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

ROWCROFT v. HODOLNS 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 wae, that the Messrs. Noggins and Co. were not
the proprietors at the time of Mr. llowcroft's contributions, they
having disposed of the paper to a gentleman named Lowthin.
The case was tried before Mr. Justice Erie, at Guildhall
(London), in 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 Muariir 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 Win. IV.,
chap. 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.)
etTNNINGITAM v. REI;BOROUGIL

This was an action of astnunpsit 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 January 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 90/. On the trial, how-
ever, at Abingdon, the agreement was not proved,
and the jury found fur 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
6th Vie., 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 be 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, consequmtly, 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, raised the point

-
of law, whether a landlord, when malting a dlAtro:a tor e1:1,"
was bound to credit the tenant with any sum which
tenant might have paid for the landlord in the shape of pod"
pert), tax. The Learned Counsel contended that he was,
_„le
it was upon this ground that he moved the Court for a it.
nisi to show cause why it should Lot be entered for the 11181 v
tiff on that count in the declaration which was for monel
paid," laid out, and expended to, and for the use of the de.
fendaut.—Rule granted.

COURT OF RE VIE t`'---(THIS DA
(Before his Honour Sir KNIGHT BRUCE.)
PETITIONS.

IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF GOLBORNE AND DoBBS.
The creditors on the separate estate of Dobbs, which 'r
pay 205., prayed his Honour would not allow the 2,00°'
which Mr. Obins, surety to that amount on the joint eststel
wishes to prove against the separate estate of Dobbs.
His Honour took time to consider.
Further arguments were heard in the case of " POT 14
Maddox," and judgment deferred.

GALTON V. NASH.
This was a bill filed for performance of contract. s
appeared that both parties wishing to purchase the git,
estate, it was contracted between them that Galion
case he should not bid for the estate in question, should laol
the power to purchase two particular farms at an averagfi
price. But Nash dying, it was found he had da:
these farms without notice of the contract in (111"-oi
lion. The Master of the Rolls found the title
Galton to the farms to be good, but durin_
the inquiry, it turned up that there is a yearly rent-ch 4-
on one of the farms which Mr. Galton refuses to notice. ,
Mr. Russell, Q.C. and Mr. Parry, appeared for the
tiff; Mr. Gildard and others for defendants.
His HONOUR refused the compensation claimed by Wm
fendants, considering that the purchase money mentioneo,l
the contracts supposed an unencumbered estate.--Costa
allowed to the plaintiff.

SECONDARIES.-(THIS DAY.) „I
No case of any public interest was tried this morning; 1:8
at the conclusion of the proceedings the foreman and sowto
of the jury proposed to put their fees in the poor's-hp.%r,
assist in meeting the wants of the poor through the
There was, however, no box, and the money was hand
over to the usher, to distribute according to his discretion.

ST. STEPHEN'S, WALBROOK.
(THIS DAY.)
In consequence of a notice affixed to the door of the chile'
4
and extensively circulated in the parishes of St. Stephe',o
Walbrook, and St. Benet's Sherehog, a meeting of the rn4,
influential inhabitants of the district was held in the yes
room, this day, at eleven o'clock, for the purpose of tan.
into consideration the present dilapidated state of the chit.'
and for the transaction of other business.
rl,ll'
Among the gentlemen present, were the Rev. Dr. C,;
the rector; Messrs. Rock and Flight, the churchwardc"
Mr. Roger Cunliffe, banker; Mr. Whistler, &c.
The Rev. Dr. Croly took the chair. atbti
Pt The CH M AIRAN said that the meeting had been calle
the purpose of ascertaining, at the end of twelve ni01204
what had been done in the legal proceedings before the
of Chancery. He should, therefore, call on the vestry-C' *0;
Mr. Crosby, to tell them in what position they at PP'
stood.
Mr. CROSBY would rather that the Vestry should direetdlit:
attention to particular points, on which he should give ail
information in his power.
th
e
entering Rocx thought it would be prudent to abstain
entering fully into particulars, which might prejudiceto
question before the Courts. He would have -no objective it;
advert to them by and by, but he decidedly thought that 01
the present stage of affairs they ought to be very gu.,-,e4
in their remarks. The two questions before the Courts,,'
certain to be brought on shortly, and therefore it would
highly injudicious to make any observations which- wauh"
the remotest degree, interfere with them.
.04
Mr. CROSBY might mention that the Master had prelles
the draft of his report, and therefore they might expect_,tei
matter to be finally settled in the coming term. The PLe
he could not of course foresee, but he might venture to so
that very considerable deductions would be made eronib,
claim advanced by Mr. Alderman Gibbs against the 10030
and a very large amount of the law chs,,le
would be disallowed.—(Hear, hear.) He certn
expected very great reductions, if not an entire overt op
ef the whole claim. With regard to the action at cotnwoo
law, he had last night attended, with Mr. Flight, a confer° es
of counsel, and the special cause, as far as they cite
parishioners) were concerned, was settled. He n1;0,7(
also that the opening view of the case, as stated bYitibi
counsel, was exceedingly favourable for the parish, anub;
great probability was that they would have their just rig
in all their integrity restored to them.—(Hear, hear.) ale
Mr. CUNLIFFE—Then the question will be settled
month?
Mr. Cum:or—lt would be argued this term, but be o°"
not say when the Court would pronounce judgment. the
Mr. FLIGHT had attended the conference in bei
chambers of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and he
taken occasion to point out to the Learned Sergzo
the enormous waste of parish property arising ".00
the delay in settling this question. He had pointed og
also that many leases were about to terminate which co
not be dealt with until these matters were arranged; be,,A,
shown that these leases had been under the former maul,
ment let for about half their value. He had furth„er.bee
plained that the moneys received by Mr. Alderman uleoce
and which, according to the order of the Lord Chan.,,,cy,
ought to have been placed in the hands of Messrs. r_;:o.
Percival and Co., the bankers, in the P7O
of the churchwardens for the time being, had of
been so paid, and that therefore in the event eo
the parish obtaining a verdict., they would hay° f.
security for these sums but the personal responsibility of
_,„A$
Gibbs.—(Oh, oh 1) Now, however wealthy that genti, s"0
might be, it would be much more satisfactory if these nist3l/e
were invested in the names of trustees at the bankers. of
said this simply because, looking to the fonner statso,
things, he found that large sums were lost to the Or
through default of the churchwardens.—(Hear, hear.) _Ati
Mr. CROSBY—Large sums have been lost by the teu"-
also.
led
Mr. FLIGHT thanked the vestry clerk for having e--- pot
that fact to his recollection. It was indeed the case, Wipe/
satisfied with having let the houses at half their value, of
had allowed debts of the worst kind to arise. Now, if Icor
moneys, which ought to have been lodged in the ban'"„blf
hands, had been employed in law purposes, it was done
pernicious, for it was furnishing Mr. Alderman Gibbs rol
a weapon to be directed against themselves.—(Hear.) Id
not see on what principle it was that the order ef the
Chancellor had been treated with contempt. He had isc_'„of
again over the papers with regard to the minutes of fotis4
expenses to the poor; and though many of his friends es
expressed themselves afraid that he bad made a bliUldelEht
his former calculations, he could assure them that .30.1
recent investigation he found them perfectly COrof
He found that Mr. Gibbs had, on the first 41.420,
of his entering office, increased the rate four or
and in the second year five-fold more than his iPitca
decessors. Here was an enormous increase, for
no reason had been given—for which no account haa__„"ietr
seen.—(Hear, hear.) He would but advert to another
and that was, the state of the church. Was l'astl
be endured that the worshippers should shiver To
starve during the whole winter, or, at all 110
until this question were decided? It was notorious 444
many, more especially the old and very young, were ob toe
to stay away from the ministration of their respected re!,..e),
in consequence of the disgraceful condition of their Cl
Were they, he asked, to endure this state of things, or to le
immediate measures for the warming of their church? sed
conclusion, he would say, for his brother-churchwarden Ago
himself, that their energies had not, and would not, 1401,
until justice had been fully done to the parishioners of "
brook.—(Hear, hear.) tal
Mr. Rocx said that it would be remembered that itysi
beginning of this unhappy question, when Mr. Gibbs 0,
counts were for the first time brought forward, that b° for
Whited the parish indebted to him in the sum of 1,800.ty
the last five years.—(Cries of "Oh," and "Shame.") I:'lsti
out entering into any detailed statement of the present:oot
of their law. suit, he was fully authorised to say that ter,
large claim would be greatly reduced, if not altogether e%.. of
guished, or, what was equally likely, turned into a deb.ref
Alderman Gibbs. He was sure that one item of 701. ps_iAgad
the parish of St. Benet's, and which was not acknoWir O;ite
until the receipt was produced, would be deducted. *Pelit
he was sure that the sum of 2,0001. for law charges Witco
against the parish during his administration would be„000
terially reduced. Mr. Rock then proceeded to dilate .7010
the payments to the poor, referred to by the Pre_„'oetS
speaker. As an instance of the manner in which acvvioot
were passed in Chancery, he would state tle
he had observed in the course of these inquiries. Aln°n`tted
payments to the poor was a sum of 701., which was suhTd tot
for investigation. The proof of the payments was call alt
and produced. It appeared to satisfy the master, an
toes
(Mr. Rock) observing that it was written on a very tel
scrap of paper, requested to look at it. He found that
document was a quarter sheet of post paper, heinayo
fact, the back of an old letter, and on this otO
Alderman Gibbs had himself written various parligrel
to the poor of 405., and such like sums, making in the tteee
gate a sum of more than 701. He (Mr. Rock) ',A 00,
to the date, but whether it was 1824, or 1844, he could
make out. He was informed that it was a rule in tbs„oat
of Chancery to take the person's word, on oath, prou:01
the accounts, for sums of not more than 40s. It 'loos'
therefore, follow that a large proportion of that accountoolfr,
rest entirely on the ipse dint of Mr. Alderman) s'
Whatever the result might be, they had the eatiefactl
knowing that these accounts would yet have to be t
mined to business men—tradesmen—who would ll°llt
so easily satisfied as the Master in Chancery.—(llol,,,A*l Brit
was a remarkable fact, that Ald. Gibbs had the manag;aoo;
of trust money to the amount of 100,0004, among
_le
Walbrook figured to the tune 0f20,000/. and yet he ds"N for
that for twenty years he had kept no 'books.—(HesrZo the
twenty years he had exhibited no book of accounts Asir'
parish of St. Stephen's, the accounts, in fact, being e°'
on scraps of papers, backs of old letters, and the like.
_„,duce"
Mr. CROSBY said that Mr. Alderman Gibbs had Pe_nt" 000
what he called a parish ledger, in which the accounts fro
year 1825 to 1842 were inserted. They were all, 0000
entered at the same time.—(Laughter.) There was
book of weekly payments entered from time to tin2e. ad bed
Mr. Rocx would give the worthy Alderman all t j
the )
tapes of that fact.—(Laughter.) At first he (Mr. •°`"-,;,... plis;
expressed his conviction that Aid. Gibbs had not 011"„ if tb:
these funds to his own purposes, but he was not nnlgto tb•
same opinion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Rock then referred the
Chancellor's order, that the rents might be lodged been
banker's hands. He regretted that that order had tiLit eel
complied with. The speaker concluded by trusting!. your
these unhappy differences would be ternunated 'e
the parish.

with°

To- a question from Mr. Cunliffe, Mr. FLIGHT Sta'- Bur'the only moneys they had received _was some 20/., t",-00,rit'
plus of sacramental money, which was out at live per
interest on behalf of the poor. the
Dr. Citoer then, in a long speech, adverted to elniiblic•
topics which have been already so often before the I'M ill
He described the condition of the church as displirffe ho
the extrme. In reply to the question of Mr.
had onlye to repeat that his stipend for the afternuo° "
had not been paid fur the last three years ;the sexton's 018"asti
been unsettled fur a year and a half; and the orgallist,sl" rcli°
was in arrear for about the same period.—(" Shaine' 'ilietic°
was a state of things; which entailed peat inconvebrieel
on these persons. He had no wish to heap oPP,r°
on the late churchwarden's head, nor would but
descend to character;se his conduct as it dearvfloill
he could not see on what principle that i,n``ls
duti
could attempt to justify his conduct. The , to
of a churchwarden, 4ccording to the 89th Carloiit_s after
render a just state of his accounts within three monthtt
every year of his office. He thought they mightv biery
l!Le
down as a certainty, that where a man refused to qh_„o
accounts he had none to give, and so he suspected it 7 road
this case.—(Hear, hear.) The Rev. Gentleman thf dated
a letter written by Mr. Harrison, of Waibrook, so'
21st September, 1823, calling upon Mr. Gibbs for d gr.
counts. The demand was not then complied with, an tier
Harrilion, ceasing to possess property in the parish, the but a
dropped. These accounts were still denied to al:tsbioeer
select vestry. He (Dr. Croft) contended that any Pan bay
had a right to examine in what way each shilling bad
peers
disposed of. He was astonished at one of the an
given by Mr, Alderman Gibbs. The dePoil'