ex-
traordinary avowal—that the Judges, who would be looked
to as examples, had determined " to disregard" a verdict
before it was disturbed.

Mr. Hewlett explained that he had inadvertently used
the word, but Sir PETER, by two or three questions, led
him to admit that nevertheless the word was applicable to
the conduct of the Judges.
Mr. Alderman ANSLEY asked a number of questions,
which, however, did net elicit any new points, and at last
his scruples were overcome by Sir PETER LAU RIE, who
maintained that as the very question now at issue had been
recently settled by a jury, the magistrate ought not to coun-
tenance the continued opposition of the defendants, but to
enforce the decision then obtained by the parish.
The warrant was then signed, and the overseers promis-
ed to communicate to Mr. Hewlett the name of their soli-
citor as soon as they appointed one ; and, at all events, not
to go uncourteously to the inn and carry away Sergeant
oss's tables and chairs.
Mr. Hewlett paid the cheque, and his protest was witness-
ed by the chief clerk.
Sir PETER LAURIE asked whether the ease in 1821 was
raised with the intervention of the magistrates.
Mr. Hopkins replied that it was not. Sir PETER was
the first magistrate, he dared to say, that had ever sum-
moned the 12 Judges to appear before him. The case of
1821 was tried upon a fiction, that such a warrant and
distraint had been obtained. The parties then retired.
MARYLEBONE-OFFICE.—A lady who has for a
long time been known and respected in St. Marylebone,
was yesterday charged with fraud, under circumstances ex-
traordinary and romantic, and the following particulars
given in evidence will describe the case :
A respectable boot-maker, who lives in Paddington-street,
and his family, have been acquainted with the prisoner
. upwards of 22 years, She formerly lodged, together with

her mother, in the next house but one to them, and after-
wards in High-street, and they considered her a person of
property. In November last she told them she was about
to become posseseed of• a • large fortune: A Chancery suit
had been decided in her favour,-3,7501. stock in the Bank
of England, with the accumulated dividends of 39 years,
were hers,—also an ancient castle called Wellingbeach, near
Andover,—and money in the War-office, which had been
in the hands of the Government ever since the first Ameri-
can war. She said the Lord Chancellor was her friend, and
frequently showed them letters apparently bearing his sig-
nature, filled with expressions of kindness. By these means
she imposed upon the faith of her friends, and Mr. B.
advanced her small sums of money, amounting to 281. 135.,
in consequence of alleged disappointments ; for although the
Chancellor, according to her statement, was doing his best,
in one letter it was said, " I regret I cannot meet you this
day, for I must sit with the big wigs at Westminster." In
another, " Don't blame the poor Chancellor, the Welles-
ley case is on this day." In another, " I cannot attend this
day on Monday I will devote two or three hours, and put
you in possession of your funded property, and hope is
March to see you seated in your ancient castle. If you can
get through the week without assistance, so much the
better : if not, you may have a cheque for 100/. by coming
to my office in the morning."
On the 14th of January the prisoner produced a paper
before the family of Mr. B. which contained the names of
Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, Mr. Langford, of Newbury,
and two others which the witnesses have forgotten, and
said they were her trustees, and that they would meet her
and the Lord Chancellor at the Bank that day-week, to put
her in possession of the stock. In the afternoon of that
day-week (Jan. 21), she said she had met the Lord Chan-
cellor and her trustees at the Bank, but her business was
delayed, for Mr. Robson said there were dividends duelfor
only 36 years instead of 39. However, she was happy to
find tae mistake was rectified, by the following letter,
written to her by the Lord Chancellor, which, • with a sub •
sequeat one, is in the possession of the officer who took her
into custody:— .
" Dear Madam—You must come this evening, or the
old gentleman (meaning Mr. Langford) will be highly
ofended. Robson, of the Bank of England, sent me a
mte an hour after we had left, to say the old gentleman
was correct, therefore we shall get our business finished
the first thing in the morning : remember, we shall expect
yot about eight, in George-street. Yours sincerely, &c.
(Signed) " J. S. LYNDHURST.

" Jan. 21;"
Notwithstanding the above, tisappointment followed
disappointment. At last, on Tuesday Mr. B. accom-
panied the lady himself to the Bank, and sat an hour with
her in the Rotunda, but her friends did not come to meet
her, and he applied at this office for a warrant to appre-
hend her. _ _

The Officer brought a parcel of papers in a bag to the
office, as well as the prisoner, which be found in a bureau
at her lodgings. The first article pulled out by the officer,
was a folio book, filled with manuscript, and Mr. Rawlin-
son began to read—" The Monk of Penmer Maur," (Pen-
men Mawr.) Chap. I.
_ _

" The hour's now come,
" The very minute bids thee ope thine ear,
" Obey, and, be attentive."—Shakspeare.
" I have also got a letter, your Worship, directed to
Lord Holland," said Wall, " which I found in her pocket."
Mr. Rawunsorr opened a letter, and read, "Jan. 29,
1828.—My Lord, your Lordship's known benevolence has
induced me to address you, but to enter into the cause I
am incapable, my mind is on the rack. If your Lordship
will see me, I may make myself understood. For God's
sake grant me this request, you can save my life. I will
call to know your Lordship's determination by eight o'clock
to-morrow morning,.-at nine my fate is fixed. Oh, see
me, and may God bless you! I can say no more ; I am,
wretched, I am your Lordship's humble servant, &c.
" Tuesday afternoon.
The duplicate contained in the letter was for an article
pawned on the Ist of February for Is.
Mr. RAwLursox asked the prisoner if any one could
prove she bad such a cause in Chancery, and she made no
reply.
In answer to other questions, she said Ake bad a hus-
b and, but did not know where he was, and she did not
intend to cheat.

Mr. RAWLINSON was surprised she had succeeded by
such means.

Tile prisoner was remanded ; and Mr. Rawmwsol4
ordered that the other papers should be carefully examined.

QUEEN-SQUARE.--Yesterday this office was crowded
by the parochial officers of St. Margaret's, Westminster,
in consequence of an assault warrant having bden granted
against a person styling himself ,a Rev. Doctor, for an
assault. on Mr, Robert Bryant, one of the overseers of that
metish-
The Reverend defendant made an apology, and was dis-
charged.
WORSHIP-STREET.—On Friday last, a Mr. Booth
applied to the Sitting Magistrate, Mr. BROUGHTON, for a
warrant against a man named Robert Butcher Smith, of
Ne. 10, Red Lion-passage, Wood-street, Spitalfields, for
obtaining money from him by false pretences.—Case dis-
missed.

Yesterday Jonathan Reynolds, charged with bigamy,
was again brought up for examination. The depositions
were taken up stairs by Mr. Bayles.
The first marriage with Mary Aldridge, at St. John's,
Clerkenwell, was clearly proved. It took place on the
13th of October, 1823. _ _

The prisoner was remanded till Saturday the 16th inst.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, I. 0.

Lusltr V. RILEY AND DOW.

The defendants in this case were the parties who
had become hail for a person named Holdsworth, in
an action brought against him by the present plain-
tiff, to recover a sum of 5001., which he alleged had
been improperly obtained from him at play, in a
gambling-house in King-street, St. James's, while
Holdsworth was the dealer ; and considering him-
self entitled to recover the money at his hands, he
brought the action already alluded to. A writ of
capias ad respondendum was issued in that action,
upon which Holdsworth appeared and tendered the
present defendants as bail. They were accepted,
and on the subsequent default of Holdsworth, be-
came liable to the plaintiff, and proceedings were ac-
cordingly instituted against them. Willing to settle
the action, Riley went immediately to Mr. Hague,
the attorney, who had acted for the plaintiff, and
entered into an arrangement with him, in which it
was agreed, that upon payment of 1001. in money,
and two bills of 251. each, dated at six and twelve
months, all proceedings against Riley should be
stopped. The other defendant, Dow, did not at-
tempt any settlement of the action, and eventually
his goods were seized under an execution.
Mr. Sergeant NOSANQUET, on a former day, ob-
tained a rule, calling on Mr. Hague, the attorney, to
show cause why this execution should not be set
aside, upon the ground of irregularity.
Mr. Sergeant WILD; on the part of Riley, also
obtained a rule, calling on Mr. Hague to show
cause why the money, and securities for money,
which had been given him, should not be returned.
Mr. Sergeant ADAms this day appeared to show
cause against these rules. Having gone through
the affidavits made on both sides, the Learned Ser-
geant contended that his client's affidavit was a sa-
tisfactory answer to the application, and that there-
fore the rule should be discharged.
Rule discharged.

ARCHES COURT, FEE. G.
PRANKARD V. DEACLE.

Sir Jolts TI tcHou gave sentence in this case,
which was a suit for brawling and smiting, promoted
against Mr. Edward Prankard in the Archidiaconal
Court of Bath and Wells, and which was invoked by
the Chancellor of that Court, on the death of the
Archdeacon, into the Episcopal Court of that diocese,
without an express assent on the part of the defen-
dant, who appealed against the sentence, as thereby
void. The learned Judge held that the party pro-
ceeded against had virtually recognized the proceed-
ings in the Episcopal Court; that as the Bishop of
the diocese had concurrent jurisdiction in these mat-
ters with the Archdeacon, who was oculus episcopi,
there had been no irregularity or illegality in the
proceedings, and therefore that no injurity could ac-
crue to the substantial merits of the case. He con-
sequently rejected the appeal, remitted the cause,
and condemned the appellant in costs.

WILLIE V. MOTT AND !RENCR,
This was a cause of perturbation of church seat,
promoted by Mr. Alexander Wyllie against the
churchwardens of Thames-Dittos, calling upon them
to show cause why they should not reinstate him in
a certain pew in the church.
Dr. LUSHINGTON moved that Mr. Wyllie might

be allowed to proceed no further in this case without
being condemned in the costs of the churchwardens.
The circumstances were these:-7—ln 1811 a gallery
was built in the cbuteh, containing additional pews,
one of which was sold to Mrs. Moss, the mother-in-
law of Mr. Wyllie; she occupied it till 1820, when
she relinquished it to Mr. Wyllie, who occupied it
till June, 1822, when, in consequence of the increase
of his family,he obtained an adjoining pew, which had
been occupied by Lady Sullivan, then quitting the pa-
rish. In 1826, Mr. W. let his house, and the church-
wardens alleged he had abandoned the parish;
whereas he held 100 acres of land, and bad another
house in it, though it was rated in the nuke of a re-
lation. The churchwardens, however, removed
Mr. Wyllie from the pew, and put in Mr. Morgan,
assigning Mr. Wyllie a pew, capable of holding
four, whereas he had a wife and 11 children, and
paid 100/. per annum to the parish. The expence
of going on with this case, the irregularity of the
-proceedings in the first instance, and the circum-
stances of the churchwardens having been justified
in removing Mr. Wyllie, had induced him (Dr.
Lushington) to consider it expedient not to proceed
farther. The Court, he trusted, would see the pro-
priety of this; but would not, under the circum-
stances, give costs.
Dr. TENNER, for the churchwardens, thought that
the facts of the case justified a claim for costs.
Sir Join( Nicnom—The proceedings in this case
commenced by an error on both sides, and when the
parties were satisfied as to the law, the suit ought
to have been put an end to. I shall dismiss the
cause, sentencing Mr. Wylie to pay 201. nomine
s.zpenfarum.
Charles Tebbs, Esq., Notary Public, was this day
admitted, in the usual-form, one of the Procurators-
General 'supernumerary) exercent in the Arches'
Court of this province, by virtue of a rescript from
his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. •

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FEB. 6.
Yesterday Joseph Zamira was heard upon his
petition.
The insolvent described himself of Bevis Marks,
grocer, of Marseilles, in France, and late of 98,
laishopsgate-street, out of business; and he attri-
buted the cause of his insolvency to the expences
incurred by providing for a large family.
The insolvent's schedule contained some claims
made by parochial officers, which arose from orders
of filiation made upon him; and it was stated that,
in addition to thirteen children by his wife, he is
the sire of twenty illegitimates, borne by one woman,
and all of whom were living at the same time.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said, that it appeared
to him that the cause of, insolvency arose• from his
having made an assignment of all his property to a
person named Sowers, at a time when he (insol-
vent) was confined in Newgate upon a criminal
charge.
The insolvent was remanded, in order to allow
time to make further inquiry relative to this property.