The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, April 15

Ilk being the first day of Easter Term, his Lordship, the
MASTER of the. Rot.t.s, entered the Court at half-past one
o'clock, and immediately proceeded to hear motions.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE CORPORATION OF NEWCASTLE-
UPON-TYNE.
Ori the application of Mr. Puitvis this cause was postponed
to the first day of hearing after Trinity Term.

BISHOP OF EXETER V. HAWKINS.

On the application of Air. PEMBERTON thiS cruse oral al-
lowed to stand over to the 21st inst.

HAWTHORN V. JAMES.

Mr. PEMBERTON applied for an order in this case to refer
it to the Master to appoint one or more managers, or dormant
manages (Laughter )--of a certain plantation estate in the
West. Indies.
Lord LANE:DALE—What can be meant by " dormant mana-
gers?"
Mr. PEMBERTON really was not aware of what could be
meant by " dormant managers," but the object of the bill filed
in the cause was to raise certain charges on the estate in ques-
tion.

Lord LANGDALE—It is impossible to appoint "dormant
manzgers," who might go to sleep over their charge.—
( Laughter.) You can take the common order to appoint one
or more managers.

1710 - CHANCE LL ORS" COURT, April 15.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR. OF ENGLA ND. )
His Ilosotta took his seat at half past. one. The cases
heard before the Court were, as is usual on the first day of
Term, chiefly motions of course. .
Vn e-Chanccllors WIG RA at and KNIGHT BRUCE sal to-day
in Lit coin's Inn, as the Committee Rooms, Nos. 1 and 2, (if
the House of Commons, in which they have hitherto sat during
term, arc occupied by the Election Committees now sitting.

COURT OF QUEEN'S DENCIl„4pril 15.
This being the first day of Term, the Learned Judges break-
fasted with the Lnrd Chancellor, according t,t ancient custom,
and afterwards proceeded to 'Westminster Hall to their respec-
tis e Courts. Their Lordships did not take their seats upon ihe
bet ch until half-past one.

TUE QUEEN V. ELLIS.
This was a case which had been tried before Mr. Justice
Patteson, at Stafford. The defendant, Samuel Ellis, had been
irdicted for having, at the last election for the borough of
Stoke-upon-Trent, given a false answer to the third question
pat to him, in accordance with the provisions pf the Reform
Act, at that election, he having stated that he possessed
the same qualification that he had when his name

was placed on the register, he having at that time quitted the
premises which be had previously occupied, and as the occupier
of which his name had been placed on the register of voters.
The defendant had been convicted.
Mr. Sergeant TAISOURD moved for an arrest of judg-
ment, on the ground that the indictment did not
contain any substantive averment of a traversable
fact. There was no allegation that there had been an eke-
ti, n. There was no allegation that a poll had been demanded,
without which no one would Lave bad any right to put the
question to defendant. There was no allegation stating that
the defendant had no right to vote. In short, there was not a
single substantive averment throughout the indictment.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 15.
Mr. Baron Parke, Barons Gurney, Alderson, and Rolfe,
took their seats on the Bench skortly before two o'clock.
Air. Baron PARKE stated, for the information of Counsel,
that Lord Abinger would not probably be able to take his seat
in Court for some time. (We believe his Lordship is at pre-
sent indisposed, and is about to leave town for Brighton.)

DAINTRY V. HUTCHINSON.

Mr. ANDREWS moved for a rule to show why the verdict in
this ease should not be set aside and a new trial granted, or why
judgment should not be arrested. The ca-e had lately been
tried at Cambridge before the Lord Chief Justice, and a vet,
diet was found for the plaintiff. It. appeared that the parties
had agreed to run a match between two greyhounds for a sum
of WO/. a-side.• The match, according to the terms of the
agreement, was to have come off on the Wednesday of the week
of the Newmarket Meeting in the month of February,
164.1. The defendant was, ready with his dog at the
week originally appointed for the meeting; but the meet-
ing was adjourned `by the stewards for a fortnight, in
consequence of the stale of the weather. The defendant did
not appear on the second occasion. On the trial, however,
the rules of the club were not produced for the purpose of
showing that the stewards were empowered to postpone the
meeting ; and this was the ground of the first part. of the ap-
pheatiun. In support of the motion for arresting judgment,
the Learned Counsel quoted the 16th of Charles 11., and
other statutes, with a view to prove that dog matches were
illegal, and that therefore the bet could not be recovered.
Baron PAItNE was of opinion that the agreement between
the parties referred to the Wednesday of the week in which
the Newmarket meeting was actually held. He could not
therefore grant the first part of. the application ; but the de-
fendant might take a rule to show enne why judgment should
a of be arrested.