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

RAWLINS V. MOSS

In this case it was argued, on the part of Mr. Moss, that
the 900/. recovered on the estate of Harrison was a sum due
on the general account. In this view his Honour could not
dech;e in the absence of the other parties, and therefore
sent it back to the Master to inquire who were the parties en-
titled to participate in this sum. His Honour allowed Mr.
Moss his professional charges up to the time of his becoming
trustee, but only such sums after that as he might be out of
pocket. The suitors, in case they could not agree on what
the sums were which have been so allowed, are at liberty to
go before the Master for this purpose.

SIR CHARLES PRICE V. THE CORPORATION OF PENZANCE.
This case, the facts of which were mentioned in The Sun
a few days ago, came on by petition to bo heard on the sub-
ject of costs.

•
- His HONOUR said the plaintiff had received the benefit of
the suit, inasmuch as the market had been built and the road
made, and although there had been unusual delay on the part
of the Corporation he did not.see sufficient grounds for allow-
ing costs to either. _ _

The cause has been ordered to come on for re-hearing on
an objection taken by the defendants.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. JOHNSON.

In this case Counsel moved that the summary conviction
had in this case be brought up and quashed, on the ground of
its being informal and against the statutes. Defendant was
convicted before the magistrates, at Hull, in October, 1844,
under the 39th Geo. 3, sec. 75, cap. 15, and fined 201., for
taking 2d. at the door of a public-house, as admission-
money, to hear a lecture delivered by one Emma Martin, on
"The Crimes and Follies of Christian Missions." The Act
under which the conviction had taken place was an "Act for
the Better Suppression of Seditious Assemblies," and it pro-
hibited the taking of fees under circumstances such as those
charged against the defendant. The penalty is 20/., one-
half of which went to the Crown,.anct the other to the in-
former. Counsel contended that the conviction was bad and
informal, inasmuch as the conviction set out that the infor-
mation was laid by an informer, but did not specify his
name. Counsel having cited several Acts of Parliament in
support of his argument,
The COURT decided that the conviction was good, inas
much as the information was in conformity with the form
contained in the Act of Parliament, and, therefore, if there
was any omission, it was the fault of the Legislature.

THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMFI OF LONDON.
Counsel stated that this was a demurrer to a return to a
mandamus, calling upon the Mayor and Aldermen of London
to admit or cause to be admitted William Henry Ashurst an
:Attorney of the Lord Mayor's Court, to which he was entitled
by the 6th and 7th Vic., cap. 73, sec. 27. The mandamus
stated that the Court of the Lord Mayor of London was an
inferior court of the City of London ; and the return, he (the
Learned Counsel) said he conceived was rather.an extraordi-
nary instrument. It appeared that Mr. Ashhurst was an
attorney of the courts of Westminster, and was, therefore, en-
titled, as he (the Learned Counsel) would show, to be ad-
mitted an attorney of the Lord Mayor's Court, which was an
inferior Court. Counsel then read the 27th section of the
6 and 7 Vict., cap. 73, which gave an attorney of the superior
courts the right to practice in all inferior courts. The man-
damus commanded that Mr. Ashurst should be admitted an
attorney of the Lord Mayor's Court, and as it was alleged
that that was an inferior court, it was expected that that fact
would be admitted in the return, but that had not been done.
The return, on the contrary, set forth that the Lord Mayor's
Court was a court of law and equity, and that it also had a
pinal jurisdiction attached to it, and that penalties awarded
by it could be recovered in that Court only.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said that that was an argument to
show that the applicant was AO fit.