The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-20 00:00:00

•
—....................-----....-----
the
ern'
Enuxrum.—ln our report of the proceedings in
Court yesterday, read ":Symonds v. The Vayor of Cae 0,
von, instead of Symonds v. The Mayor of Clormartho.
EX-pARTE MEADOWS.
Mr. Mums moved for a rule show ence of
...
Meadows, now a prisoner in Warwick, in conseclti
result of a coroner's inquisition, should not be allowed to b!iiitilt
to cause why
a te -
,rom certain affidavits it appeared that at i
near Warwick a fight occurred, and the police in t_
Thomas
fered. The persons lighting resisted and threw stein!!
o
one of which struck a policeman, and caused his death.irnto.;
inquest was held, and in consequence of the verdict rets.
_ri..'
the applicant was taken into custody. The case was, itils of
cially examined while the occurrencewas freshin theen9( ~...
He was, no,
the parties, and the charge was dismissed.
ever, still in custody on the coroner's inquisitisd*
at the sr
Several affidavits were read, which set forth th
plicant, so far from assaulting the police, had hell-WI
suppressing the di-
sturbance.. v,ave il
Mr. Justice P ArrEsoN said it would be better to ~ ,__..,
certiorari to remove the inquisition, and afterward,4 fie"
cause why the applicant should not be admitted to bail.
then in
NICIIOLL2 v BLACKBURN.
Sir JouN j3AYLEY moved for a rule for a sheriff's of6c*:
to show cause why he should not return to theeplicant tdll,e
surplus of a sum of money, the proceeds of a sal Of his g1„,71
and why he should not return certain sums which he
extorted as fees.
The Learned Counsel said that the present was 1
of the most cruel cases he ever knew. It appeared tn 1,.
the applicant was indebted to Mr. Blackburn in the surnwo
89/. 17s. 10d., and as he was unable to pay it at once, it
,ara,
agreed that he should pay 2/. 10s. on the Ist of Decal°
and 5/. on. the Ist of every succeeding month. A Pairs
was tendered to him, which, being an ignorant an, 0
signed without examining, but there was every easoll„ I,
believe that it was a Judge's order for the creditor to sig„,
judgment and issue execution, in the event of aid
irirefo;
laricy in the payment of the instalmenV. He Paid 't l-
on the Ist of December, and he did not pay
merit until the sth of the following month. He headed a
over to Mr. Nayler, the creditor's attorney, who gave, es-
receipt. On the 6th a sheriff's officer came rind tool,
critor
session of applicant's goods and handed them to the eta rt,
the net irdait
on the same day. The sum for which 01,7,, for
was issued was7d., being just 171. !A"'- DA
costs. The sale of the goods realised 251/. 11s- ","I doe
debt and costs were paid, as was also 7°' banding
for rent, leaving a balance of 80/. 6s. 10d. Instead of _s...
it to the owner, the officer charged 501. 2s. 3d. for thillanvee,
penses of the levy on the goods, and handed the balancer bis
25/. 4s. 7d. to gayler, who charged 21/. 7s. d.
;and°ip°
trouble, and handed the applicant 3/. 17s. 31 ictoria
chhea suns of 5/. paid on the sth. They is ottbia
55, empowered the Court to enforce reprnen sh" erifr's
officerc as el:: and enacted, that in these cases the cost gain the v were
should be taxed. In this case the ~tli„e„,' e feo`
entitled to charge for expenses was only 131, and
,sv-oCer'
shillings. He sought to recove4rom 'the s'herig 61,'
because he had no right to deliver the money to 14a/'—'
Rule granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY')
(Sittings in Banco.)
WILLIAMS V. NEWTON.
This was An action of debt brought by the Plairltltelleh"::-
is a Trinity-house pilot, to recover 35/. 14s. 6d,, for
_,.:,,,iiit, _
age of a certain vessel, the property of the defends,,"`riciier
the defendant controverted, and on the ground of Potl'es
ultimately succeeded in obtaining a verdict. Stibse„rt tbe d i
rule nisi was obtained by Mr. Jervis, calling uPn'tiefenaetf,
fendar,t to show cause why the verdict for the „iition,„,
should not be set aside, and the same entered for the F,e 15i,
• st til • 01"
Mr. Sergeant SHEE now showed cause again t it. °"ding
and from the statement of the Learned Sergean , et
er SlO3
appear that the defendant was the owner of a vess 6010 ,
between London and Madeira, and on a recent
° et calt:
piloted this vessel up and down the Thames withentA i :',
in the assistance of a Trinity-houSe pilot. The Phu Trielt•c
was the pilot belonging to the corporation of the ~,,b0 re:
house, who tendered his services to the defendanti 0 cef't
fused them, considered this act an infringement etorelto
rights or privileges, and brought the present actien..,,,/ ea ~1
his pilotage, which amounted to 35/. 155., butt
trial found for the defendant. The Learned Serge 10
that they had done so correctly,- for by the cod an(
charters from the Crown, made at various periods, Act!, ts
wards confirmed, ratified, and sanctioned 14.. t• Plate
Parliament, which entitled the Cinque -r '' of ,A
to navigate vessels within the jurisdiction
_.,5 1.1a,-
T,ihatripofe
Cinque Ports up and down and upon the Rivers
Medway, the residents of the Isle of Thanet ha' t goingtbe
lege of piloting their own ships and vessels, withon, rot• or
the expense of a Trinity-house pilot. It mattereiussiled,llo
Learned Sergeant contended, whence the vesset
„„aster,,'''d
with what port she traded for, provided thin'-the 15',,e0
was the owner, or part owner, was a resident sod du 0,
Thanet, he had the right of piloting his vessel 1111 to the
the Thames and Medway without having recourse (103 t
sistance of a Trinity-house pilot. 41 e defeed
Mr. JERVIS, on the other band, argued that e.l coet_ie o'
had not the extensive right he claimed, for 88 144 the 37.
the terms of the Act of Parliament, a resident in ,04;r0
tol
Thanet could only pilot his own vessel when she .7, rote
one of the Cinque Ports for London, and back tigsned ssu( '
not the power of piloting his vessel when she tile
London for Madeira, or any foreign port.
The LORD CHIEF 'BARON said it appeared to hirewittr,fir°ll;/'
principal question for the Court to decide o'oo Yi;ite
what places a resident in the Isle of Thane e 050 06
gate his own vessels without calling in tilt frets,
of a pilot of the Trinity-house, and he gather ~re le 06
terms of the Act of Parliament, that the Legialntet. 056
these places to be Dover, Deal, and the Isle of A .0 eikr
was clearly, therefore, of opinion, that the rule 1 the P
must be made absolute, and a verdict entered for erlt,
tiff for the amount claimed-351. 14s. 6d. , fer1i,,51.11,,,,et,
Mr. Baron PARKE remarked that the Act 0' t. rs'iK
said " The residents of the Isle of Thanet were 1 get,,,io
their vessels up and down the rivers Thanes snioos'-tlie
from the places aforesaid, &c." Now, those Pot tlivell'
Dover, Deal, and the Isle of Thanet, it wasan' noaf,roief;
sentence was grammatically incorrect, for it 'Os 17, V sO,
that a vessel could not be navigated from
Deal, or the Isle of Thanet, doter/ the riv•ers the 111,40
Ifedway. It was clear to him, therefore, thatirti'areOdtt:
tutu intended that the residents of the Isle of:1- ",- ADY 'lo'
have the privilege of navigating their vessels n °' se oit,'
flinque Ports to London, and back from London 7, Try;
Cinque Ports, without going to the expense 0 "„aedettiici
house p
ieil'ilot. Now, as the vessel in this case '0 °
°1
London to Madeira, he was clearly of opinion that
ought to be entered for the plaintiff'. op2'
The remainder of the Court concurring in this ,
rule was made absolute accordingly. -- s')
- DA
COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS
(Sittings in'Banco.) cisert.,l„irrs,
3EGISTRATION APPEALS.—HITCHINS V. 88: of I, t,
The appellant in this case objected to the vole- b.,,it'r
spondant, on the ground that the claim Inn
latter did not contain a sufficient de,scription of "it,-itt °I to
tion. The Revising Barrister was of opinion te 0 lore
scription was sufficient, but yet, made an alteraleleroef
render it more clear. It was now represented that td 0 I,' ,
tion was not sufficient, and that the Barrister 115 „P';
to make any alteration in it.
e- nois'iloll
It appeared that the respondent's qualificatioil tile
two houses. In one column of his claim, und„e:.,
,'' srlftl,i't
"Nature of qualification," was the word "henbeed•Acie,vt
another, the locality of the two houses was deser,o sty ~o 0
objection was, that the word "lniuse" was ne." -rd .'t,ir4,
description of two houses, and that the ic°- 61"01
to be "houses. " The case of " Bartlett ear, ,ie
which came before the Court last Y'el,-eres.P,'ol
cited in support of the above view. In this case, .cossl;iiis'
dent in his claim had stated that his qualifientqo 4'1;1
of a house in East-street, when it appeared that t toe Ijot
cation wasmade up of two houses, one in East-streoe it
s 5
in West.street. It was held that the deseriPt,i,so, oir,
sufficient, es it only stated a part of his thequalificato (RV
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion thi,t tv, 1'.4.
tion was sufficient. The word " house," under, ferieo/
" Nature of qualification," must be taken to nies':sell';e;
horse," but " host: qualification," which waste- 05, '"iee
description, especially ti.s in another column th„oole 011,11
scription of the two house:. so that no man wile • ,c 1) $ t,liff
and was not so old and infirnz as to be led about, slit Ilse 0
as the appellant must be supposed to be, The° cii:„., iiti
make any mistake in reading it. A,ts t'sfi;
" Bartlett v. Gibbs" did not apply to r,.; ' t 'l,, 65,
that case the claim contained no Efien°„Tha'',4
house but that in East-street, whereas it ought -"both 1,; 0",
scribed that in West-street also; and in this ossf , otig -pi
were mentioned. The objection that the barn Do roll'
to allow the description of the qualification 10-,5 °,l 810 pori,
as the restriction was, "that the Revising Barrli t,l,levtiiic"
alter any description of a qualification, exeeP,t An- efe ~
pose of rendering the same more clear and dis'-- PS ti'
was the object in this case. Chief" 4
The other Judges agreeing with the Lord
~ fil
the decision of the Barrister was affirmed. ,Asis '
NEWTON V. THE OVERSEERS OF M088ERLY.....-TO ,iptib
toe ty
OVERSEERS OF CROSELET. r 1:1 10 to
These two cases, which depend upon similato.
,spj
were postponed for the convenience of the Welled 05111
former case, it was said that the respondent had mould
coeelii,l
waive certain notices, but no proof of this nett tipl;0014
brought forward, and as the respondents did „ted 11,,0
was necessary that the cause should be pustP,`Thee se" j)
that the appellants should cause these notices l'° - A Y
P
SHERIFFS' COURT.--(THIS
(Before Mr. Undersheriff BuncuEllo 00'
MYERS V. BARRETT. 10 lieeli:
The plaintiff in this action is a watchmaker; 019
street, Goodman's-fields, and the defendant is
'intsi 40,
painter in the employ of the London and Birnijoge. tfte !jer7
way Company. The action was brought to recovA .05v ,
of 91. 135., the balance of an account for watches 1013 ,„ oil'
supplied to defendant. • tin co'
Ao plalaitte ,
Mr. HAWKINS stated the case. In May. 18"' 'l,Ol ' tyro
a silver lei er watch to the defendant for 0/, of or— 117100'.:
fendant paid a portion, leaving a balance of 4/. I°,,si 0f7,1i, IP''
had anotherwatch and small articles, to the am°ll;fiaid '4014
making a balance of 12/., of which defendant haCorni'
The plaintiff's witnesses were persons in the Or
employ. r aso e
James Brain, carriage-painter—Had seen de,',..,4811 elf,.
the lever watch. Had been a watchmaker hi"- iS'
~pl!ljer
watch was not worth more than 51
Mann, foreman ainter—Had rd defendant steoll,s,'rt•
eo,•coolo
tiff had claimed of m,
anything;ut he (defeenadant)
he owed plaintiff g but to make all things 0001
able, he would pay 2s. 6d. a-week, or 51. in three
00l`
Plaintiff sold watches to the men on the line• A lee. i
A watchmaker was called, who said a genur„r /. i, s°`
was worth 10/. ; it was only the worst that were ,-.ootoied to
Mr. THOMAS said the evidence only went to onemoitle
that had been valued at 5/. ; 21.105. bad been a"
be paid.—Verdict for the plaintiff for 2/. 105. e°
..nefl' 'OO
THOMAS V. WALKER. iw.,- .00 j
The plaintiff is a painter in Judd-street, 14` frbe „- $0
the defendant a entleman in the New-r0ad.4,,, ooreaetl°
was brought tog recover the sum of 71. 4s. '-,r,cl Plee 6
labour. The defendant admitted a debt of 31., s^" .00"
PillA'
tender to that amount. , 10-1
The principal witness was a person named Tribe( the Oil
in Middlesex-street, Somers-town, who did part:,,rtbetitO,
He considered the charge moderate. ne —s gn ifS"
that defendant called upon him two or three iintei theoiN
he had tendered 3/., and if witness would get outf.dor pi°
when the trial came en he would give him lOti!tifter!,ve,
it lasted, or a sovereign to go to Hampstead. Ja'i'a pozei'Ai t
said he would give the 2./. or 31. down if he we!lth ets',oisst
By Mr. THOMAS.—Plaintiff treated bin' Who keep I',
they walked about together. Witness said to to ltee,or
"Give me the money down first." Did not Meet'
Court to „Oa
in Goo botiv
of the way, but to produce the money
could 11 ste(i
He went about to get out of defendant all he i tr
case. a este- rof
Two witnesses were Called for the defendant, and
to P. ,
the work at from 50s. to 3/., and a female was e 4 's-
Ps
the tender.audience' AI
The jury, to the evident surprise of the sP.-
rill° Di
verdict for the full amount. ‘ne ro 11 ne
The liet was very heavy, but the cases - e„ostee-
on hills of exchange, except two or three r
0°
consent. °ill% ti
----•—" "-------"....
C are g 4, _ .40's
THE iIOUSELESS POOR.—Preparatio%-otiseis 0 ov.
for opening the asylums in Ogle-street, play 00 AS al
East Smithfield, which will take place as 0
commences.