The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-28 00:00:00

THE KING V. LYON.

This leas an application for a writ of mandamus
directed to Mr. Lyon, the Master of the Watermans'
Company, commanding him to admit and swear in Mr.
Benyon to the office of clerk of that Company, to
which he had been elected.—Rule absolute.

TILE KING V. JONES, ESQ.

Mr. Serjeant RUSSELL showed cause against a
rule obtained by Mr. Campbell in the course of the
last term, for leave to file a criminal informatic
against William Jones, Esq., a Magistrate of the
county of Carmarthen. The Learned Serjeant ob-
served that the affidavits on which the rule had been
obtained imputed to Mr. Jones that he had endea-
voured, by threats and promisee, to compound a
felony,—that is, that he had endeavoured to per-
suade one David Davis, who had stated that he had
been robbed on the King's highway, to compound
the offence and abstain from prosecuting the offender.
The affidavit of Davis, who had stated himself to
be a farmer, but who was, in truth, only a day la-
bourer and a Chelsea pensioner, set forth, that on
Saturday, the 16th of May last, he was coming from
Carmarthen, in company with one David Williams,
and that when they had got to a place called Penny-
garden, Williams, on a sudden, attacked him with a
stick, or blackthorn club; that he struck him to the
around, and when he was down he kicked and
beat him ; that he put his hand in his waistcoat
pocket and robbed him of his leather purse arid
I Is. Gd. in silver, and then left him senseless on the
ground; that he was afterwards picked up by two
persons named William Williams, and Margaret
Williams, who were attracted to the spot by the
cries they had beard. ' The affidavit of David Wil-
liams, which was one of the affidavits made in op-
position to the rule—stated that he (Williams)
and Davis • had been spending the greater part
of the day together in the town of Carmarthen,
where they had been drinking; that on their re-
turn from Carmarthen, they resorted to several
public-houses on the road; that, having drank a
considerable quantity of liquor, they both became
intoxicated—a quarrel arose about some beer, which
one of them had thrown on the floor; from worth
they came to blows, and William swore that before
he struck Davis, the latter gave him thyee blows;
he swore further, that be had no blackthorn club or
other stick, and did not rob Davis " of a farthing."
The impression on the mind of Mr. Jones, the Ma-
gistrare, was, that no robbery had been in fact corn-
tnitted. Mr. Jones swore that he did not on this
occasion g;ve any recommendation to Davis to settle
wiih Williams, but merely said to him, after the
bail had been taken, " I am still of opinion that
this matter had better have been amicably settled."
It further appeared from the affidavits, that Davis
preferred a bill of indictment against Williams for
the highway robbery at the Great Sessions, and
that the Grand Jury threw it out. Mr. Jones was
a member of the Grand Jury, but he absented him-
self during the time that the case was under inves-
tigation, and took no part in it. Williams preferred
his bill against Davis for the assault, and it was
found a true bill at the Quarter Session;. Mr.
Jones had sworn in the most distinct and positive
terms, that in acting as he had done be was in-
fluenced by no enmity to one party or favour to the
other, and that he aced throughout the business
with an anxious desire to discharge his duty as a
Magistrate, and according to the best of his judg-
ment. He swore further, that he had been an act-
ing Magistr ate in the county for a period of twenty-
six years, and that his character and conduct had
never before been impugned or objected to.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in support of the rule, said, Mr.
Jones had attempted to excuse his conduct by say-
ing that he had recommended a reference to mutual.
friends and neighbours, but he (the Learned Coun-
sel) was not aware that it was the practice in Wales
for Magistrates to dispose of charges for capital
offences in this way. After calling the attention of
the Court to some other circumstances in the case,
the Learned Counsel submitted, that the affidavits
disclosed enough to raise suspicion against Mr.
Jones, and to justify their Lordships in sending the
case for investigation by a Jury.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said that in refusing to make
the present rule absolute, the Court did not take
away the power of any person to prefer an indict-
ment against Mr. Jones if it was thought that he
had acted improperly. He ( the Learned Judge),
however, for his orvn part, did not entertain the
slightest suspicion against Mr. Jones's conduct.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE thought that Mr. Jones's
conduct had been not only proper but praiseworthy.
Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE concurred, and the rule
was discharged with costs.

THE LONDON DOCK COMPANY AND MR. JOSEPH

FLETCH ER.

Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. KELLEY showed cause
against the rule obtained by the Attorney-General
on Saturday last, for setting aside the award made
in I the reference between the London Dock
Company and Mr. Joseph Fletcher, as to the ex-
cess beyond the sum of 20,0001., on the ground,
principally, that the arbitrators had awarded com-
pensation to Mr. Fletcher on a mistaken principle of
calculation.

The COURT thought that the principle of calcu-
lation was right, and refused to disturb the award
—Rule discharged.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. !'7.
AFFLADO V. FOURDRINIER.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the judg-
ment of the Court in this case. It was an action
on a bill of exchange, to which the derence was,
that it was an accommodation bill given ‘vithout
consideration--The rule for a new trial was ordered
to be discharged.

THE WONDER OF THE W I t lORLD ALIVE . . .
Under this astcunding title a race mare (Pincushion,
commonly called Creeping Jenny) is now exhibiting in COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27.
Limerick. This mare has seven legs and the eighth leg F Tim RtNis V. SPIRES AND REDHEAD.
growing. She has won several races. With this extra- I The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to show cause
ordinary animal is also exhibited a liliputian. The weight
against a rule nisi, obtained in this case to set aside
of this little man is only one pound eigbt ounces, and any 1 the verdict against the defendants. The eirctun-
gentleman may with ease carry him about in his waist- I
, stances out of which the case arose were in sub-
coat pocket !! ! May we venture to express a hope that
, stance these :—Lord Grauville, our late Authassa-
t 1
1
the proprietor may gratify the citizens of Watertond with
sigh% of thole wondrous things?.,. Waterford Chronicle. i dor at the Court of France, when on hi. return

to this country, had a largequantity of iii= furniture
shipped at Calais on board a steam packet, and con-
signed to the care of defendants, who acted as his
agents on that occasion. The packages were all
marked " L. G.;" and, as known and entered as
belonging to his Lords:l:p, were exempt from any
custom-house inspection at either side of the water.
In a few days after this, the Superb stem-packet
arrived in the Thames from Calais, bringing, '
amongst other freight, five packages made up
exactly as those belonging, to Lord Granville ;
and, like them also, marked "L. G." On their
arrival no person appeared to claim them.
After some days a Mr. Tighe, who was the known
agent of the defendants, came to Galley-quay, and
appeared to look after the packages, and by him it
was told (so we understood the Solicitor-General)
that they belonged to Lord Granville. Soon after
this one of the defendants went to a Mr. Norman,
and alluding to those packages, said, " Why, you
have landed our packages." To which Mr. Norman
replied, " Well, if they are yours, look after them."
Mr. Nortran was paid by defendants the expense
he had been at for their previous entry, and also
for their freight. After this one of the packages was
taken out in the name of L. Gaward, and proved to
be furniture. The duty, about 21. 103., was paid on
it, and it was taken away. It at length became
necessary to examine the other packages. , They
were, we believe, examined by order of the de-
fendants themselves. It then appeared that they
contained (not furniture), but French silks and
ribands to the value of some thousands of pounds,
the duty on which amounted to 1,7.501. The de-
fendants then asked leave to have them re-shipped;
but this was refused, and the goods were seized.
Informations were afterwards filed against the de-
fendants for contravention of Custom-house regula-
tions, by which the goods became forfeited under
several sooutes. The case was tried in this Court
before the Lord Chief Baron, and the Jury found
that there was a fraudulent intention on the part of
the shippers, and eleven out of the twtive, it was
said, were for finding that there was a fraud on the
part of the defendants.
Mr. BROUGHAM, for the defendants, said that
there was no question of fraud before the Court—
none had been laid in the information.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in
.showing cause
against the rule, contended, that enough had been
shown in the trial of the cause to establish a
fraudulent intention on the part of the defeudAnts;
but the verdict of the Jury had clearly established
it against the shippers of the goods,
Mr. CLARKE followed on the same side, and con-
tended that even if there were no fraud at anyside,
the infraction of the Custom-house regulations
would be a just cause of forfeiture.
Mr. WALT.oN followed on the other side.

It was now past four o'clock, and the Court rose,
deferring the hearing of the Counsel on the other
side till to-morrow.

ARCHES COURT, Nov 27.

THE OFFICE OF TILE JUDGE PROMOTED BY BEN-

NETT AGAINST 130NIGAR.

This was a suit promoted by the Churchwarden
of a parish in the diocese of Worcester, against the
Rev. Wm. Baldwin Bonigar, the vicar, for neglect
of duty and other irregularities, not involving any
charges of immoral conduct. The libel had been
admitted, as well as a responsive allegation on the
part of the defendant, whichdenied or explained the
grounds of accusation, and recriminated on the pro-
movent, by ascribing the suit to malicious and vin.
dictive motives, proceeding from the vicar's having
raised the tithes of the parish and the church rate.
An allegation was now offered on the Fut of the
promovent impugning these statements, the admis-
sion of which was opposed by the defendant.
The Court considered that under the circum-
stances of the case, and without pronouncing upon
its merits, or the motives of either party, it could
not refuse to admit the allegation, after the recrimi-
natory pleas which had been put in by the defendant.