The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-27 00:00:00

APRIL 26.

The COURT was occupied the whole morning with cases in
the Special Paper, the arguments in which were of a purely
technical nature.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 25.
JUDO MKNT.-DELY V. TMOMPSON.

Mr. Baron PARKE gave judgment in this case, which was
a special action against the defendant, as the Secretary of the
Anti-Dry Rot Company, for not registering the plaintiff, who
claimed to be a registered proprietor of certain shares in that
Company. The list of shares being full, the defendant refused
to register the plaintiff, and at the trial it appeared that a great
number of shares had been fraudulently re-issued by the late
Secretary and managing Director, the consequence of which
was that the affairs of the Company were involved in almost
inextricable confusion, as many parties who had bought these
shares so re-issued claimed to be registered, Lord Abinger being
of opinion that the plaintiff could not compel the Secretary to
register the plaintiff, inasmuch as the register was already
completed: but the Court, after argument. had come to a deci-
sion opposed to that of the Learned Chief Baron, and now laid
it down that the Company could not rely on the mere fact of
the register being full, for if it was improperly filled up by their
servant. A bona fide holder of shares had a right to compel them
to register his shares. There ought, therefore, to be a new
trial; but the plaintiff would do well to ' make out his title to
these shares from the original subscribers, otherwise it would
by no means follow that he could compel the Company to register
him. Under these circumstances the rule for a new trial must
be made absolute.—Rule absolute accordingly.

APRIL 26.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DONALDSON.

This was an information-filed by the late Attorney-General
against the defendant, the Chairman of the Commissioners of
Sewers. The information stated that a certain messuage or
dwelling-house within the parish ef Sr. Margaret's,Westminster,
forming part of the Royal Palace of Kensington,long before then,
and at the time in the occupation of her Majesty the Queen,
had been improperly declared liable to a certain rate by the
Commissioners of Sewers; and the information went on to al-
lege an intrusion by the defendant; whereon the Attorney-
General prayed for the judgment of the Court. To this in-
formation the defendant pleaded, by his attorney, that the
trespass complained of had been committed under the authority
of the Commissioners of Sewers for a tax assessed by the said
Commissioners, according to the tenure and effect of the Stat ate
of Sewers now in force.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared in supportof the inform-
ation. He contended that the plea could not be received upon two
grounds; first, that a Royal Palace in the occupation of the
Sovereign did not come within the statute of the Commis-
-ioners of Sewers; and, secondly (but this was a point on which
he did not lay so much stress), that even assuming that there
was a doubt upon the first point, the form of the plea, which
was a general one, could not be exended to cases
in which the Crown was a party. The first ques-
tion turned entirely on the Statute of Sewers. That
Statute was the 23d Henry VIII., chap. 5, sec. 9. It provided
"That the same laws, ordinances, and decrees made by the said
Commissioners of Sewers, should bind as well the lands, tene-
ments, and hereditamentaof the King, as of all other parties, for
such interest as they might have in any lands, tenements, or
hereditaments, or other casual profits or advantages whatever,
wherewith the said law, ordinances, or decrees, shall in any way
extend." Now that statute seemed evidently to point to
the case of lands leased by the Crown to a tenant.
It referred to the profits or advantage which the Sovereign
might have in any property, that property being made liable
to the rate. But a Royal Palace, in the possession of the
Sovereign, could not be considered as a source of profit. The
occupation of a Royal Palace by the Sovereign, was to be re-
garded as a public duty, and any advantage accruing from it, was
merged in the public characterl of the Sovereign. The effect of the
statute was simply this—that where the land of the Crown was let
to tenants, those tenants were liable to be rated by the Corn-
mis,ioners of Sewers, in the same way as they were liable to
the poor-rates, while the lands in the occupation of the Crown
were exempt from either charge. That was the first time, the
Learned Counsel contended, that an attempt was made to rate
a Royal Palace which was the residence of the sovereign.
There was another statute which bore upon the question, it was
the 3d and 4th Edw. VI., cap: 8, sec. 2. That statute provided
that " all sums of money raised under the authority of the
Commissioners of gewers upon any of the King's lands should
be leviable by distress." Bat this statute could-only refer to
the case of tenants, as it was manifest that a distress on the
Palace in the actual occupation of the Sovereign had never been
thought of. That was an extremity which the law had never
contemplated.
Mr. Durtnns appeared in support of the defendant's plea.
The Learned Gentleman, who cited decisions of Lord Tenter-
den, Chief-Justice Abbott, and other Judges, maintained that
the Act of Henry the Eighth, which was a concession to the
public, gave the Commissioners of Sewers the power of rating
Royal Palaces. The Attorney-General bad no right to put
the extkmc case of a power on the part of the Commis-
sioners to levy a distress on the actual residence of the
Sovereign. 'lhat was not now the question, inasmuch as the
premises rated were not actually occupied by her Majesty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having replied,
The COURT intimated that they would consider their judg.
nsent in the case.

BAIL COURT, April 26.
PESTERS V. WARE.

This was an action for money to the amount of 70/. 65.,
being paid, and received by the defendant, who is an attorney.
The plaintiff is a cheesemonger, who gave 70/. 6s. and two bills
of exchange for the purchase of some houses in Windsor-
terrace, belonging to Mrs. Hobson. Mr. Hobson died and left
the houses to three trustees, his widow, Mr. Ware the defen-
dant, and Mr. Charles Hobson, his seri. In the year 1834
Mrs. Hobson was desirous f disposing of the houses,
and the plaintiff, taking for granted that she had a power
of selling them, entered into an agreement to pay 1301. for
them, of which 701. 6s. was given to Mr. Ware. through
Mrs. Hobson. It was afterwards discovered that Mrs. Hobson
had no power to dispose of the hou.es, and upon Mr. Peeters
making application to Mr. Ware for the 70/. 6s. which he
paid to him through Mrs. Hobson, he refused, stating that
the money was paid to him through Mrs. Hobson in discharge
of a debt due to himself. The prosecution was therefore
brought to recover the deposit from Mr. Ware.
Mr. PLATT addressed the Jury for the defendant, and con-
tended that the money was paid to Mrs. Hobson, and by her
to Mr. Ware, in part satisfaction of the debt owing to him.
Mrs. Hobson was arrested for the same debt, and if the debt
was ()wing to her, as must have been sworn to before she could
be arrested, how could the defendant be liable ?
His Loansuir summed up, and told the Jury the question
they had to decide upon was, whether the receipt of the money
by the defendant was a colourable transaction or not.
The Jury brought in a verdict for the defendant.
PARNELL V. WHEATLEY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who carries on
the business of an ironmonger in Queen-street, to recover
damages from the defendant, an omnibus proprietor, in Ken-
nington, for the injury inflicted on him, in consequence of his
gig having been run down by the Magnet, an °melbas be-
longing to the defendant. It appeared that on the night of
Sunday, the 30th of June last, Mr. and Mrs. Parnell were in
their gig, driving up the Wandsworth-road towards town, and
that when they arrived near the railway terminus, the horse
became so alarmed at the noise occasioned by the letting off
the steam from the locomotives, that he refused to move.
Mr. Parnell accordingly directed a person named Peer-
less to go to the horse's head, and lead him gently on.
Peerless did so, and while they were proceeding on
their proper side close to the foot-path, " The Magnet"
ran against them, struck the wheel of the gig, threw Mr.
and Mrs. Parnell out, damaged the gig and harness, and hurt
the horse so severely that Mr. Parnell was compelled after-'
wards to sell him for a mere trifle. Peerless who held the
horse, swore distinctly he saw the name " Magnet," on the
omnibus by which the gig was run down ; and several other
witnesses deposed to the fact of the off-horse of the omnibus
being a grey one, which was admitted to be the fact with re-
gard to the Magnet.
in his defence it was attempted to be shown that it was not
"The Magnet," but a Wandsworth omnibus which had occa-
sioned the accident; the driver and conductor of which were
put into the box to prove that on the night in question, the
Wandsworth omnibus had run down a gig.
The Jury, however. having heard the evidence, without
waiting for the reply of the plaintiff's counsel, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages 35/.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Humphrey appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Chambers for the defendant.