The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-05 00:00:00

ROWCROFT V. HOGGINS AND ANOTHER.

This was an action against the defendant, as proprietor of the
Newcastle Advertiser, to recover remuneration for literary and
political articles contributed by the plaintiff to that journal.
The defence was, that the Messrs. Hoggins and Co. were not
the proprietors at the time of Mr. Rowcroft's contributions, they
having disposed of the paper to a gentleman named Lowthin.
The case was tried before Mr. Justice Erle, at Guildhall
(London), is the sittings after last term, and a verdict was
taken for the defendants, with leave to move to enter a ver-
dict of 521. 10s. for the plaintiff. The point was whether,
although there had been a bona fide sale to Mr. Lowthin,
the defendants were cleared of their liability, inasmuch as
they had entered into the required declaration at the Stamp-
office.

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY this day moved for a rule to enter
the verdict for the plaintiff. It had been shown on the trial
that the declaration required had not been made, and the
Learned Sergeant relied upon the express terms of the Act.
By the 6th section of the, Act, the 6th and 7th Wm. IV.,
•bap. 76, it is enacted that, " no person shall print or publish
a newspaper until a declaration be made and delivered at the
Stamp-office." And, further, that " a declaration of the
same import shall be made, signed and delivered, in like
manner, whenever and so often as any share, interest. or pro-
perty soever in any newspaper named in any such declara-
tion, shall be assigned, transferred, divided, or changed, by
act of the parties or by operation of law." In the Bth section
it is further enacted, That all such declarations shall be
filed, and certified copies shall be admitted as evidence of
proprietorship in all proceedings civil and criminal, and on
all occasions whatsoever." —Rule nisi granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
CUNNINGHAM v. REDBOROUGH.
This was an action of assumpsit brought on a special agree-
ment, which the defendant traversed by- his plea, and the
case was tried before Lord Denman at the last Abingdon as-
sizes, when a verdict was returned for the defendant.
Mr. WHEATLEY, Q.C., now moved, with the leave of the
Learned Judge who tried the cause, for a rule nisi to show
cause why a verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
on certain counts in the declaration. The action was brought
to recover a sum of money under the following circum-
stances :—The plaintiff had formerly rented two houses of
the defendant, but the rent becoming in arrear, the goods of
the plaintiff were distrained, in Janu,ary of the present year,
for 2101. Shortly afterwards the defendant entered into an
agreement with the plaintiff, whereby he agreed to withdraw
the distress in consideration of the latter giving up his inte-
rest in one of the houses, and assigning his household
goods and furniture to the defendant, who, by the
same agreement, undertook to pay the plaintiff on
a particular day the sum of 901. On the trial, how-
ever, at Abingdon, the agreement was not proved,
and the jury found for the defendant. It was contended,
nevertheless, on the part of the plaintiff, that the verdict was
erroneous to a certain extent, inasmuch as the 90/. included a
sum of money which the plaintiff had paid for the defendant
as the property-tax of the two houses, in respect of which the
distress in question had been made. Now, by the sth and
Gth Vic., c. 35, sec. 60, rule 9, it was competent for a defen-
dant to pay his landlord's property-tax, and deduct the
amount so paid from the next accruing rent, but in the event
of the tenant failing to make such a deduction, he had no
remedy or means of recovering the amount. In this case,
however, the plaintiff had paid the property-tax according to
the provisions of the Act of Parliament, but lie did not pay
the subsequent rent that became due, and it was therefore
distrained for. The defendant was then required to reimburse
the plaintiff the property-tax, but he refused to do
so, and, consequently, when the plaintiff brought his
present action on the agreement before alluded to, he in-
eluded in his particulars of demand the sum which he had
paid for the property-tax, but still the jury returned a ver-
dict for the defendant. The case, therefore, mood the potut

of law, whether a landlord, when making a distress
was bound to credit the tenant with any sum
tenant might have paid for the landlord in the shaPe
perty-tax. The Learned Counsel contended that he
it was upon this ground that he moved the Court for 1
nisi to show cause why it should : ot be entered for !he?
tiff on that count in the declaration which 1; as forty
" paid," laid out, and expended to, and for the use °I
fendant.—Rule granted.

COURT OF RE VIE W—(THIS Del
(Before his Honour Sir KNIGHT WC.)
PETITIONS.
DS•
IN TIIK BANKRUPTCY OF GOLBORNE AND —l3 !le/
The creditors on the separate estate of Dobbs, 5,4
pay 205., prayed his Honour would not allow dot
which Mr. Obins, surety to that amount on the i°ll3
wishes to prove against the separate estate of Dobbs.
His Honour took time to consider. rid
Further arguments were heard in the case 01
Maddox," and judgment deferred.

. NASH. r 0
This was a bill filedCALTON
fore
performance of eellttbd
appeared that both parties wishing to purchaserijo
estate, it was contracted between them that uto
case lie should not bid for the estate in question, 0°
the power to purchase two particular farms at an it,
price. But Nash dying, it was found he had. A
these farms without notice of the contract Or/
tion. The Master of the Rolls found the
Galion to the farms to be good, but
the inquiry, it turned up that there is a yearly rent ,
on one of the farms which Mr. Galton refuses to no,tid
Mr. Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Parry, appeared for
tiff; Mr. Gildard and others for defendants. A
His HONOUR refused the compensation clahne-,iA
fendants, considering that the purchase money men'til
the contracts supposed an unencumbered estate.-
allowed to the plaintiff.

SECONDARIES.—(THIS .1
No case of any public interest was tried this morilltj,
at the conclusion of the proceedings the foremall
of the jury proposed to put their fees in the poor -
i
assist in meeting the wants of the poor through theos
There was, however, no box, and the money idvi:c4rd
over to the usher, to distribute according to his

ST. STEPHEN'S, WALBROO'
(THIS DAY.)
In consequence of a notice affixed to the door of '.461
and extensively circulated in the parishes of St. PN
Walbrook, and St. Benet's Sherehog, a meeting of Po
influential inhabitants of the district was held in the
room, this day, at eleven o'clock, for the purpose 0
into consideration the present dilapidated state of the
and for the transaction of other business.
Among the gentlemen present, were the Rev. i;il
the rector; Messrs. Rock and Flight, the church"
Mr. Roger Cunliffe, banker; Mr. Whistler, &c.
The Rev. Dr. Croly took the chair.
The CHAIRMAN said that the meeting had been esl/1„,1
the purpose of ascertaining, at the end of twelve 41
what had been done in the legal proceedings before t4P
of Chancery. He should, therefore, call on the vegt'o
Mr. Crosby, to tell them in what position they s"
stood.

Mr. CROSBY would rather that the Vestry should, aril'
attention to particular points, on which he should
information in his power.
Mr. ROCK thought it would be prudent to abs
entering fully into particulars, which might pre:lu
question before the Courts. He would have no al 0
advert to them by and by, but he decidedly thought
the present stage of affairs they ought to be very'
in their remarks. The two questions before the Cold
certain to be brought on shortly, and therefore it tfo
highly injudicious to snake any observations
.which o
the remotest degree, interfere with them. Pod'
Mr. CROSBY might mention that the Master had Pet
the draft of his report, and therefore they might e„ 5
matter to be finally settled in the coming term. The
he could not of course foresee, but he might venture 0
that very considerable deductions would be made °lf,
claim advanced by Mr. Alderman Gibbs against they
and a very large amount of the law
would be disallowed.—(Hear, hear.) He 7,
expected very great reductions, if not an entire °yell
of the whole claim. With regard to the action at
.0,/,
law, he had last night attended, with Mr. Flight, a ea".f,
of counsel, and the special cause, as far as thy,
parishioners) were concerned, was settled. He OP
also that the opening view of the case, as stated .;,e
counsel, was exceedingly favourable for the parish, 70i
great probability was that they mould have their just
in all their integrity restored to them.-(Hear, bean) 9
Mr. CUNLIFFE—Then the question will be se
month?
Mr. CROSBY—It would be argued this term, but
not say when the Court would pronounce judgment.
Mr. FLIGHT had attended the conference 2
~
chambers of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and Ed,
taken occasion to point out to the Learned
the enormous waste of parish property arisiagor
the delay in settling this question. He had p("),i..0,,
also that many leases were about to terminate whinor
not be dealt with until these matters were arranged;
shown that these leases had been under the former odo
'tient let for about half their value. H. had furvoi,
plained that the moneys received by Mr. Alderms°4
and which, according to the order of the Lord CL'
ought to have been placed in the hands of Messrs- pf
Percival and Co., the bankers, in the
of the churchwardens for the time being, 13P-0,
been so paid, and that therefore in the enie,
the parish obtaining a verdict, they would P-oir
security for these sums but the personal responsibilitYljel
Gibbs.—(Oh, oh I) Now, however wealthy that geP.,,cil
might be, it would be much more satisfactory if these:
were invested in the names of trustees at the bank
said this simply because, looking to the former spot?
things, he found that large sums were lost to the
through default of the churchwardens.—(Hear, hearlee
Mr. CRosßy—Large sums have been lost by the
also.
Mr. FLIGIIT thanked the vestry clerk for having 4
that fact to his recollection. It was indeed the case,
satisfied with having let the houses at half their vialtY
had allowed debts of the worst kind to arise. NO, 1101
hae
moneys, which ought to have been lodged in the -
As
bands, had been employed in law purposes, it Wase''
pernicious, for it was furnishing Mr. Alderman Gib,W,
a weapon to be directed against themselves.-.-(Hear.) 114
not see on what principle it was that the order of ti;el
Chancellor had been treated with contempt. He bat'
again over the papers with regard to the minutes or di 2
expenses to the poor; and though many of his fries de';
expressed themselves afraid that he had made a blif4o
his former calculations, he could assure them that oriel
recent investigation he found them perfectly c
.„04,
Ile found that Mr. Gibbs had, on the first
„r" re,
of his entering office, increased the rate Pul
and in the second year five-fold more than
decessors. Here was an enormous increase, for di)!
no reason had been given—for which no account Its „
seen.—(Hear, hear.) He would but advert ti? another Ar,
and that was, the state of the church. Was, fit
be endured that the worshippers should shi/",
starve during the whole winter, or. at all e 1)
until this question were decided? It was notorioalt.
many, more especially the old and very young, were °rot
to stay away from the ministration of their respected",
in consequence of the disgraceful condition of their c#,Voi
Were they, he asked, to endure this state of things, or
immediate measures for the warming of their cliurcs:,
conclusion, he would say, for his brother-churchwarde"rel
himself, that their energies had not, and would flat' Wol
until justice had been fully done to the parishioners at
17
brook.—(Hear, hear.)
2,
Mr. ROCK said that it would be remembered that le
beginning of this unhappy question, when Mr. Giblii9d,
counts were for the first time brought forward, thew P"
hibited the parish indebted to him in the sum of
the last five years.—(Cries of "Oh," and "Shame.") too,r
out entering into any detailed statement of the prese,rit
of their law. suit, he was fully authorised to say tialeet,Pi
large claim would be greatly reduced, if not altogetlier,obit
guished, or, what was equally likely, turned into a " •cl;3
Alderman Gibbs. He was sure that one item of 701- 14,
the parish of St. Benet's, and which was not acknolf,
until the receipt was produced, would be deducted. ifsei
he was sure that the sum of 2,0001. for law charges tet‘
against the parish during his administration would or,
terially reduced. Mr. Rock then proceeded to dilate d
the payments to the poor, referred to by the P'"
;0012 speaker. As an instance of the manner in which ac /PA
I
were passed in Chancery, he would state
he had observed in the course of these inquiries. Aota-itl,,t
payments to the poor was a sum of 70/., which was su_wea
for investigation. The proof of the payments was call
and produced. It appeared to satisfy the master,..7oL,
(Mr. Rock) observing that it was written on a vet.' t
scrap of paper, requested to look at it. He found tl?sg, it
document was a quarter sheet of post paper, he°
fact, the back of an old letter, and on thi%tev
Alderman Gibbs had himself written various Pr%
to the poor of 405., and such like sums, making 1
in tne 001;
gate a sum of more than 70/. He (Mr. Rock) 140:0
to the date, but whether it was 1824, or 1844, he couc,,,
make out. He was informed that it was a rule in t..
of Chancery to take the person's word, on oath, tt—o..A
the accounts, for sums of not more than 40s. it t tior
therefore, follow that a large proportion of that accour:
rest entirely on the ipse dixit of Mr. Alderrilanl,tioilie
Whatever the result might be, they had the satisfszo sl't•
knowing that these accounts would yet have to wot
mitted to business men—tradesmen—who would
ileArJ
so easily satisfied as the Master in Chancery.—(--.„0.,4
was a remarkable fact, that Ald. Gibbs had the martivirrA
of trust money to the amount of 100,000/., amougieen,,,
Walbrook figured to the tune 0f20,0001. and yet he," )
that for twenty years he had kept no 'books.—aivior,wei
twenty years he had exhibited no book of account/g:1
parish of St. Stephen's, the accounts, in fact, being cog A
on scraps of papers, backs of old letters, and the like.,nder,vi
Mr. CROSBY said that Mr. Alderman Gibbs had Pl-mel''o
what he called a parish ledger, in which the aceountst'io
year 1825 to 1843 were inserted. They were all,
_„lt alsa
entered at the same time.—(Laughter.) There vat'
book of weekly payments entered from time to time. orili
Mr. Rocx would give the worthy Alderman all.th!,,k)b.A
tages of that fact.--(Laughter.) At first he (Mr. ItY:ppliti;
expressed his conviction that Ald. Gibbs had not ants
these funds to his own purposes, but he was not 0:Ito the
same opinion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Rock then referr7 irt
Chancellor's order, that the rents might be lodr,:ot
banker's hands. He regretted that that order had Bet e°°
complied with. The speaker concluded by trusting vour
these unhappy differences would be terminated '
the parish. the
To a question from Mr. Cunliffe, Mr. Raoul sta.t te
t
the only moneys they ,had received was some 20/e
plus of sacramental money, which was out at five Pe.,
03-
interest on behalf of the poor. alli-to
Dr. CROLY then, in a long speech, adverted ub _
topics which have been already so often before tnec:itil
He described the condition of the church as disr.:fiffe, lie
the extreme. In reply to the question of Mr. lecture
had oely to repeat that his stipend for the afterriacn`orf bold
hail not been paid for the last threeyears ;thesexton's.s:, sal
been unsettled for a year and a half; and the orgams ,Vice
was in arrear for about the some period.—(" Shallicen.venitio
was a state of things which entailed gi eat inc
_robri
on these persons. lie had no wish to heap gluhe c9t4
on the late churchwarden's head, nor would 10:1
descend to characterise his conduct as it desert dieidt,
he could not see on what principle that 4ot duty
could attempt to justify his conduct. The
n"__ yO9 t,
of a churchwarden, according to the 89th Ca !':io eft!:
render a just state of his accounts within three 111.0',1:t
every year of hie office. He thought they migd'eliver
bie
down as a certainty, that where a man refused to yiss
in
accounts he had none to give, and so he suspected
then reed
this case.—(Hear, hear.) The Rev. Gentleman
n datedc,
a letter written by'
Mr. Harrison, of Walbrooks, fors his;4.
'2lst September, 1823, calling upon Mr. Gibh.,, sod
utter
counts. The demand was not then complied with, rin
: h, the lit
Harrison, ceasing to possess property in the parish, bow.,
dropped. These accounts were still denied t
select vestry. He (Dr. Croly) contended that Bu..i.,vrtuid been
had a right to examine in what way each sluoli,ai. ansWer,
disposed of. He was astonished at. one 107 t
given by Mr. Alderman Gibbs. The .4ou