The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-19 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.

GRIA. V. GSM..
tome, arguments in this case having been concluded
Y,
HONOUR gave judgment in favour of the
Plaintiff, whom he declared to be entitled to an
4100unt of the residue of her late father's estate, or
to the Ruin of 15011., which certain of the defendants
'Omitted to be assets in their hands.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
sh Mr. CLINTON applied to the Court for a rule to
t ')w cause why the Name of Edwin Cockey, an at-
;°4le,Y of this Court, should not be struck off the
,
he having been convicted of a felony, and
nory under sentence of transportation.
tit 44 'Court granted a rule nisi.
ICING, AT THE PROSECUTION Or LORD WALLACE

uldi
, of.
his

ion

:tor
tits
less
of

~hy„

from
gine?
, for

atba-

.........1,

..---.'l

eline,

-r

ming,
rabic-
the
up to
The
are

aitimg
that
I call
The
,g arty
letter

,1826 r
1; Ex-
French
70
raw

GA;

ca•

;ES.

og-dOl

ring tb°

another

of 0.

hip pry
lion or

st ten

r. M. BARBER BEAUMONT.
, e
Ih defendant in this case, who was convicted of
,„4l on Lord Wallace, was in Court to receive
71,g.tnent, but on the motion of the Attorney-Gene-
4'"t was arranged that the defendant should be
-71 up for judgment on Monday next.
to Earl Ferrers, Lord Northwich, Sir John Harring-
ri, Sirof John Duckitt, and several other Directors
the County Fire Office, were in Court during the
tn.l
- XING AT THE PROSMITION or rirsay WINCHESTER

The
V. THE CfIgtONATION OF LONDON.
liOhe arguments in this case commenced, and are
ht el to occupy. the Court until its rising. The
I•ctIlf the case have been so often before the pub-
t 'deem it unnecessary to detail them.
hilt it' no'. probable that the judgment of the Court
h
p.renounced to-day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
CITY DINNERS.
CARTER. AND OTHERS V. sAuxnntsos.
This was an action brought by the Master War-
dens, &c. of the Coopers' Company, in the City of
r "oedon, against the defendant, who is one of the
tubers of the Company, to recover the sum of
, being the amount of a penalty inflicted upon
tilvtn by the Company, in accordance with one of its
'layee. The circumstances of the case were
:--The defendant in eonjunction with two
ryth" members of the Company, was tip-
tnted one of the Stewards to provide
dinner on the occasion of Lord Mayor's day,
1,;t1 office he refused to accept, although a bye-
th of the Company imposes a penalty of 201. upon
Le Member who shall refuse to accept such otlice.
t)llsequenee of his refusal, the Company brought
I),'N. action to recover the penalty of 20/. under the
ditiaw, and the defendant having demurred to the
I)Ziaration, the arguments were heard by the Court
%triorning. There was, however, an alternative
stne bye-law, that if the person appointed would
'D r that he was not worth 3001. after the payment
„ifell his debts, he should be exempted from the
and from the penalty also.
Pe St. Sergeant TADDY now contended that the
•
fnr4l tY was illegal, and that the action was, there-
‘e, not maintainable.
t, Ir• Sergeant WILDE on the other hand, con-
th,tided that all reasonable bye-laws were binding on
se
members, who, before they became so, were
~14te of the existence of those bye-laws, and that
t„efts the enal was obviously so extravagant as
ue deemed so ty
on the first view, the Court would
r enter into an examination as to whether it was
st all, or the contrary.
..,4oe LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in giving judgment,
:,hat he would not cell on Mr. Sergeant Taddy
(1•I'l t
teplv the case being as clearly as possible, from
thtPrevious decisions in similar cases, in favour of
defendant. He sincerely hoped that the judg-
h,„
i At of the Court might not hare the effect of
t4:llsing in upon the good dinners of the city ; but
thn ieter its effect, the decision he must come to upon
I),;ilaW of the ease was that the declaration was
IC' It ought to have averred that some offer of
Olvvattee was made by the Company to the de-
tnklamt, and whatever might have been the inten-
-11,410f the Company with respect to the allowance,
defendant should be made acquainted with the
:'ntion, or he would be unable to provide the din-
Tt with any respect to his own circumstances.
h.obye-law had every vice that a bye-law could
I,'• A bye-law to give a feast might be good un-
?:Partieular circumstances, and it might also be a
vidttl regulation to appoint the person who was to pro-
feast,but in the present case the dinner was not
ov'ded for any purpose of business relating to the
ii,ltnliany, but merely for the purposes of luxury. A
14111." by way of refreshment, after transacting the
I,'tress of the Company, might he proper enough,
,4,tbere was no authority to make a bye-law corn-
-1,,,1^g a member to provide a dinner for the pur-
sfe of good fellowship and luxury. The members
th: Corporation were not liable to bye-laws, unless
r'l were reasonable, and of their reasonableness the
I:;4ttaatWestminster Nvere to be the judges if appealed
In the opinion of the Court nothingcould be more
r4monable than that after the defendant should have
illtred the expences of the dinner, the master was
left to contribute what he thought proper.—
t4thotight that it was good policy to prevent the
itr:4s' of oaths unless justified by necessity, where
di e great right was pending ; but in the case of a
tilkttet for the mere purposes of luxury, a member was
hate put to the necessity ofincurring an expense, per-
tti3 of 50/. which he could ill afford, or else to
s,:rinot
to the degradation of swearing that he
lit'ot worth 3001. after the payment of his debts.
()I l L as aware that the penalty of 201. was not an
sgt to the defendant, and he regretted that he
tt 144 have put the Court to thenecessity of coming
il.'tdeeision on the matter. Had it been his own
he would have adopted another course, bat as
6,,718, he must decide that the bye-law was cruel,
04se it compelled a person to incur a serious loss,
it,:i,'e to submit to a degradation; and void, because
I; Mich byt law was unreasonable, and therefore
'l,,'Nl„r. Justice Butßoucat and Mr. Justice GAZELEE
ii" Ced deciding upon the unreasonableness of the
nor upon the Lord Mayor's day, which might be
tilt)°d custom, but there was another point which
't.verl them from the necessity of doing so. The
ha station should have stated the allowance to be
tirie to the stewards, and as that did riot appear, it
fatal to the claim of the Company.

ere"'-
want by
Recoille'
Fr. Vi'r;
nberlan-
rdered 6
aised for
PP6ve°,,dt.
deelfir—

• a
rung,
.torte °`
an 10" r•
ruck the
;ea fe°ll :
the re-.
the ette_.f-
:ed Or;
'my 10°1-
therer,
)(Yard t'

4 INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
i,''anchett Good Watson came up to be heard on
94 Petition. Ho was opposed by Mr. WOODRUFFE,
i'ehalf.of Mr. Henry Morland, who stated, that
q,lad lent the insolvent a sum of moiler, and had
lit,,, wards commenced an action for the recovery
ea,t°t.• The insolvent had put in a plea, (which
'IN him about sixpence), and ran the witness to
hY 301. law expellees.
HEATH addressed the Court in defence of the
ki
ti*tent.
Pkti.,e Court, however, after commenting on the
,N4ll(:us defence and its consequences to Mr. Mor-
Utt l'eluanded him for three calendar months at
be of the opp osin creditor, an ordered him to
within the g walls of the pdrison.

A With
hake t-
will f,"v'
0 belies'
withs
the fist.

of the
aribls'
ntractv
teo of tlj°

p3Bsej,
their WS/ ,
the Ceti-
Borper•-""

4;4•Wts.—The yellow-eyed monster exerted
I;'itp-itiT2ienet over one of the showmen's wives last week.
et vi t ‘"1 a young lady not distinguished for her urbanity
Ther):-",ts demeanour, was found with one of the show-
-11,4, Plot evading on the banks of the Ouse, when his
to"lp her appearance. A Leghorn hat was soon torn
.miv„, a lace veil shared the same fate, the young lady's
‘ll4^, severely rent, and her lovely features were wo-
raerLothd by the finger nails of the Irish wife. Of
tueY came before the Magistrates, when the wife
nave', Ga-"lrnitted to prison for want of bail.. .—Brighton
I "e•

ich '4'45
woo Ar
[atives
grliriv; ,
.at-grot
ihial,
et desego
the faD►l~
Leighbetif
genitOt