The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-08 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 7.

THE COMMISSIONERS OF LAND•TAX FOR TUE CITY OF LONDON V.
THE COMMISSIONERS OF LAND• FAX FOR THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH.

WLRK,

This suit was instituted for the purpose of ascertaining, under a
statute of the Ist of Victoria, whether certain premises on
the Southwark side of the Thames were within the jurisdic-
tion of the Commissioners of Land tax for the City or the Com-
missioners for the Borough. The premises were formerly
the site of six houses immediately adjoining Old London-bridge,
and were now occupied by Fenning's Wharf. The case bad pre-
viously come before the Court, and it was then directed that the
issue should be tried by a Jury.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. Erie) stated the case
for the plaintiffs. The Learned Gentleman then called several
witnesses, who deposed that the premises had been always consi-
dered, as far as their knowledge extended, to form part of the City
of London. The entry-hooks of the City were produced by the
clerk, Crom which it appeared that the occupiers of the six houses
in question had, since the year 1760, regularly paid the taxes to
the Commissioners of the City. They had also voted for Com.
mon Councilmen, and were universally considered as forming part
of the Bridge Ward. Two of the former occupiers of these houses
con firmed the accuracy of these records.
Lord AnINGER observed that the case was certainly well sus.
taincd, and it would require very strong evidence to defeat it.

Sir FREDERICK Pottocw (with whom was Mr. Platt) admitted
the justice of the assertion. He had some evidence to adduce in
in favour of the defendants, but it was not certainly so strong as
that produced by the plaintiff's. He had not been aware what
the nature of that evidence would have been, as he had not had
access to the City entry books.
After a short conversation among Counsel, the case for the de-
fendants was abandoned, and the Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiffs.

BENNET V. RHODES.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of
40/., the balance of a sum of 50/. claimed by him, for services per.
formed for the defendant, who was the proprietor of the Coal Hole
Tavern, in the Strand.
Mr. PLATT (with whom was Mr. Lee), stated the case for the
plaintiff. It appeared that in the summer of the year 1839 the
defendant became acquainted with the plaintiff, who was at the
time a steward on board one of the steam.vessels in the river. He
was known as a very civil, clever, and attentive person, and the
defendant, on becoming acquainted with his character, was dc.
sirious of engaging his services for the management of his tavern.
Accordingly, in the month of November, Bennet entered the ser-
vice of Mr. Rhodes, and conducted the business of his kitchen and
presided at his table. He went to market, bought the meat and
vegetables, and was especially remarkable for his skill in purchasing
kidneys—a delicacy for which the hs.use became famous. Ile en-
deavoured to make himself agreeable to the guests, and he had the
additional merit of singing a very good song. The house, which
was celebrated for its conviviality, was not usually closed till two
or three o'clock in the morning ; and these late hours, together
with the fatiguing nature of his duties, soon affected the health of
the plaintiff, who was obliged from indisposition to leave the este.
blishment in the month of April, 1840. During the time he had
been with the defendant he had never been able to settle his terms
of remuneration with him. The defendant constantly told him
that every thing would be arranged to his satisfaction. He re..
ceived nothing until he had left the house, when the defendant en-
closed a ode for 10/. in a letter, in which he added that he hoped
on seeing him, to propose something for their mutual advantage.
The plaintiff, however, had never received any further remunera.
tion ; and the present action was brought for the recovery of a
sum of 10/. a month for four months, the plaintiff admitting the
money he had received to be a sufficient payment for one out of
the five months he had been in the service of the defendant. It
appeared that the plaintiff was now engaged at the Exeter Hall
Tavern, in the. Strand, at a salary of three guineas a week.
Henry Probat deposed that he had frequently beet, at the Coal-
hole while the plaintiff acted as manager or superintendent there.
He presided at the ordinary, which was at six o'clock in the even.
ing, in the absence of the defendant; and the defendant seemed
much pleased with the manner in which he performed his duties..
Elizabeth Parker stated that she was now bar-maid at the
Exeter Hall Tavern, in the Strand. She had filled the same office
at the Coal.hole Tavern, at the time the plaintiff was there. The
plaintiff used to buy the meat and vegetables consumed in the
house, and presided over its general management. Mr. Rhodes
seemed much pleased with him; and on one occasion witness
heard Mr. Rhodes say that if he had known him sooner, he should
by that time have made a fortune.

• Mr. CROWDER, in addressing the Jury for the defendant, at-
tempted to show that the plaintiff stopped at the tavern merely as a
friend of the proprietor, and he had no regular engagement as a
servant.

Thomas Burke stated that he had heard theplaintiff say that Mr
Rhodes had lent him 5/. while he was with him, and that he was
anxious to repay the money. The plaintiff appeared to him to act
merely as the friend of the defendant.
Wm. Rissen and Frederick King, waiters at the tavern, stated
that the plaintiff went in and out as he pleased. He was under no
restraint, and he acted as he liked on all occasions.
Lord ABTNGER. having summed up, the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff in the sum of 101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 7.

I)OYLE V. O'DOHERTY.

This was an action for libel, alleged to have been published
in an affidavit before the Queen's Bench, under these circum-
stances:—lt appeared that the plaintiff, having received
a challenge from the defendant, declined to accept
it, on the ground that the latter had been dismissed
from the British service by court-martial, and was not entitled
to be considered as the plaintiff's equal. Sir John Doyle also
filed a criminal information against the defendant for having
sent the challenge. The defendant, in showing cause against the
rule, put in an affidavit, in which he stated, first, that the
circumstances under which his own dismissal from the British
service took place were trivial, and in no degree
disgraceful; and, secondly, that the imputation came
with very bad grace from Sir-John Doyle, who had
been himself ignominiously dismissed from the service of
Don Pedro, for submitting to a severe personal castigation
at the,hantkof Generallßaeon. This statement was the alleged
libel. Thetefendantpleaded that the affidavit being published
in the course of a judicial proceeding was privileged, and not
actionable. The plaintiff, in replication, affirmed that the state-
ment was false, malicious, and irrelevant, and therefore action-
able. Upon this, issue was joined ; and alter a long argument be-
tween Mr. Knowles and Mr. Millar for the defendant, and Sir
Thomas Wylde, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and Mr. James for
the plaintiff, the Court decided that the affidavit was relevant,
and that an action could not be maintained.
Verdict for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 7.

IN RE JAMES SOURER.

The insolvent's discharge was opposed by Mr. Cooke, on behalf
of Messrs. Robert Currie and Richard Earle Warwick, who were
landlords of some certain premises held by him.
Having consented to give up possession, the Court, with the con.
sent of the Learned Counsel for the opposing creditors, ordered his
discharge upon his giving t*o days' notice subsequent to Messrs.
Currie and Warwick receiving possession.

IN TOE MATTER OF JAMES EALES.
The insolvent had been a job and cab master, and was opposed
by Mr. Woodroffe on behalf of Sir Henry Richards.
It appeared that he had rented somelpremises in Carbuiton.street,
Fitzroy-square, under Sir Henry, and having fallen into arrear of
rent, the property, consisting of cabs, horses, stabling, and furni-
ture, were removed, when an action was brought, as the insnlvent
bad refused to surrender possession of the premises, and judgment
wail allowed to go by default. The chief grounds of opposition
were, that at the time the action was brought the sum of 401.
alone was due, and before its termination the rent owing accumu.
lated to upwards of 150/.,and also that he had neglected to file the
lease and keys of the premises in Court.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN said it was much to be reprobated
in insolvent circumstances like the present one, the retaining pos-
session. of premises, when it could neither be of use to themselves
nor to the landlord, and in all such cases the Court was determined
to inflict a proportionate punishment. The sentence of the Court,
therefore, was that the insolvent be remanded for nine calendar
months from the date of his vesting order.

TRANSMISSION OF LETTERS.
MONTHLY STATEMENT OF LETTERS DELIVERED IN

THE UNITED KINGDOM :
Week ending Jan. 23, 1842 • . 4,058,683
Week ending Jan. 24, 1841 • . 3,684,023
Week ending Nov. 24, 1839 • . 1,585,973
Increase since 1841, on the week's

letters • • • • .
Increase since 199, on the week's
letters

374,660

• • • 2,472,710

We are sorry to learn that our spirited and ex-
cellent representative for the county, Mr. P. M. Stewart, has
been unable to proceed to the discharge of his Parliamentary
duties, owing to severe illness. The Hon. Member is now so
far recovered as to be able, in all likelihood, to take his place
in Parliament in the course of next week.—Renfrewshire Re-
/own

THE COILN-LAWS.
TO THE EDITOR OP THE SUN.

,qtrt—T. most entirely concur in all that you have
written upon the iniquitous Corn-laws, and would now
more particularly direct your attention to the subject.
In three short days the Ministerial plan will be deve-
loped, gild we must carefully watch any alteration in
the mode of taking the averages. Let it be clearly
and distinctly understood, that any alteration which
will lower them will be a benefit to the landlords only,
but an injury to the starving people.
I was in the Park when the Queen went in state
to open Parliament, and heard the cry of "We're all
starving," and it is these starving people whom it is
our duty to relieve.
I am very glad the subject has now become a reli-
gious question. We are told in Scripture that, "he
that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him,"
and
cursed will those Ministers be, who act contrary to
Scripture. The Duke of 13 tick i ngham complains that the
farmers will not exert themselves, and he can do
nothing without their assistance. The fact is the far-
mers begin to understand that high rents neither be-
nefit them nor the public. But alas! our selfish and
ignorant Tory landlords have already done irreparable
injury to our trade and manufactures, for no repeal
of the Corn-laws can now restore a portion of our lost
prosperity. Our best artisans have left our country
in hundreds, and we have compelled the Americans
and other nations to manufacture in self-defence ; and
though the disorder may be checked, it cannot be cured,
even by the great Tamworth physician himself.
Your most obedient. servant,
A WHIG LANDLORD.

Feb. 7.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.