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

order that the case may be forwarded for trial. The
Learned Gentleman stated that his Learned Friend,
Mr. Chambers, had a similar application to make on
the part of the defendant, to which he was instructed
to consent. The application, on the part of the Crown,
was made without any affidavit. In this they followed
the precedent set in the case of the "King v. Ste-
phens and Agnew." In that case an affidavit was
prepared, but it was not found necessary to file it.
Mr. Justice 1-Vlcm:tax—On the ground, I sup-
pose, that the matter contained in the information
shows the necessity of the order.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Yes, my Lord. The'
information shows the necessity of the order, and that
the subject matter of the prosecution occurred in the
presidency of Madras.l
ice WiGuTmAN—But the witnesses may be
in:London at the same time. It seems an ttnusnal course
to grant such an application as you make without an
affidavit ; but however, if such is the practice, you
may have your rule.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—IR a case which Oc-
curred in the Court of Exchequer Lord Abinger said
that an affidavit was not usual when the Attorney-
General stated that it was necessary to have witnesses
exami n ed.—A pplication granted.
THE QUEEN V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.
Mr. RICHARDS in this case applied to the Court, on
behalf of Lord Sidmouth and a person of the name of
Shackle, his tenant, for a mandamus commanding the
Great Western Railway Company to give direc-
tions to the Sheriff of Berkshire to summon
a Jury for the purpose. of assessing the com-
pensation due to them for the damage done to
their property. The affidavits on which the appli-
cation was made stated that several acres of land
required by the Company for their works were ren-
dered almost useless, and that applications were made
to the Company to assess compensation, which were
not attended to.—Application granted.
IN TILE MATTER OF .THE STAFFORDSHIRE RIOTERS—

APPLICATION roR A CERTIORARI.
Mr. PRICE applied in this case on behalf of several
prisoners now under sentence of transportation for de
stroying by fire certain houses, for a certiorari to
remove the recor& into the Court of Queen's Bench.
The Learned Gentleman stated that the present
application arose out of the trials of certain rioters,
who had been tried and convicted before Lord Chief
Justice Tyndal at the late Special CoMmission. The
offence for which they were convicted was, that they
had destroyed, cud pulled down, certain houses by
fire, and the objection which he took was that they
ought to be indicted for firing the houses. Fire was
not an agent which would demolish or pull down
houses, and there was no remedy for these convicts, if
after returning from transportation they were taken
and tried for burning houses.
Mr. Justice WIGIITNAN ',inquired whether the in-
dictment was bad on the face of it.
Mr. PRICE said it was not, for if otherwise,he would
move for a writ of crror. When the precise offence
charged is not borne out by the evidence, the indict-
ment cannot be sustained. All he required at present
was to remove The record, he would then have to
make another application.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN remarked that the applica-
tion to remove the proceeding into the Court of
Queen's Bench was entirely unprecedented. There
was no instance of such a course. In many cases
parties have been dissatisfied with the evidence against
them, but there was no instance of a certiorari being
granted. The point which has been raised was for
the Judge who tried the case.—Application refused.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.
The Court was occupied the whole of the morning
in hearing arguments on motions, which related only
to points of practice, and were utterly void of popular
interest.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY

DOE DEM. ELLIS V. OWEN.
This was an action brought in the month of March
1837, and after the prcceedings had been commenced
the plaintiff was admitted to sue in forma
pauperis. Previously to his having been so
admitted, the defendant had received an order
to recover from him certain costs. The question
now at issue, and which was one of some difficulty,
was, whether the plaintiff should be called upen to
pay for costs thus incurred before he had been allowed
to plead as a pauper.
Mr. JERVIS, on behalf of the defendant, appeared
to show cause against a rule obtained on the other
side, calling upon his client to show cause why an
allocator of the 11Iaster, awarding costs to the defend-
ant, under the circumstances we have detailed, should
not be set aside. The Learned Gentleman contended
that by the terms of the statute, and according to
precedent, a party could be exempt from no costs,
except those incurred after he had been admitted to
plead as a pauper.
Mr. TOWNSEND argued the point at some length
on the other side.
The COURT held, that according to the statute, and
in equity, a party was liable for any costs incurred
before he had pleaded, as a :pauper. The rule should
therefore be discharged.

SHERIFF'S COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Several short undefended causes were taken at the
sitting of the Court.

LAW V. DAW.

This was an action to recover the sum of sl. 18s.,
being due for cigars supplied, and the price of atalking
parrot.
The defendant was a man about town, and the plain-
tiff was a cigar manufacturer, in Soho. The defendant
was in the habit of purchasing cigars at the plaintiff's
shop, and taking soda water, ad lib, in the summer.
These various luxuries were put down. in a running
account between the parties. The defendant used to
smoke at the house of the plaintiff, and, one occasion,
he heard a parrot chattering in the house belonging
to the plaintiff. He wished to see it, and the parrot
was brought to him, and the defendant taking a fancy
to it, purchased it, but did not pay for it. The parrot
was sent home to the defendant's lodgings. A witness
was called to prove that the parrot could chatter
beautifully.
The UNDER- SHERlFF—Perhaps you had better call
the parrot as a v‘itness, as it can talk so well.
Further evidence was then adduced to prove that
the other articles were supplied..
Mr. JONES, who appeared for the defendant, said
he would not contend against such evidence, and the
Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for the full
amount claimed.