The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-24 00:00:00

but he was determined that if he must die he would;
.
iwu`
...truBgl2.---(Cheer.)
TnoS.THONIASSON, ofßolton, said it was pro-
posed to raise 50,000/. to repeal the Corn-laws. They
were all asked to contribute; let them not say they
could not afford ; could they afford to undergo a repe-
tition of the last four years' trade ?—(Hear, hear.)
Could they afford to go into the Gazette? For him-
self, though he could not afford the sum, yet he would
spare 1001. to the Fund.—(Loud cheers.) Since the
formation of the League he had given 50/., and he was
now willing to double it, for he had made up his mind
he would reduce his establishment to the most repub-
lican simplicity, and almost live on bread and water,
rather than fail in his subscription to the League.
Alderman BROOKS said when he got up before he
forgot the hest part of the communication - he was to
have made. He was out the day previous (Monday)
with the little red book he held in his hand, with the
little word " Leagu2" on it, and he did not ask for
more than 1001. from each subscriber, yet he found
parties willing to put. down subscriptions to the
amount of 1,000/.—(Loud cheers.) He would not
give them the names, because he was in hopes that -
he should be able to get the amount doubled yet.
Mr. JOHN BRIGHT said he might as well state
perhaps that a gentleman had called on the Council of
the League from Todthorden' saying that though it
was a small place they had had a meeting last night,
and raised about 1001. for a beginning.—(Applause.)
In Accrington he had reason to believe that 2001. or
3001. would be raised.--(Applause.)
Mr. 81CK1113,1 said he was commissioned to hand
in several subscriptions ' • and first he had the pleasure
of handing in 100/. from Mr. James Proctor—
(Cheers)—also 1001. from his (Mr. Bickham's)
brother—(Renewed cheering)—thirdly, he begged to
hand in the same for himself—(Continued cheering)
—and in the fourth place he had to hand in a sub-
scription of 25/. from Mr. Daniel Proctor.

7,-hich. it was enntemlecl woill,l have been snrrioient to

some persons woze fon,ier of protracting ittigation than
of bringing matters of this nature to a close. If any
sane and honest person had pointed out this to the
Railway Company at the time, this litigation would
have been brought to a conclusion long ago.
Lord DENMAN suggested the matter should be left
to the decision of General Pasley.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Could not consent to
anything which would have the effect of disturbing
the verdict and re-trying the question.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Assuming the verdict to
be correct, and that the Company have not done all
that is necessary, would you object to leave it to.G-e-
-neral Pasley to decide what should be done, assuming
that something must be done--judgment to be re-
spited until General Pasley shall have reported, and
the defendants to pay costs ?
The Solicitor-General drew up the terms io which
he proposed the reference.should be made, to which,
however, the Attorney-General objected, on the
ground that it would be giving General Pasley the
power of re-trying the question—of tinkering the
nuisance instead of abating it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was perfectly willing that
anything should be done that General Pasley should
direct.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—But suppose, he should
direct nothing to be done, do you mean to say that
you are to do nothing ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--Certainly, my Lord.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—ThaI would be giving
him the power of re-trying the case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not consent to
anything that would lead to a mere tinkering the
nuisance. It must be assumed that all had not been
done, and no mere alteration of the diversion would
be sufficient.
Mr. Sergeant ATCIIERLY and Mr. ADDISON fol-
lowed on the same side.
Lord DENMAN said that it was important that the
Court should consider the question, and the judgment
had better be postponed for a few Clays.
There was another indictment for a nuisance in
obstructing the same public highway; about fifty
yards further, to which the defendants pleaded guilty.
In this case,
Mr. ADDISON proposed to respite the judgment, and
leave the matter entirely to the decision of General
-Pasley, on payment of the costs.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL assented to the proposi-
tion, on the understanding that the question of costs
should be left to the discretion of the Master.
lIAZELDINE V. GROVE.
The defendant in this caw was Mr. Grove, the
Greenwich Police Magistrate, who had held the plain-
tiff to bail for perjury, alleged to have been committed
by him in giving evidence before defendant in a case
of complaint against a pawnbroker. The Grand Jury
at the Central Criminal Court threw out the bill, and
the plaintiff brought an action against defendant for
false imprisonment, which was tried before Mr.
Baron Alderson at the Assizes for the county of
Kent, when the plaintiff had been nonsuited, on the
ground that the plaintiff had not given the notice of
action required by the 53d section of the 2d and 3d
Victoria, cap. 51, and that the venue had been laid in
Kent instead of in Middlesex, as required by the Act.
A rule nisi to set aside the nonsuit had been granted,
on the ground, that as the Magistrate had no juris-
diction in cases of perjury, he was not entitled to any
notice at all ; and that, as he was not acting under
the Metropolitan Police Act in committing plaintiff,
he had received all the notice required by the Act of
20 George 11. and 10 George IV.
Mr. MESMER now appeared to show cause against
the rule, and contended that Magistrates had juris-
diction in cases of perjury, and quoted several autho-
rities in support of his argument. If that was the
case, then the defendant was acting under the provi-
sions of the Metropolitan Police Act, was entitled to
the notice required, and the non-suit was perfectly
right.

The CHAIRMAN said he begged. ito iiiii that be-
sides the 1,0001. in Mr. Brook's red book (which was
to be doubled) he had to announce several other sub-
scriptions : Richard Cobden, and Co. 2001.
(Cheers) ; James Proctor, 1001. ; Daniel Proctor,
25/. ; Mr. Wm. Bickham, 1001.; the Mayor, 2001.;
Elkanah Armitage and Son, 1001.: H. and E. Ash-
worth, 2001. ; E. Shorrocks and Co., 1001.; Messrs.
Leese, Kershaw, and Co., 1001.; Benjamin Smith and
Co., 100/. ; Mr. Hibbert, 100/. ; Jacob Bright and
Son, 300/. ; Robert Maun, 2501. The announcements
were received with great applause.
Mr. FOSTER, from Sabden, rose to say his principal
object-in coming there Was to have his name put down
foe a subscription of 1001.—(Cheers.)
Mr. J. CHADWICK, of Eccles, said he should be
happy to give 100/.—(Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN said he had just received the names
of Evans and Nicholson for 50/., and of Mr. George
Howarth (Rochdale) for 251.--(Cheers.)
After a short pause, it was announced that Mr. Jos.
Scholefield (Rochdale) had given 50/. ; Mr. James
Wrigley (Bury) 251.—(Cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN said he had not thought to con-
sult his partners before he came, but he would put
down 1001. for himself in addition to his yearly sub-
scription of 1001.—(Cheers.)
Another pause ensued, after which the name of
Mr. Henry Leese was announced for 10/., and of Mr.
John Lord, of Bacup, for 150/.—(Loud cheers.)
Sir Thomas Potter, then took the chair, and a vote
of thanks having been voted to Mr. Greg, the meeting
separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 23.
LANCASTER V. EVORS.

This case stood on the papeiio:d;;, for the purpose-
of enabling the Court to hear Sir Charles Wetherell's
reply, but upon the Lord Chancellor taking his seat,
he requested the Learned Gentleman to allow a part-
heard tithe case to proceed, and the further considera-
tion of the case was postponed.

OLIVER V. LATHAM.

The arguments in this part-heard tithe case were
resumed and occupied the Court the whole day.

-Mr. BODKIN followed on the same side.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in support of the rule
said that the action had been brought for a false im-
prisonment on two occasions, one when he was first
committed, until he should give bail to come up before
the Magistrate on the 6th August, and the second for
a false imprisonment on the 6th August. On the first
occasion, there had been no charge made against the
plaintiff, no witnesses had been called, andthe Magis-
trate had taken upon himself to remand the plaintiff
without any charge having been made against him.
If, under those circumstances, the plaintiff had applied
for a habeas corpus, there could have been no doubt
but that the Court would have discharged him.
There was nothing in the Metropolitan Police Act'
giving the Magistrate jurisdiction ; he had none; he
could not have been acting under the provisions of
the Act, and, therefore, he was not entitled to notice.
No Metropolitan Magistrate who was fit for his office
could have imagined that he was acting under the
Metropolitan Police Act in committing a person
'against whom no charge was made for further exami-
nation. This was a most extraordinary power for a
Magistrate to assume.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 23.
THE QUEEN V. BINGHAM.—MANDAMUS.
In this case a rule nisi had been obtained, calling
on P. Bingham, Esq., one of the Magistrates for the
county of Middlesex, to show cause why a man-
damus should not go, ordering him to issue a
fresh summons against the Directors of the
Eastern Counties Railway, and to assess the
amount of compensation due from the Railway Com-
pany to one Samuel Elsley, for the occupation by the
Company of certain lands belonging to Elsley from
the month of February, 1839, to the November fol-
lowing. It appeared that the Company, in the
progress of their works, had found it ne-
cessary to occupy this land belonging to
Elsley for a temporary purpose, and, according to
the provisions of the amended Act of the Company,
whenever the Company should temporarily occupy
any land two Magistrates were empowered to assess
the amount of compensation due for such occupation,
provided such claim should have been made within
reasonable time, from the time of the occu-
pation. •In the old Act of the Company,
in which a Jury was empowered to assess compensa-
tion, ten days' notice was necessary to be given to the
Company of the intention to assemble the Jury to as-
sess compensation. In the month of July, 1841, Mr.
Elsley applied to the defendant, who issued his sum-
mons against the Company. On the hearing of the
summons Ms Bingham called upon Elsley to prove
his notice of claim, and on his failing to
prove his notice the Magistrate told him he came too
late, and dismissed the summons. In the month of
October following, Elsley applied to Mr. Bingham to
issue a fresh summons, and stated that since the last
hearing a notice of claim which had been served on
the Company in December, 1839, within the time re-
quired by the Act, had been discovered. The
Magistrate refused to issue a fresh summons, and
thereupon application was made to this Court
for a mandamus, calling on Mr. Bingham to
rehear the case, on the ground—first, that no
notice was requisite, according to the provisions of
the Act of Parliament ; and, secondly, that if such
notice was requisite, fresh evidence on that point had
been discovered. The case turned entirely on the
construction of the various clauses of the Acts of the
Company.
The COURT, having heard the Solicitor-General
and Mr. James against the rule, and the . At-
torney-General in support of it, ordered the
rule to be made absolute, on the ground that the
first summons had been improperly dismissed, inas-
much as by the provision of the Act bo notice to the
Company of the intention to apply for -a summons
was required.--Rule for a mandamus absolute.
THE QUEEN V. THE MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.
The defendants in this case had been inflicted for a
nuisance in blocking up the public highway from
Huddersfield to Bradford by the erection of their
railway. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty.
Application had been made for a new trial, which had
been refused. Various unsuccessful attempts had
been made to compromise the case, which had proved
abortive, and the judgment of the Court was applied
for this morning.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the Company, stated
that they were willing to adopt any suggestion the
Court would throw out that they could adopt in con-
formity with the provisions of the law. It had been
suggested that a bridge !night be thrown across, but
no bridge could be thrown across without a greater
ascent than allowed by law.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—CouId not the railway
cross the road at a level ?
The SOLICITCR-GENERAL said that in such case
they would have to pull down the railway, and re-
build it; besides, they could not do that without the POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
interference interference of the Lords of Council to empower (YESTERDAY.)
them so to do, and the Lords of the Council were not MANSIO.A'-HOUSE.
authorised to interfere, except where the public safety A young man named Henry Stanbridge, who has
was concerned, which was not the • case in the pre- been several times examined, was brought up to be
sent instance. No injury had been done to any one; committed under the charge contained in the follow-
the Company had merely diverted the highway. They ing evidence. Mr. I3ozon appeared as solicitor for
must submit to the judgment of the Court, but he the prosecutor, and Mr. Wontner attended on the
hardly thought the Court would give judgment for part of the prisoner.
the prostration of the railway. In the first place, he Mr. W. G. Dodds, an ale and porter merchant, at
doubted their power to do so, as it was a public high- Howford-buildings, Fenchurch-street, stated that' he
way ; and, in the next place, he submitted the great was not the owner of three butts of sherry which were
public inconvenience which must ensue from the mentioned in a delivery order handed to him, but he
blocking up. of a railway which was now open, and was in treaty for the purchase of them with Messrs.
used daily for the conveyance of letters and passengers. Long and Edwards, wine brokers, and, from what
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—It is you who force us to they said, he expected to have had possession of the
give judgment, because you refuse to do anything. warrants for the wines in two days. He gave the de-
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Company had fendant the delivery order, for which he received from
always been willing to adopt any course that the defendant the sum of 1.21., leaving a balance due
might be suggested, if it were not contrary to the to witness, in the transaction, of ten shillings. Wit•
provisions of the Act of Parliament. ness at the same time told the defendant that he had
Several affidavits were then put in and read. not possession of the warrants, and that he was not
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the Company sure the numbers he had put down in the delivery
were perfectly willing to abide by the decision of the order were correct.
Surveyor of Railways appointed by the Crown. Ile Mr. A. Rayner, of 29, Park-place, Liverpool-road,
had before made that proposition, and he now re- Islington, the prosecutor in this case, stated that lie
newel it. General Pastes', who had, on the applica- had known the defendant for some time. On the
tion of the Company, gone down to survey the road, 31st of August the defendant called on him at 69,
had given it as his opinion that it would be highly Old Broad-street, and showed him the delivery order
dangerous to cross the road at a level. Whatever
the in question, which purported to be an order on
.the
Company could do they would do. Any course the St. Katherine Docks, signed W. G. Dodds, to deliver
Court should say they ought to ado they would to the defendant three butts of sherry, and
adopt. If the Court suggested that apbridgeshould requested him to advance the sum of 601. The de-
be thrown across the railway, as suggested by Gene- fendant also produced a sample bottle of sherry as an
ral Pasley, the Company would do so, although they average sample of the wine he had purchased of Mr.
could not make it of the inclination required by the Dodds, and said he should want the money for a
Act of Parliament, and would trust to the Court to I month. Witness offered to let him have 641. for a
protect them from any indictment which might be month for the payment of 701. at the end of that
preferred against them for acting in accordance with time, a proposal which was accepted, and the most
the suggestions of the Court. positive promise of punctuality was made, the de-
Mr. BaiNEs followed on the same side. fendant declaring that as he had purchased the wines
The Arroasiar-GENERAL on the part of the prose- for his brother, and should reap considerable profit
cution said that the Railway Company had endea- from them, he should be well able to pay the debt.
voured to take as much and to give as little as, under 1 Witness believed, from these representations, that the
the provisions of their Act of Parliament, they defendant had bought and paid for these wines, and
thought they could do. They had actually spent that they were then at the St. Katherine's Dock, in
more in the course of this expensive litigation than consequence of which belief he was induced to part
would have built all three of the bridges, any one of 1 with his money to the defendant, who indorsed the

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—The entry of the pro-
ceedings in the books of the Police Court is, that
there was a holding of Hazeldine to bail on complaint
that he had been guilty of perjury.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended that the
Magistrate could not legalise his acts by making such
an entry in his books.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—DO you assume that in
every case it is necessary a formal complaint should
be made before a Magistrate.
The Soucrion-GENnitaLapprehended it was neces-
sary.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Suppose a Magistrate
sees a person picking a pocket in Court, he may
surely order that person into custody ?
Lord DENMAN—The Magistrate may make the
complaint himself.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL said that in this case no
charge had been made, no witnesses had been exa-
mined in the presence of the prisoner; but, because the
Magistrate thought he had been guilty of perjury, the
Magistrate had committed him. He denied that Jus-
tices of the Peace had jurisdiction in cases of perjury,
and that therefore the notice required by 2 and 3 Vic-
toria was not essential in the present case. The point
was whether the action ought to have been brought
under the statute 2d and 3d Victoria, or under the
statutes of Geo. 11. He contended that the plaintiff
was right in bringing this action under the statutes of
Geo. 11., that the nonsuit was wrong, and that the
rule for a new trial must be made absolute.
Mr. PLATT, followed on the same side.
The Court took time to consider its judgment.
DUNN V. COMBE.
This was an action brought by Mr. Dunn, whose
name has been recently so . much before • the public,
as the suitor of Miss Burdett, against Mr. Boyce
Combe, the police Magistrate, before whom he had
been brought, on a bench warrant issued by the Court
of Middlesex Quarter Sessions, ordering him to enter
into recognisance3 to keep the peace, and who
on that warrant had committed him to prison in
default of his entering into such sureties. He had
subsequently been brought up to this Court by habeas
corpus, and discharged on the ground of the insuffi-
ciency of the articles of the peace exhibited against
him. The case had been tried at Hertford before Mr.
Baron Alderson, and the Jury had returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, with a farthing damages. Mr. Dunn
had subsequently obtained a rule nisi for a new trial
on the ground of insufficiency of damages.
Mr. 'THESIGER this day showed cause against the
rule, and

The COURT having heard Mr. Dunn at great length
in the support of it, ordered the rule to be discharged.