The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-20 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

RAHN V. HARDEN.
This action was brought to recover the amount' of a
wager alleged to have been lost to the plaintiff by de-
fendant in a " lawful horse-race." It appears that the
wager really depended upon a stecyle-chase which
the umpire, Mr. Holyoaks, decided against the defendant,
although he came in first, because he went through a
gate instead of going over it. Defendant, refusing to
abide by the decision, because the gate was open when
he came up to it, this action was brought, and being tried
at Shrewsbury, the verdict was for the plaintiff. Subse-
quently Mr. Sergt. Ludlow moved for a new trial, which was
refused. He then moved for a rule to arrest judgment,
on the ground that the wager was illegal. The steeple-
chase not being a horse race, within the meaning of
the Act 3d and 4th Victoria, which legalises horse
races run in any place, if for a sum not greater than 501.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD showed cause against the
rule ; and, after hearing Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW in reply,
The COURT decided that the steeple chase was, in the
meaning of the Act, a horse-race ; and that, as the
wager depending was not more than 501., it was not ren
dered illegal by not having been run upon a public race-
course. The verdict was good, and the rule must be
refused.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court was occupied the whole day with two cases
in the new trial paper, the arguments in which were of
a,purely technical nature.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
The Judges met this morning in the Exchequer
Chamber, when the following arrangement was made
for the ensuing
,Spring Assizes:—
Northern Circuit—Justice Wightman, and whoever
may be the Tic* Judge.
Norfolk—Cliff Justice Tindal and Baron Parke.
Midland—Third Abinger and Justice Williams.
Oxford—JuSticePatteson and Baron Rolfe..

Weseern--JuStice'Coleridge and Justice Erskine.
Home—Baron Alderson and Baron Gurney.
Wales, North and South—Justice Coltman and Jus-
tice Malik. •

Lord Denman is to be the Judge who will remain in
town to transact the business at Chambers.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

THE QUEEN V. DEIGIITON--QUO WARRANTO.
Mr. GUNNING applied for a rule nisi for a quo war-
ranto, calling upon the defendant to show by what right
he exercised the functions of an Alderman of Cambridge.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding. to argue in support
of his motion, when he was stopped by
air. Justice WILLIAMS, who directed him to apply to
the full Court.
TUE QUEEN V. THE MAGISTRATES OF MIDDLESEX.
Mir. ADDISON applied for a rule nisi for a mandamus,
commanding the Middlesex Magistrates to amend a re-
turn to a writ of certiorari. A license had been ap-
plied for by a person named Long, to keep a tavern. By
the statute it was necessary that all such licenses should
be signed by a majority of the Magistrates present ; and,
by, another section, it was enacted that no Magistrate,
being a wine or spirit-merchant, should act on such oc-
casion. In the present instance ten Magistrates had
been present ; fire of them had signed the license, there-
fore an actual majority had not signed it, but one of
those who had refused to sign it was a gentleman named
Barlow, a wine-merchant, who was, in consequence,
disqualified, and, therefore, the license had been
granted. On an appeal to the Sessions it was
decided that Barlow being disqualified the licence
had so far beenproperly granted. But it appeared that
one of the Magistrates, who had originally signed the
license, had subsequently withdrawn his signature, and
the question arose as to his power to do so. The Ma-
gistrates assembled in Sessions having considered the
subject, dismissed the order subject to a special case. A
certiorari had accordingly been moved for, and the Town
Clerk had, by mistake, omitted to state in the return the
nature of the special case, but had merely returned that
the order had been dismissed. Under these circumstan-
stances he hoped the Court would grant the application.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS would grant a rule nisi to show
cause why the return should not be amended, but without
a mandamus.