The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-18 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY).

YOUNG V. WATEEPARK.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal from the
decision-ofthe Vice-Chancellor of England occupied his Lord-
ship the whole morning. The question in the case was,
whether a power of appointment had been properly exercised.
The Vice. Chancellor of England decided that it had not, and
from that decision the present appeal was brought.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY).
The VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND took cause petitions
to-day, none of which possessed any feature of interest.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir JAMES WionAm.)
GRIFFITH V. RICKETTS. _ _

The Court was engaged during the morning in hearing the
arguments in the above part-heard case, which came before
the Court on demurrer. The case was of no interest except
to the parties immediately concerned.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY).
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. HAYNES AND OTHERS.

• This was an indictment against the defendants, who were
the parish officers of the parish of St. Michael, in the city of
Oxford, for disobedience to an order of sessions, in not paying
a sum which they had been ordered to pay as the expenses of
an appeal. The case was tried at the last Oxford Assizes,
and the defendants Haynes and Foster, the churchwardens,
were found guilty, and the other defendants Byron and
Walker, who were the overseers, were acquitted.
Mr. WIIATELT, on behalf of the two first defendants,
now applied for a rule nisi to enter a verdict
for the defendants or in arrest of judgment. The circum-
stances of the case were these. Several of the new buildings.
of the Colleges in Oxford had been rated to the poor, and an
attempt had ueen made to rate the old foundations of Jesus
College and of Exeter College. A rate had been made and
an appeal entered against it, on the ground that the parish
officers had omitted to rate these ancient foundations. The
College authorities refused to interfere—the parish of-
ficers did not defend the rate, and when the appeal
came on for hearing, it bad been disposed of by the sessions
as, in fact, an undefended cause ; anti the Recorder of Ox
ford, to the astonishment, he believed, of every one present,
had ordered the parish officers of St. Michael to pay 3041.
Bs., as the costs of this undefended appeal. They had re-
fused to pay this sum, and this indictment was in conse-
quence preferred against them. He applied for the rule on the
ground—first, that the Recorder had no jurisdiction whatever
in the case, inasmuch as the rate was assessed under a local
Act, and that as by that local Act the guardians of the poor
were the persons to whom the rate was paid, the defendants
had in fact no funds out of which to pay the costs. The
Learned Counsel was proceeding with his argument when he
was interrupted by
Lord DENMAN, who said that as there were many points
of law which would arise for consideration in the case, it had
better go into the Crown paper for argument.

WORTIIINGTV,C, ADMINISTRATOR OF DUNCAN DECEASED, /7,

GRI3ISDITCII, 31. P.

This was an action for money lent and interest thereon,
which had been tried before Mr. Justice Williams at Chester,
and_in which a verdict passed for the plaintiff for 1,2081. 105.

Mr. EVANS now moved for a rule nisi to enter a verdict for
defendant on the third plea, the statute of limitations. The
defendant, it appeared, had in 1810, 1813, and 1816, borrowed
of the Misses Duncan, the last of whom died in 1842, various
sums of money in bond. 'There were various accounts of
pecuniary transactions between the parties, but these ac-
counts ceased in 1823, but there was an account put in, dated
1824, in the defendant's handwriting, stating that he had
paid half a year's rent for the Misses Duncan, up to 1825.
The rent was annually 171. less than the sum the defendant
owed for interest, and to take the case out of the sta-
tute, the steward of the landlord under whom the
Misses Duncan held was called to prove that the defendant
had regularly paid the rent for the Misses Duncan up to the
time of the decease of the survivor of the sisters. He con-
tended that the evidence was not sufficient to take the
case out of the statute of limitations, and submitted that he
was therefore entitled to his rule.
Lord Diomfav—Take a rule.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY).
(Before ➢ir. Justice WIGHTMAN.)

THE QUEEN v. THE HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an application, made by Mr. Watson, to compel
the Hull and Selby Railway Company to pay over a sum of
2,5001. to the Company of Proprietors of a bridge, called the
Selby Bridge. The facts elicited were these :—that the bridge
in question was erected in 1791 under an Act of Parliament ;
that in 1836 an Act was passed for making and maintaining
the Hull and Selbyillailway ; and in that Act it was enacted
that should loss accrue tothe Bridge Company from the work-
ing of the railway, then such loss should be made good to the
Rridge Company by the payment on the part of the Railway
Company of a sum of money, equal to ten years' purchase of
the ascertained decrease of the Bridge tolls, provided such
sum should not exceed 2,5001. The affidavits filed stated
that the decrease in the Bridge tolls very far exceeded that
sum, and, therefore, the present application was made. The
Court granted the rule asked for.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WINKLEY V. ASH.

This action was brought to recover the sum of 10!., the
amount of a quarter's rent, for a house occupied by the de-
fendant, a beer-shop keeper, in Byer-lane. The defence set
up was that the defendant's son was the real tenant, but this
being disproved in evidence, the Jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff. . .