The Sun.
London, England, 1817-11-21 00:00:00

NEW STREET.-MANDAMUS.

Mr. Set jeant ONSLow moved for a rule to shew
cause why a Mandamus should not be directed to
the Commissioners under the New Street Act,
commanding them to issue their warrant to the
High Bailin' of the City and Liberties of West-
minst.e, to his Deputy, or to the Coroner, di-
rectlog him to summon a Jury, for the purpose of
inquiring what remuneration slrotdd he awarded
to a person of tl►e name of Leader, the occupier
of certain premises iu St. James's Market, for
the good-e,ill of his trade, and various losses
sustained by him, by reason of the New Street
Act. The Act in question was the 53d of,
his Majesty, c. 121, entitled " An Act for
making a more convenient communication be-
tween Mary-le-bone Park, and certain parts of
the Metropolis ;"—and the 22d clause was that
which applied to the present case. That clause set
forth '' that if any owners, proprietors, occupiers,
bodies politic, corporate, or collegiate, or any other
persons interested in any house which the Commis-
sioners for executing the Act find it necessary to
possess themselves of, shall refuse to treat, or will
not agree to.the terms offered to them, that then
the Commissioners shall issue their warrant to the
High Bailiff of the City and Liberties of West-
minster, or his Deputy, or, if they are interested,
to the Coroner, directing him to empannel a Jury,
to inquire into the damages sustained by, and to
assess what recompenee and satisfaction shall he
made to such owners. for, loss of good-will, im-
provements, and all damage whatsoever." By the
affidavit of Mr. Leader it appeared that he was
a bittehet;, and rented a shop, a dwelling-house,
and other premises, from the Doke of Leeds
(who was himself a lessee of the Crown), situate
iu Market-lane, St. James's Market. The dwell-
ing-hoose lie took with a condition of int-
provetuent, he being promised a lease of it,. if
he put it into perfect repair, in consequence of
which he laid out large stints of money on it, and
fitted it up as a lodging-house. With respect to
his shop and other premises, he there carried on a
very considerable buSiness, turning about 4,0004.
per annum. After the New Street Act was passed,
the Commissioners purchased of the Duke of
Leeds his Grace's interest in the premises—and
the deponent received notice to quit, not from the
Duke of Leeds, under whom he held, but from
the Commissioners. In the year 1815, he turned
4,0001. in his business—but, in 1816, his trade
was seriously injured by the operation of the Act
of Parliament, and he did nut turn more than
2,6001. The Commissioners having pulled down
all the premises round him, and given hiM notice
to quit, he sent in his demand to Mr. Milne, their
azent, who offered him 501 as a compensation for
the injury he had sustained, which he rejected.
He then called on the Commissioners to summon
a Jury to assess the damages, which they refused.
By the Act, no Jury • can be summoned, but by
order of the Commissioners, and,• therefore, he
prayed for the intervention of the Court to com-
pel them to do him justice.
The -Cantu., after intimating a strong doubt
whether the Commissioners, having purchased the
interest of the landlord, had
,a right to do more
than to give a tenant from year to year regular
notice to quit, granted the rule.

JUDGMENTS.

THE KING V. SHUN MEREILS.

The defendant was found guilty before Mr.
Justice Abbot, at the last Assizes for Suffolk, of an
obstruction of an Excise-officer, by means of
.which he secured some smuggled, property he was
conveying.- He was now brought up for judg-
ment, and put in an affidait, stating that he had
a wife and ten children dependent upon him.—
Mr. Chitty was heard in his behalf, and Mr. Ser-
jeant Blosset for the prosecution : the-sentence
was, that the defendant should be imprisoned for
six weeks in Ipswich Goal, and find security for
his good behaviour, himself in 401. and two sure-
ties in 201. each.

THE KING V. JOSEPH AND WILLIAM AINSWORTH

AND SAMUEL MALL.

The three defendants were convicted of an
assault upon an Excise-officer in Cheshire. They
were walking .along the road with guns, having
been out shooting, when they were overtaken by
Batley the officer, who wished them good day;
they abused him, and one of theta observed; tha t
he was only an Excise-officer, and deserved shoot -
-log, and when he had passed them about 40 yards,
a gun was fired, and some shot hit Batley in the
back, but did not penetrate through his great coat.
For this offence they were brought up to receive
sentence, which was, that the first 41efendant
should be confined in Chester gaol for six months,
and the two last for lour months each.

John Julian, found guilty of a similar but not
so aggravated an offence, near St. Ives, was sen-
tenced to be imprisoned one month, and to give
security for 3 years in 190/.
Lord Ellenborough did not preside to-day, and
Mr. Justice Abbot took some undefended causes
at Guildhall for the Chief Justice.