The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-19 00:00:00

COUNSEL said it might or might not be on arguLeintu'l.,
that way before the Hottse of Commons or flouse,°', 50.
Lord bErimAN—You rest on the words of the
CouNsEr.—Yes, my Lord. e colltre°
Lord DENMAN thought it would the more
course to 11car the opposite Counsel first.
COUNSEL on behalf of the Lord_Alayor then Pri°c, ac'olo
contend that this application could not be grauteu,svics
the Act read by his Learned Friend never could Poo
templated including the Lord Mayor's Court Brli
inferior courts. The court of the'Lord Mayor of. atts
a court from-time immemorial, and had jurisdictie,
to it different altogether from any of the inferior u°ll,, of
that an action tried in it could not be removed to tt''.
to d
ded
superior Courts : the Learned Counsel procee ,dcd,
those points at considerable length, and co fee
the Lord Mayor's Court was nut an inferiorfus court
court of law only, or a court of equity only, bu"
law and equity. •
Mr. Asbhurst's Counsel then proceeded with_hol:oo!
meat, and contended that if the Mayor's Court italre
considered an inferior Court, that fact -should h
forth in the return ; but that had not been done' ,0 eorisF;
Lord DENMAN said' the Court would take time CoaaP
the section of the Act upon which the Learued
for Mr. Ashurst relied.

ir)
BAIL couRT._(THIs Jj''gsoS;ro
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PArrit
JEFFERIES V. THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS ON' 0
51
Jo(
TREASURY. rule; °Pa'
Mr. JAztvis, Q.O , applied to the Court for ve• m
cause why the Lords Commissioners of her 3lriits
sury Ehould not grant compensation to Me. J% Act if.co!,
loss of certain fees which had been abolished btoofli to
liament, and which he had received
of hreftbe ottSo
clerk to the Court of Common Pleas
Treasury. The Learned Gentleman stated the r ore of
clerk had been held in Mr. Jefferies' family f 0,,, tote io
seventy years. The fees be received were dicors estitieutit,
classes. The first was a deduction which he vZidef .Itsoi
make from certain fees payable to the Lord,_e ecoeet
and which yielded about 60!. per annum. receiT id
third were comprised in a fee of 6d., which 1 of 1;0;
sealing records ; and the fourth was 3 decision 11'4P1
by virtue ce
endorsing and making up records after the „viola
jury. By the 35th chapter of the Ist and 2d tliedejz
was enacted that the offices of persons ell° regal ►
pleasure, or for a long term of years, should he,,e sesitoi
matters of right, and that compensation shouldol;llted
bf
cordingly. The Commissioners who were aPP 00 rece_dS
Act to rOort upon the fees, and the right of ph: feeSni#
them to compensation, made a report upoo tjt.be 001
by Mr. Jefferies. They omitted all inention 01 entail
to
of fees, and stated that on the 2d and 3d he orielw tro,
compensation of 401. per annum. They rt „
eP
the #t tat
was not entitled to any compensation at all
The ,P
was completely in the form of a gratuitfi rof pe9o,
Victoria, c. 37, completely abolished the ringool per oft',
receive fees, and a commuted salary of
was allowed to the Lord Chief Justice 1eb00311,16
fees. Mr. Jefferies's fees being thus , eioners "oto
ade an application to the Lord Comte del,
Majesty's Treasury for compensation, but telfers, ,01e0;
allow him any compensation fur his first class ° 000
it was not mentioned in the report of the Cosiot.o4,
and on the fourth, because it was reported Atefil't
Jefferies then made an application to the L°l.do‘i'eslitel'iss
who was clearly of opinion that he 141 bacileefo:‘,
compensation on the first class of fees ;,1 f nts!,/
doubtful as to the fourth class. The Lerusot)ise
sury have now shifted their ground, and cle,. ofsce4
compensation, on the ground that he held til',iite4o.o,,
pleasure. In this they were decidedly wrong, P.
4 P. tit,
met by the Ist and 2d of William IV., see. , idivg
enacted that the fees received by persons h'
°4 011
pleasure should be regarded as matters of rig° '
cation allowed for them.—The rule was grallt,lr.ootlo44
SYMONDS V. TIIE MAYOR OF CA0,3.1a 'OllO het'
In this cars Mr. Williams made an aPP' -filsveur trecii•r'i
of Mr. Symonds and five others, in whose,ionas,PrA
gesses of Caermarthen had voted for a 0011- or eiecl"o
their occupation of office as Town Councillors, 010 „It.
damus for a new election, on the ground that o°l
had taken place as described in the Allioicir geerot,„,l"
Act. It would be seen by that Act, that Ofected
Town was bound to return a list of persons e d tat,'
than two P.M. on the day after such election he
° s toe,°o
In this case the election had taken Pleci,e rebeel•o,l
the Ist of November, and the return should that
by two o'clock on Monday, but instead of , inolC°
made until Tuesday morning. The Mon
Act, section 51, required that the persons eLe-,itbiaabla!:,
nify their acceptance of the office in writinigitid be for v
from the period of their election, or they siw-
fine, and the office should be considered iracactcceptoje,
as no return was made by the Mayor,. n°, ilanYsll
given, so that there was no town council at
for a new eleetion wa HARING-CROSS orrPttf
CHILD V. THE C BRIO" citee,le,"'
Mr. SAUNDERS applied for a rule to sh°lvosss: o`;,.
Charing-cross Bridge Company, formerly 103°pan !,‘
gerford and Lamlieth Suspension Bridge 00t1
not issue a warrant to the Sheriff for the 00,ste
dlesex, to call together a jury to estnicl
damages caused by the operations 3'. bridrof
the Company in the formation of thiroce.,
Learned Gentleman stated that the setlh`4r
15th section of the Company's Act was, abut Cit~be r'
execute their works as they should see fit, °la
rs
damage as possible to private property' ; apt, if ,r! P
`'
of their causing such damage, they :shoo" ,beo'' O
settle it otherwise, issue a - warrant the to •fi,fi
d,
county in which such damage occurreaye ofirilFJ
jury and assess the damages. By the• sllV,,r'
the Act, it is enacted that the ComP'-•:,,sy PriLje
obliged to receive any complaint concerning ;ode
sustained, unless such complaint should he 0-sadle
behalf of the corporation of the place wile'. fore 06
is received, in a written form, thirty days bof t's'oer4
moning of the jury, and within the space Idiscal
after such damage shall have been received. a I)ll,eif
was on behalf of Mr. Coles Child, who carried ° erecOA
coal merchant at Belvidere Wharf. In 1842 th,eetir
bridge commenced. In September of that L•di e;ot°t:
lion was made for the pier of the bridge, wc;ttielli,j;
ran under Mr. Child's premises, causinga -00 wtbe
building and several cracks in the walislpst t°.;re:i
September, a letter, stating the fact, was v./
tary of the Company. On the 16th an ans'Tts.
stating that the application would be attendedd be yips„
wick afterwards came to inspect the premises, erlace:,o4
Mr. Coles that no further settlement would take rote of /
that themischieflistill went on, he again wrote t,°,
who declined any further interference. 00 Clio
0030 iS
1843, one of the walls fell, and an intimation "por, eta:
stance was sent to the Company, who at ooceieft faje;
kpreebmrnisaesrniniBa44t,erhpeowranlyrkamnaenasneedr:
and
dd
3tll.recbo'ialldpsl3l,oilb.,;l„,:,
vey made and a list of the damage sent to the see'i
request that they would either repair that °.,otevettieJ,;,'
dent amount to do so. After this things iSCili
quo until the 12th of February, 1845, ,r,'„e;"056,,,11101V
tempted to recover damages by an action,
ceeding was not compatible with the Act of,Potherj (froe
was compelled to abandon it. In Mai al' roneceY,
of the walls fell ; and in June 9 afg°6o
iwnaAs muasdt e
an oannswtehre
waCsomz
damages, or to issue a warrant to assenane,;„ ID°
them, as the application was not made Ow"
quired by the Act. •
tetao
Mr. Justice PArrnsox said he did Oki, -
declplihirisrf ;tot
would be withheld on such grounds. A rule for
would, he thought, best meet the case.
Rule granted accordingly. caeniYvedfor data to
007,

fif
COURT OF RE VIEW—(T I.`2cf;')
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT P
j.
HASTINGS V. DOBBS. thi001;
The attention of the Court was occupied. oa
day with' questions of form ; the other oafs •
above this case were ordered to stand over.
PA
EXCHEQUER.—(THIS JO
(Sittings in Banco.)
SUTCLIFF V. BROON. the P Jed/
This was an action of debt, broughttil`,,
assignee of an insolvent debtor, to recover frr-tiith
;eV,
a particular sum of money, which was the reuse aribes,til(
arbitration. The declaration made the chaide ,
debt upon the submission or agreement to to t,'",e'
in question, and the defendant had demurred iv iv ll'ree,,,hq
the declaration, on the ground that it 14 as 0,.° detellurviP!
Mr. ATHERTON now appeared to suport to r:olltor
first objection was to the form of action, for iort
would perceive that this was not an °Jon iiefeV
award, but an action of debt, founded °F,
promise between the plaintiff and htro'itto,lf,
to abide by a prospective award; and he 50",..-ocl
form of pleading was contrary to precedentL, for "
principle. There were three forms of rem were Di
in a case like the present, and those forme as or;0101
Mr. Watson's•book upon awards, The firs PenfollV
the award, debt on bond or contract for the -decriLo,
of the award, and covenant or assurnpsit 0° t,,el 044
sion, and the existing precedents showed 00,1,18
of action, and therefore he contended that 4 top. or'
was contrary to president. Now with reeZecto be orej
contrary to principle. The principle he torn' por°o,lo
action of debt or assumpsit would lie ul3o° 3 CO eiJ:eile
sealed contract, provided such contract
fid Dreolei
promise to pay a specific sum of moneY,t fref4
action of debt would lie on the ewer" o,olA4'ebti
one of the parties to pay a particular sum of of "f
as the contract upon which this action sum eto P
brought contained no promise to pay ePeei°„trall 60,
he contended that the declaration was c°;:jectalltiee
ciple. There was another objection to the refereiite
did not show that the plaintiff agreed to the,,, cre(
the consent of three-fourths of the insolN'eTeria. "0'
accordance with the provision of 1 and 2 Vicwitla
Mr. Cowunasupported the declaration. d bec° 0131.,
the last objection, the Act of Parliament na 04e ri re°o
the Court to 'be only directory, and therefore wit,ooeec,,,!
complained of did not invalidate the reference..,l3 rAI
to the other objection, that the cause of action Acirtil ire
he apprehended that it was not. True it wlse 100 oereitt!
the submission, but it was coupled with t,1:1 octet, Cl]; et
His Learned Friend was wrong when he sal jod fey,
precedents upon this point, for if he had 100 d the de
on Pleadings, page 24, he would have f0°13.0 tbe
a declaration precisely similar to the 0130 001000;
Cane dernfirret 141
The COURT ultimately ruled that the tha ill
and directed the declaration to be so anienneic.id 000
be simply an action of debt upon the s,r:„r
the submission out of the question altoge,“--.

idt tai fd
oz PA
Their Lordships th(iSs
COMMON PLEA s...._(Till— ar
tli° it,
guments upon which were y destitu
W'holl •te 0(0) ale*
I‘lo 'Or
(Nisi Prins :di a ,-0 01.
Ilir. Justice Cresswe sat t • '*)
' ." 'c." 4"
th Guildhall,aalal Pria•s' ter 3!) dislre`'
common j ury, in eWestinins ;„i
pied the whole morning withi action for iii'eE'" di )
gtoinokßtahnecod*Lurr
3'i
------VA
:SECONDARIES.--(T.HIS i
bstc;
(Before Mr. Secondary Porri"O'i
.„./. „re $ ~oe,
er Pi4l„erflatere,
AUSTIN AND ANOTHER V. ro-- ' sae irp, di
This was an action bplain6o, - 54 (Pr
rought by the „, of 1 AA 00
brokers, Bank-chambers, to recover the sues rbe 'leo
paid in error on a sale of some obares ; l- t
railway
defend aet r ,0 00
is a tradesman in the Borough. The
general issue.
The plaintiffs' clerk was called ' that
113eY 9eP
to r 0.% e , _,e
~,
the paper aof the sale of fift E t India share' - lire' OP
een , asoci rev tbe
sent by the defendant for immediate sale. ii p„J :t,l
on he Ist of August to Messrs. Wilkinson at .rrer, ,i)pl'pe
which was a mistake, as the price was only a (Itib'eing fee;ol,
money was returned to them. Defendant, on roanc-e 1(
to, said they might deduct the amount from the be DI ve
would pot
next shares he had to dispose • h
of, wine day, 410
days. He could not remember price of the I.
the yards. the
what it was the day before and the day after, roved 0
Messrs. • "
Wilkinson's clerk was called and p co.
and ra . urn of the money to liimactin t•Ol'
ia
The defendant's soret * tended that the.fee
ii or conten . „.of Ow' ode
not be maintained, as the buying and selling
..,. OP
manner was illegal. poT•
The SECONDARY—I don't think it turns v
pleadings, after an admission and promise ° 01.