The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-21 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY,

THE REGISTRATIONS.
The Court this morning resumed the hearing of
appeals from the decisions of the revising barristers,
under the Act of the Gth Victoria.
BAXTER V. THE OVERSEERS OF DONCASTER.
This was an appeal against the decision of the revising
barristers for the West Riding of Yorkshire, who had
refused to expunge from the list of voters certain
assessors and collectors of assessed taxes, appointed by
the Commissioners of the Land-tax.
Mr. Hildyard appeared for the appellants, and Sir
Gregory Lewin for the respondents.
The case was considered important, as it involved the
votes of two persons in every parish in the kingdom.
The question depends upon this, whether the 43d of
Geo. 111. is to be taken as repealing the 22d of the same
reign, which excluded from the franchise all salaried
public officers and servants ; and whether the claimants
came under the category cf those public servants who are
still excluded by the 43d Geo. 111, from voting at the
election of Members to serve in Parliament.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that those officers
were not appointed by the Crown. They were com-
pelled, whether they liked it or not, to take upon them-
selves a troublesome and responsible office. There was
another case set down for argument, in which a similar
point was involved ; their Lordships, therefore, would
hear that second case in its due course, and until then
postpone the decision of the present case.
BAXTER V. NEWMAN.
This also was an appeal from the decision of the re-
vising barrister of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The
argument, having been partly heard, was postponed, in
consequence of the illness of Mr. Martin.
DAVIS V. WADDINGTON.
The appellants in this case are the brethren of Jesus
Hospital, Rothwell (Northamptonshire, N. D.), who
claimed to vote upon the qualification of their life in-
terest in the property of that charitable foundation. The
revising barrister disallowed the claim.
Mr. MANSELL, in support of the appeal, cited nume-
rous cases to show that the brethren have a share in the
proceeds of the freehold estate, so long as they observed
the rules and orders of the hospital. That was an in-
terest " suando se bene gesserint," and therefore, accord.
ing to all the cases referred to, was to be held as a life
interest in the freehold.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES, for the respondent, said that the
brethren had not a life interest, for, according to the
charter, the governors had not only the appointment of
the " master and twenty-four poor and infirm men,"
but also the expulsion or removal of them, the master
and brethren, " when and as often as" to them, the go-
vernors, or the majority of them, might seem fit. The
charter laid down certain rules, for breach of which the
master or any of the brethren should be expelled ; for
.instance, if he married, or was an " idler.' But the
governors were not limited by that specific law, for they
had unlimited power to make bye-laws and regulations,
and to expel for any reasonable cause. In fact, the free-
hold was vested in the governors alone, and the brethren
had no property. But he felt so strong on the other
part of the case, that he would not argue this latter point
at present, especially as it would arise in the next
appeal.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE said that the Court was of
opinion that the persons whose names were attempted
to be put upon the registry had no freehold interest in
the estate. The charter gave to the governors in the
most unlimited manner the power of expelling them,
The decision of the barrister is confirmed.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS PAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
BOOSEY V. PURDAY.
_ .

In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. Cramp-
ton, on the first day of the present term, calling on the
plaintiff in the action to show cause why an entry made
at Stationers' Hall should not be expunged or varied, or
why the plaintiff should not be restrained from using the
said entry as evidence in the trial of the cause.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved this morning.to set aside
the rule. It appeared that a musical composer of great
eminence at Milan, named Bellini, composed an opera
called La Sonnambula, for the managers of the great
theatre in that city, and that on the 19th of February,
1831, be sold the copyright to an Italian gentleman of
the name of Ricardi, the managers of the Milan Theatre
concurring in the sale. On the 9th of June, 1831, Mr.
Ricardi sold the opera to Mr. Boosey, the plaintiff in
the present action, by whom it was entered at
Stationers' Hall. Iu 1841, Mr. Purday, the defendant,
published a song, which was part of the opera in ques-
tion. The plaintiff remonstrated with him upon the
subject, and Mr. Purday, or his brother, agreed to sup-
press the publication and destroy the plates. Notwith-
standing this agreement, Mr. Purday had, in the present
year, published other parts of this opera, and for that
infringement of the copyright the action was brought.
On the 13th of May, 1844, before the trial of the action,
Mr. Boosey made another entry at Stationer? Hall, which
was the entry now sought to be expunged. The parties
had proceeded hitherto as far as declaration. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the sth and 6th of Vic-
toria, relating to copyright, and contended if the rule were
made absolute, the plaintiff would be deprived of an ad-
vantage which the legislature intended that he should
possess. The case of Chappell and Purday, which was
yet pending, afforded no criterion for the present.
The Court here suggested that it would be desirable to
let the matter stand over until Chappell and Purday had
been decided.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. JOEL SPINNER.
Mr. PouLsosi moved for a rule to show cause why
two inquisions taken on the bodies of two persons, who
had died from accident on the river, should not be
quashed. The proceedings had been already removed
into Court by certiorari. There were several objections
on the face of the inquisitions.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. THE REV. JOHN HAILSTONE.
Mr. GUNNING in this case moved for a mandamus
directed to the Rev. John Hailstone' Vicar of Botisham,
calling upon him to show cause why he should not re-
store Thomas Flack to the office of parish clerk. He
was appointed to the office of clerk fifteen years ago, and
performed the duties of his office till the 14th of July.
He was told by the vicar that he was removed from his
office, and no reason was assigned by the vicar for such a
proceeding. The clerk attended in church on the fol-
lowing Sunday, from which he was removed by two con-
stables, by order of the vicar, who gave notice to all per-
sons who might be desirous of having the office to send
in their claims. Upon this the solicitor for the clerk
applied to the vicar to know who his attorney was, as it
was his (the clerk's) intention to apply to the Court.
Mr. Justice PATTESON thought the proceeding a very
extraordinary one, and could not but think that the
whole of the facts were not before the Court. He would,
however, grant a rule.—Rule nisi granted.
EXPA.RTE C. C. WILSON.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the other day an
application had been made by Mr. Peacock for a habeas
corpus to the Island of Jersey, on behalf of Mr. C. C.
Wilson, and that application was made on the
affidavit of Mr. Wilson himself. That affidavit did not
state what was the peculiar law of the Island of Jersey,
stating merely that he was in custody for an alleged con-
tempt of the Royal Court of that Island. He (the Soli-
citor-General) was now to apply to the Court for a rule
to show cause why that writ should not be quashed quia
improvide emanavit, or why a supersedeas should not
issue. He thought it only respectful to his Lordship to
bring the subject before him, because he believed if the
circumstances of the case had been fully stated, his Lord-
ship would have hesitated before he granted the writ.
The Court was quite aware, from the case of The King
v. Hobhouse, that the granting of a writ of habeas dur-
ing term time was discretionary. He (the Solicitor-
General) made the present application on the affidavit
of the Procurator-General of Jersey, who stated that he
had held the office of Procurator-General since 1823. Ho
always understood, and believed, that the Island of
Jersey, and the other Channel Islands, were annexed
to the Crown of England at the time of the
Conquest by William Duke of Normandy, and that they
were the only portions of that duchy which remained to
England : that Jersey was governed by peculiar laws
and customs, essentially different from those of Eng-
land : that the Royal Court of Jersey was composed of
the baillie, twelve jurats, the Procurator-General, the
Ad vocate-G eneral, &c., who had jurisdiction in all matters
civil and criminal. . The affidavit then went on to state
the circumstances under which the Court ordered Mr.
'Wilson to be imprisoned. He (the Solicitor-General)
would now draw the attention of the Court to the point
whether this Court had power to issue a writ of habeas
corpus to the Island of Jersey ; and in the next place
he would submit that if the Court had that power,
it was discretionary with it whether it would grant it or
not, and that the circumstances of this case were such as
would induce the Court not to exercise it on the present
occasion. The Learned Gentleman then referred to
Lord Coke's 4th Institute, p. 286, to show that a writ of
habeas corpus would not run in Jersey, though the
King's commission would. It was true there was a
habeas corpus granted in the case of Overton, one
of the regicides of King Charles, who took refuge
in Jersey, where he was imprisoned several years.
The note upon that case, however, was very imperfect.
The 12th sec. of the 31st of Charles 11., which was the
Habeas Corpus Act, merely referred to imprisonments
where the parties had been sent abroad, and detained in
prison in the places specified in that section of the Act.
There was nothing in the Habeas Corpus Act applicable
to the circumstances of this case, where the party was
not sent out of England, but imprisoned for an offence
committed in Jersey. It appeared, from a note in Mr.
Justice Coleridge's edition of Blackstone, vol. 1., p. 108,
that " prerogative writs from the King's Bench, such as
mandamus, prohibition may issue to every part of the
dominions of the Crown of England. The distinction
was between a foreign dominion, which belonged to a
Prince succeeding to the throne of England, such as
Vs nwtl
Ex TENSIVE FIRE NEAR THE STRAND.--
atop&
Hanover, and territories obtained by conquest, or in any
other mode annexed to the Crown of England. Accord-
0. ~
ing bt qween seven and eight, o'clock, a
stir'', 7 soutb
with : I great loss of property, broke out at n j shoe'
ing to this distinction prerogative writs would not run
in those islands as a part of the Duchy of Normandy." COURT OF REVIEW—( _ _-____ ___ ~ timptt in-street,
THIS -HAY 1
makei e mimed Troy, and Mr. Anderson, a fire to
He (the Solicitor- General) would not go the length of say- (Before Sir K. Puree.) Strand, occupied by a
fl hen the
_,14
ing that the Court had no jurisdiction at all with regard to His HONOUR sat this morning fin Bankruptcy as Chief premises were of great extent, an— w
obtained the c°'''illet a sposed of bankrupt first p erceived it appeared to have
_engine' o'lt
_,
this point, but he prayed in aid the doubt which existed. Judge of the Court of Review, and c.:.'
posses: ion of the building. The parish wear
The usual course of proceeding in those cases was to petitions.
h , brigade, t Dlr.
apply to the Queen in Council, and it would be most in- At an early part of the proceedings 2. ir. Alexander great i 'umber more belonging to tt.
nteosn ,
ese
Ile West of England one, with its superi .
,he „c
.13
convenient if the Court, by granting a writ of habeas took his seat within the Bar as Queen's Cotn:eil• • aching "' rues
Conno rton, were remarkably quick in re
that
unable PP' to
corpus, were to bring persons from Jersey or the Planta- IN RE DAYKIN.
• a
the of cord lagration, but notwithstanding
were hicb
Lions into this Court, where there was no person to aP- The petition in this case was an application .t.,. '
ql.e, exerted themselves to the utmost,
htheyera.__s in w.o._,
Dear for them. Under those circumstances, he thought Court to annul a fiat of bankruptcy as invalid en boottaialor.ors
Get: the mastery of the flames until t ep I: a
_roe ad.!
_isao
.hat the Court, supposing it had the power to grant the ground of an alleged fraud in creating a debt. The et:-
they originated were entirely destroyedfire
75., to
oDttle,
writ, would hesitate, before it exercised the discretion Lion was first presented in September last, and now camep
with which it was vested, in a case like the present. on again for rehearing. The fiat was issued in No- :ng 'property extensively injured. The h
bed-room
a IL ge
The Court could, if it thought proper, order the de- • eember, 1843, and under it the assignees were chosen in b, confined to his bed by ill
1 health. dais'
fendant to go at large upon bail.
December in the same year. The bankrupt had been mai.
. . -olsen out on the first floor, in the be
IS tlb r in fil'n'eti 17„°
.--At—At __OSaa
Mr. Justice PATTESON--It is quite clear that you' a farmer, and had dealt in horses, and there was much 5 G. ME
e ga'sans, --ri roe
are entitled to a rule. When the motion was made be- ! contradictory evidence as to whether he had bought and ,08A./4, ere killed. There were only ON V
fore me I was certainly struck by its novelty, and asked I sold them beyond what was necessary in his business, , Fabiuts 11
M'
2,393 partridges, 316 phe
.01._ fpertt
I '

Mr. Sergeant Byles adopted the suggestion on the con-
dition that the defendant should keep an account of all
that he might sell in the interval.

ARCHES' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST.)
THE BASINGBOURNE CASE—THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE
PROMOTED BE TITCHMARSH, AGAINST CHAPMAN,
CLERK—THE JUDGMENT.
The Learned JUDGE upon the sitting of the Court this
day, proceeded to pronounce judgment, and in doing so
read through all the voluminous affidavits, commenting
upon each point in the evidence as he went along. After
referring to the demand made for the first time in 1840,
respecting the burial of Jane Rumbold by her father,
when it was alleged that the Rev. Mr. Chapman refused
to perform the burial service over it, on the ground that
the child had not been baptised according to the rites of
the Church of England, which circumstances the
Learned Judge did not seem to consider as affecting the
latter proceedings, he commenced with the demand made
in 1841, against which it was alleged by the Learned
Advocates on the part of the Rer. Mr. Chapman,
that due and convenient notice had not been given
previous to the corpse being brought to the churchyard.
Upon this subject the Learned Judge said that after a
careful perusal of the affidavits of John Rumbold, the
child's father, of the Rev. Mr. Moorse, and of the de-
ponent Hopkins, he could not see that either of them
had distinctly stated any facts which would lead to the
conclusion the required " die and convenient" notice
had. been given to Mr. Chapman. It was true that it
deposed in the affidavit of Hopkins that when the corpse
was deposited in the church porch, and he and John
Rumbold went up to the Rectory to request that the
funeral service might be read, the Rev. Mr. Chapman
expressed a wish that he might have a vvitncea present,
thus leading to an inference (as he had a person present)
that he had a previous intimation of the object of this
visit, but he (the Learned Judge) could not decide that
this fourth individual might not have been accidentally
present. The Rev. Mr. Moo rse, John Rumbold,
and Hopkins had each had interviews with Mr. Chapman,
and he (the Learned Judge) thought, that nothing could
have been easier than to prove the fact, if either one of
the three had given " due and convenient" notice to the
Rei. Gentleman. In the affidavit of the Rev. Mr.
Moorse, the most material points were those with
respect to the deceased having received the sacrament of
baptism, according to the observances and forms of
Christianity ; and also with respect to the application
to the Bishop, in 1840. In fact, through the whole of
this gentleman's affidavit, there was not the smallest evi-
dence of notice having been given to Mr. Chapman.
With respect to the affidavit of John Rumbold, the
father of the deceased, again he (the Learned Judge)
felt bound to say, that he thought no proof had been
afforded of due notice being given. If those tninistra-
tions were to be taken before a Court of
Common law instead of an Ecclesiastical Court,
and tried under a statute instead of a canon, there must
have been proof of a refusal to perform the lawful re-
quirements, after due and convenient notice of the per-
formance of those rights had been given, before the
party so charged would be subjected to the penalties of
the statute, and Lord Denman had himself held this to
be necessary. It was precisely the same in this Court,
for if it had been proved that sufficient notice had been
given of the time of burial to the clergyman, and if after
that he refused to " perform his office," he was clearly
guilty of an offence against the canon. It was his (the
Learned Judge's) opinion, that every person must feel
convinced that decency, and the due, and respectful, and
effective performance of the required ministration, im-
peratively demanded that " due and convenient" notice,
should be given to every clergyman, when he was re-
quired to perform any office dins ministry, and believing
that, in the present case, there had been a neglect of
such observance, he felt bound to pronounce in the Rev.
Mr. Chapman's favour, as it had not been proved that he
was guilty of an offence against the canon, as the pro
sent suit was promoted, and that the promoters had
failed to establish the grounds of their suit.

..--.-.....-.....--------,
34
Oct. Pl . .. ... 46 3 1.
y 33 6/ 20 6 37 10 '36 1,,1 g./ 10
19 46 3 34 6 1 1/0 8, :8 0 36 , 51
1
26 46 0 34 9 20 11 '39 3.37 L' 55 /
Nov,• 2
9 46 3 36 1 21 61 54 6' N 7 1: 55
,16 -
i.,
r IMPILIAL AGGREGATE AVIRAGES OF THE S-ts. -v
1,. 5"
ni
Wheat. ..... ... 465. 2d 1 Oats
„,,,. a.
Marley., ..... .. 31.3 lld. I Rye
DUTIES OW FOREIGN coax. !, , lid'6,i.
Wheat .........2e5. Od. I Oats
Barley .......... 4s, Od. 1 Rye ......