The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-25 00:00:00

COLLIERIES BILL.

On the motion for the further consideration of the Report of
the Alines and Collieries Bill,

Mr. AINSWORTH opposed the consideration of the Re-
port that night. He intended to move, " That a Select Com-
mittee be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining; how far the
clauses in that Bill, curtailing the hours of labour of boys em-
ployed in collieries under 13 years of age, to three days a week,
and thereby reducing their wages in proportion, willitave a ten-
dency to increase the distress and destitution which at present
exists in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and York
shire."

Mr. GREENE did not think; the, motion could be enter-
tained. He wished to know whether that was so.
The SPEAKER said that the motion at the present stage
was irregular.
After a few words from Mr. AINSWORTEI and Mr.
WA IVN,

Sir J. GRAHAM said that children only under ten years
of age were not to be employed in the mines, and that he
thought a very reasonable proposition.—( Rear, hear.)
LAMI3TON hoped the Bill would pass with all expe-
dition.

Mr. SCOTT said the Bill would be likely to throw many
persons out of employment, and therefore it ought not
he passed in such haste. The mines of the North Isere dif-
ferently circumstanced from those of the South, and it might
be even an advantage to them to have the Bill passed.
The Report was then brought up, and a new clause went
through Committee.
Lord ASHLEY having then moved that the BM should Le
read a third time on Wednesday next,
Mr. AINSWORTH complained that the Bill had been
improperly hurried through the House. He thought they
should not proceed any further with the measure until the
opinions of the people of the mining districts were ascer-
tained upon the subject.
Mr. LAMBTON was of opinion that ample time had been
already given to consider the question. It had been for a long
period before the public.
The Bill was then ordered to be read a third time on Wed-
nesday neat.
THE DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL )

This Bill was read a third time and pased.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.

LAW IN. TELLItiENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, June 24.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BOSANQUET.

The information in this cause was filed upon the relation
of a Mr. Lenser, for the purpose of having a certain charity
carried on in a manner correspondent with the wishes of the
founder, and to have certain abuses corrected; also, to have
an account of all the moneys in the hands of the trustee. It
appeared that Lady Munson by her will, dated December,
17'29, devised upon trust to her nephew, Lord Munscrn, a house
in Broxbourne, in Hertfordshire, to;be used as an almshouse for
six widows, and also 1,0001. bank stock for their maintenance.
Joseph Bosatiquet, the father of the present defendant had, in
1769, become -,iossessed of the property. The stock, in the
meantime, had accumulated to 2,0591.
The present defendant, on becoming trustee, had appropri-
ated a part of the almshouse to the use of a school, which
proved a great source of annoyance to the widows. Under
these circumstances the information was filed.
The defendant in his answer stated that he had not got
notice of the intention of filing the information ; that if
he had he would have had the nuisance abated ; that
since the filing of the information he had removed the
school, and that he had, in the first instance, only placed the
children at school in the almshouse until a house was erected for
th:.t purpose, as the poor school was too small.
Lord LANGDALE said that the information was a most frivo-
lous one ; no notice had been given to the defendant that the
information was to be filed, otherwise a satisfactory expla-
nation would have been given by him cm the
matter. He must, therefore, dismiss the bill He
would, however, allow costs against the defendant, on ac-
count of his want of prudence, in keeping so large a sum of
money uninvested, which was contrary to the order of the
Court.

COURT OF QUEEIVS BENCH, .Tune 24.
GATEMAN V. PINDER.
This was a case which had been tried before Mr. Justice
Vightman at Leicester, to recover a sum of money alleged to
Le due as a debt from defendant to plaintiff. Defendant
had pleaded the Statute of Limitations. At the trial
it was proved that since the action had been
brought defendant had paid U. on account, which it was con-
tended was such an acknowledgment of the debt as would take
it out of the statute. A verdict had been entered for the
plaintiff, and a rule nisi had been obtained to set it aside, on the
ground that the payment of the IL on account was not such an
acknowledgment of the debt as would take it out of the statute.
The Coo KT gave judgment in the case this morning, and
decided that in order to take a case out of the Statute of Limi-
tations, there should be some direct acknowledgment and recog-
nition of the debt, to enable a party to bring his action—
that a payment of money on account after the action was brought
did not constitute such acknowledgment, inasmuch as such
acknowledgment must be made before the commencement of
the action, in order to enable the party to bring his action at
all ; and that therefore the rule for setting aside the verdict must
be made absolute.
THE QUEEN V. HAR•EY—QUO VPARRANTO.—JUDGMENT.
Lord DENMAN, in giving judgment in this case, said that it
was a rule for a quo warranto calling upon the tefendant to
:hew cause by what right he claimed to exercise the functions
of an Alderman of the borough of Liverpool. It appeared
that on the 2Sth of October, 1841, Mr. Harvey hadbeen elected
as Alderman to supply a vacancy. The qualification of Alder-
man consisted either in being a Town Councillor at the time
of the election, or in being qualified to be one ; and among the
qualifications of Town Councillor, it was required that he should
he upon the burgess roll of the borough at the time of his election.
No the name of Mr. Harvey did not appear upon the burgess
roll of the borough, which was in force from Ist Novemer
1840 to Ist November 1841, but it did appear upon the
burgess lists made out by the overseers of the respective
' parishes on the 3d September 1841, which lists when revised
constituted the burgess roll which a euld be the roll in
force frum Ist November, 1841, to Ist November, 1842, and
his name bad been retained on the list of Revising Barristers.
The Court, however, held, that his name appearing in those
lists did not constitute a sufficient qualification, as there
could not be two burgess rolls, and the only burgess roll in
existence on the 28th October, 1841, the day of his election,
was the roll which came into force on the Ist November, 1841.
His name did not appear in that rod. He was consequently
not qualified, and the rule must be made absolute.
CHURCH-RATES—THE QUEEN V. THE CHAFELWARDENS OF
HAWORTH—JUDGMENT.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained for a mandamus,
ordering the chapelwardens of Haworth to collect their portion
of a church-rate assessed by the churchwardens and a minority
of the vestry of the parish of Bradford, to which parish the
chapelry of Haworth was contributing.
Lord DENMAN this morning gave the judgment of the Court
in this case. He said that in this case the Court
was called on to enforce a rate made upon the prin-
ciple raised by Chief Justice Tindal in giving
judgment in the Braintree Church-rate case in the Ex-
chequer Chamber. Church-rates were matters of Eccle-
siastesal cognizance, and therefore the proper place
to raise an argument on this dictum of Chief
Justice Tindal was the Ecclesiastical Court. It
happened, however, that the Chapelry of Haworth was obliged
by custom to contribute to the Church-rates of Bradford; and
thus the matter had been brought before the Court.
The Court had been urged to grant the rule, in order
to raise the point, and enable the point to be
I.tigated in the Ecclesiastical Court, but the Court would never
interfere to force parties to involve themselves in a doubtful
I tigation, and, therefore, en that ground the rule could
not be granted. The Chief Justice, in raising this novel
point had studiously avoided giving any opinion on the subject,
and all the Judges had reserved a right to themselves to con-
sider and give an opinion on the point when it should come regu-
larly before them. He felt it would be wrong to divest him-
self of the same freedom, and, therefore, he should offer
no opinion on that point. These were reasons suf-
ficient for refusing the rule, but a different state of
things had arisen since the rule had been applied for. The
parishofßraintree, acting upon the hint thrown out by Chief
J usticeßindal had made a rate inconformity with his suggestion.
The question had been argued in the Spiritual Court, and that
Court had decided that. such a rate was illegal. That decision
might he appealed against, but until it should be reversed, the
Court was bound to respect it On these grounds, therefore,
the rule must be discharged.
THE QUEEN V. THE CHAPELWARDENS OF FENTON.
JUDGMENT.
Lord DENMAN said this was a rule of a similar nature to
the one which lad been applied for in the preceding case,
and must be discharged on the same grounds. But even
if that had not been the case, the rule must have
been discharged on account of an informality in the affidavits.
It was alleged that by custom the chapelry of Fenton was
. compelled to contribute to the Church-rate of the
parish of Bennin4ton. Now it did not appear that
the inhabitants of Fenton had been summoned to attend
the making of the rate. If they had not been summoned, the
custom had not been complied with ;- and if it were not the
custom to summon-them, then the custom- was bad.