The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

BARTON V. KINGSTON AND OTHEItS.

Mr. THESIGER moved for a rule to show cause why a non-
suit should not be entered in this case, or why a verdict should
not be returned for the defendant. The Jury before whom the
cue had come at the last assizes, had returned a verdict fur
the plaintiff; with one farthing damages.
The case was an action for assault, to which the defendant
pleaded " not guilty," by the statute 2lst James the First.
The plaintiff was a parish clerk; and it appeared he had
incurred the displeasure of his ecclesiastical superiors, anti of the
parishioners, by the irregularity or the impropriety of his eon-
duet.• It was complained, among other things. that he had
refused to attend the Sacrament on two Easter Sundays. He
had been reprimanded by the Vicar upon the advice of the
Bishop, and he had promised on that occasion to amend his
behaviour. But his conduct soon becoming as objectionable as
ever, the Vicar had thought it necessary to remove him from
his situation, and to appoint another individual in his place.
For two or three successive Sundays, however, the plain-
tiff took his usual seat at church ; and so determined
was he in keeping possession of it, that after he had entered in
the morning he continued there during the day ; he dined there,
and had pudding brought to him by his son. At length a dis-
pute ,00k place between him and the newly-appointed clerk for
the seat; and the defendant becoining villent, he was removed
by force from the church by the complainant, who was a church-
warden,. and by others who were obliged to-come to his as•
sistance.

Tho Court, after hearing these facts stated, granted the rule.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 15.
This being the first day of term, the Lord Chief Justice,
Justices Coltman, Erskine, and Creswell, took their seats on
the bench soon after half-past one o'clock.

THE PARISH OF BATTLE V. VINEPE.
This was an action brought by the churchwardens and over-
seer of the parish of Battle (Sussex), to obtain possession of
certain lands claimed by them as the property of the parish.
The verdict was given for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant SHAW this day obtained a rule nisi for a new
trial, on the grounds that improper evidence had bean admitted,
and that the action was not brought by the proper parties, the
lawful representatives of the parish in matters of property
being the guardians of the union with which it was incorpo-
rated. In 1819, far the first time, the churchwardens
and overseers of a parish were constituted a corpo-
ration, and the possessors of the parish property by the Act
of Parliament, the 59th George 111., c. 12 ; but in 1834
the Act of the 4th and sth William IV., c. 69, com-
monly called the Poor-law Amendment Act, constituted the
guardians of a union a corporation, and the holders of the
property belonging to each parish in the union with
full power to take all proceedings at law respecting such
property as if it were their own. The Learned Sergeant,
therefore, contended that they were the parties who should
have sued in this case. The last-mentioned Act gave power
to the Justices of the Peace to issue warrants for the removal
of trespassers from lands er houses belonging to any parish
in the union, upon application to them by the guardians. The
latter had availed themselves of that clause of the Act, and the
entry made under the warrant accordingly issued, was the only
possession (as far as the evidence went at the trial) the parish
ever had of the lands in question. This evidence, he contended,
ought not to have been received, as the case in which the
guardians of the union proceeded as for their property, could
not be considered the same as that in which the churchwarden
and overseer of a distinct parish proceeded for property as theirs.
lie further contended, that the evidence adduced was not suffi-
cient to !how that the parisk had ever possessed a right against
the Lord of the Manor, under whom the defendant held.
The COURT could not think that the evidence of the pro-
ceedings on the part of the guardians ought to have been
admitted ; but on the other points their Lordships gave a rule
to show cause.

BAIL COURT, Apr:l 15.
This being the first day of Term, Mr. Justice Coleridge took
his seat on the Bench at half-past one o'clock.
His Lordship disposed of a few motions of no public interest.
arm. which the Court adjourned.

SECONDARIES' CO UR 7, April 15.
LENNY AND OTHERS V. DIMES.
In this action John Grimley Lenny, and another, were the
plaintiffs, and William Dimes the defendant. It appeared that
the plaintiff: are surveyors, residing at. Bury Sr. Edmund.,
and the defendant practised as a solicitor in London. In
15.35 :he defendant employed the plaintiffs to survey an estate
in the country, for which he was professionally conc'rned.
The plaintiffs surveyed the estate, and prepared a map of the
estate, which was forwarded to the defendant in London, who
paid the plaintiffs their charges for making the survey, &c.
The defendant afterwards succeeded in disposing of
part of the estate, and the person to wham
the estate was sold required a declaration to be made by some
person that the survey which the plaintiffs had made was cor-
rect, and the defendant wrote. to the plaintiffs, enclosing the
survey of the estate, and requesting them to make the declara-
tion required. The plaintiffs again compared the plan with
the estate, made the declaration, and forwarded the same to the
defendant in London, t,gether with an account of the charges
attending the making of the declaration, which amounted to five
guineas, for the recovery of which sum the present action had
been brought
Evidence was adduced to prove the facts, and
Mr. MILLER addressed the Jury at some length on be-
half of the defendant, contending that the defendant had em-
ployed the plaintiffs in his official character as attorney for Mr.
Fisk, who had purchased a portion of the estate which the
plaintiffs had surveyed, and he Mr. Fisk was the party liable
to the plaintiff for the amount of their claim in respect of the
declaration made by them.
The Learned Secondary PATTEN then summed up, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' LOUR 1; April 14.
THE QUEEN V. TAVIHN.

Mr. DEHANT, solicitor for the Crown, stated that her Ma
jesty's writ had been issued to inquire what goods, chattels,
&c., Edward Taplin, sugar manufacturer, of Back-road, St.
George's in the East, was possessed of on the 12th of Parch
lest, at which period Excise duties were due to the amount of
ball. lie. 40. He understood Mr. Taplin was not the real
proprietor, but he wa,. regi'tered as such with the Excise, and
therefore liable, as were the implements, &e. on the premises,
and also the stock of sugar of whatever materials composed ; all
were liable under the Act of' Parliament.

Mr. FRANCE, solicitor, said, he apparel on behalf of a
party who was materially interested, but as he could act as well
in the Court of Exchequer, he should merely watch the pro-
eeedings. Mr. France, at length, in answer to a question
from the Under-Sheriff, said be appeared on the part of the as-
signees of Mr. Isaac Newton Wigney, banker, of Brighton.
Wiliam Hemp, sheriff's officer, proved the seizure of the im-
plements, &c., under the extent, and also the furniture its the
dwelling-house. There was then,, and still is, a messenger in
possession, under Wigney's commission of bankruptcy.
Edward Atkinson, assistant to Mr. Crook, appraiser, deposed,
that the plant, implements, and about 80 tons of sugar in a raw
or unmanufactured state (principally syrup), together with
household furniture (20/. ), had been valued at 6001.
William Jerard, au officer, dltposed that the defendant car-
ried on business as a manufacturer of patent sugar, which is
made from potato flour. There is at present a large quantity
of sugar on the premises, chiefly in concrete vessels, but net
dried off; and also about 21 cwt. of flour not worked up.
That in the concrete vessels is nearly dry. The duty was
charged between the 13th of August and the I lth of March
last on all the sugar in a syrup state. The last operation was
on the Bth of January.
Cross-examined—The duty is usually charged when in the
syrup state, and then estimated by gauging and the saccharo-
meter. Fifty per cent. is allowed for waste ; hut. the duty is
again estimated when finished, and if it then comes to more,
the greater duty is charged. The duty is not payable before
the sugar is finished and comes to scale to be weighed, and he
bad never before made the final charge.
Edward Taplin was then examined, and stated that although
the premises were entered in his name, ne part of the pro-
perty but the household furniture belonged to him; nor was
the sugar manufactured tinder his direction. He was merely
engaged to keep the books.
The Jury, under the Learned Undet-Sheriff's direction,
found—'' That defendant seas possessed of household furniture,
&c., of the value 420/. ; and that the utensils and materials
seized were used in the making of sugar, on which duty had
accrued, and were of the value of 1180/.—in all sioo/."
It is understood that this sugar is made front potato flour,
ejih an admixture of whiting, bones, &c.. and when manu-
fitetu ed contains only about three-fifths of the properties of
genuine sugar. It is chiefly u-ed iu snaking confectionery.