The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-07 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
The Court met yesterday for the purpose of receiving
the annual returns of the overseers, &c., of the different
parishes in the county of the rentals of their respective
districts.,
Mr. Whiskin was in the chair ; there were also pre-
sent Mr. Freshfield and Mr. B. Hall.
ST. PANCRAS PARISH.
The first return that gave rise to any observation was
that of the parochial authorities of St. Pancras, who re-
turned 535,400/. as the amount of their rental ; the re-
turn they made last year was 582,0001. As a matter of
course, they were called upon to account for the de-
ficiency.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said, the return now presented gave
the net rateable value of the property of the parish at
50,000/. less than the return made last year, and the
Court would wish to know how the very great difference
between the two returns was accounted for.
The Vestry-Clerk, in reply, said that it arose partly
from an over calculation of the property of the London
and Birmingham Railway, and partly from a revision of
the parish rental, which had since been made by order
of the vestry, who considered that the parish had been
too highly assessed iu comparison with other parishes in
the county.
Mr. FRESHFIELD then inquired en what principle the
vestry had made their valuation.
The Vestry-Clerk said, that '25 per cent. had been
deducted from the gross estimated rer.tal, and allowed
for repairs, &c.
FRESHFIELD said, that the only deduction which
the law sanctioned from the gross estimated rental, viz,
the rent at which tl e property might reasonably be ex-
pected to let, was the average annual cost for- repairs
necessary to maintain the premises and command
such rent, and pay the insurance, and that a deduction
of a per tentage applying equally to a newly built house
and one out of repair was illegal.
The Vestry-Clerk explained, at some length, the
principle on which the return had been made.
The Overseer of Kensington said, he had felt it his duty
on former occasions to call the attention of the court to
the unfair manner in which the returns of St. Pancras
and other parishes bad been made out; the result of
which was that they paid less than their share of the
county-rate, while other parishes, who made a fair and
prover return of their rentals, were compelled to pay
mor.- in proportion than they ought to do.
Mr. FRESHFIELD said, there could be no doubt that if
it could be proved that any one parish in the county war
assessed at a less amount than it ought to be, that would
form a sufficient ground of appeal against the county-
rate generally for any other parish ; and then, address-
ing the authorities of St. Pancras parish, he asked,
whether, after having had their attention drawn to the
subject, they would still swear to the statement which
they had handed in to the Court ? He would, at the
same time, inform them that such statement would not
finally close the question, for by an Act passed during
the last session of Parliament (the County-Rates Act),
the Court of Quarter Ses,ions was empowered to appoint
a committee to survey any particular parish they might
think proper. That committee would make their report
to the ecurt, and the pir ies might if they pleased ap-
peal to the Court against their decision.
'The parish officers said, they would pers'st in the re-
turn which they had made.
Mr. FRESHFIELD—Then you must take the conse-
quences.
The return was then received, and sworn to in the
usual form.

LIMEHOUSE.
There was a considerable decrease in the rentsls of
this parish, which the authorities accounted for by stat-
ing that a great number of houses had been pulled down
to carry out the improvements contemplated in forming
spacious streets leading to the docks, &c., and that until
those improvements were completed the site of them
would not yield any rent whatever. This explanation
was deomtd satisfactory.
The sever,4l other parish returns which were pre-
sented contained nothing of public interest, and there-
fore did not call for any remark from the Court. But
it appeared from the result of the day's proceedings,
that the rental of the county had considerably increased
during the past year, to the amount, it was conjectured,
of nearly 200,0001.
Owing to the new and excellent arrangements of Mr.
Allen, the county treasurer, the above business, which
formerly occupied the Court two days, was disposed of
in as many hours.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BO IV-STREET.
Yesterday a dark featured, middle-aged man, described
as John Cone tick Clinton, merchant, of Somerset-street,
Whitechapel, was brought before Mr. Hall, on a warrant
granted by his Worship, under the Act of Treaty be-
tween her Majesty and the United States of America,
for " giving up criminals fugitive from justice," &c.,
charged with being concerned in the forgery by which
the Messrs. Little and Co., bankers and stockbrokers, of
New York, were defrauded of 23,009,,Mexican dollars,
iu April, 1841.
The prisoner, it may be remembered, was apprehended
on the same charge upon the warrant of the Foreign
Secretary of State, and taken before Mr. Jardine on
precisely the same day (October 6), in 1843. On that
occasion he was discharged on two grounds—it being
the opinion of his Worship, in the first place, that the
clause in the Treaty Act passed in 1842, which directed
that " copies" of the depositions taken in America should
be produced, had not been complied with, the " original'
depositions having been forwarded instead ; and, in the
second place, that the magistrate, not having been pre
viuusly applied to for a warrant for the apprehension of
the prisoner (as the Act directed), had no authority in
the case. From that time to the present, it appears, no
further steps bad been taken. A Bill amending the
original Act had received the sanction of the two States.
and on Sunday last the prisoner was again taken into
custody by Inspector Haynes, the warrant having been
granted by Mr. Hall the same morning.
Mr. Mullins, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, attended
for the prosecutors, and Mr. Sheard, from Mr. Parker's
office, for the prisoner.
Mr. Sheard said, he had only just received informa-
tion of the prisoner's apprehension, and begged for a
short remand to enable him to have the assistance of Mr.
Chambers, who defended the prisoner on the last occa-
sion. There were other important reasons why a re-
mand would be essential to the prisoner, who required
time to produce witnesses.
c. HALL felt bound to proceed with as little delay as
pess.ble, and certainly without contemplating the neces-
sity for a remand.
Mr. Sheard said, material objections would be raised,
on the prisoner's behalf, to the application of the Treaty
Acts, passed after the alleged offence, to his ease. Mr.
Chambers, who had urged these points on a former oc•
casion, should therefore, in justice to the prisoner, have
an opportunity of being present.
Mr. HALL had no objection to wait a short time, until
Mr. Chambers had been sent for.
At the expiration of about an hour Mr. Sheard re-
turned with Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, with whom he
was in consultation on the bench, when Mr. M. Cham-
bers, Q.C., who had been previously retained by Bush
and Mulins for the prosecution, arrived to conduct the
case fur his new clients and former adversaries.
This circumstance appeared to astonish Mr. Sheard,
who had calculated upon the co-operation of the Learned
Counsel by whose advocacy the prisoner gained his ac•
quittal on the last occasion.
Mr. M. Chambers briefly stated the case, which was
one of considerable national importance. He alluded to
the Treaty Act of August,lB42, and also to the subsequent
Bill to amend the same, the latter of which merely re-
moved some of the difficulties which had been experi-
enced in the operation of the former one, and in conse-
quence of which the prisoner was discharged when taken
before Mr. Jardine in 1842, on a charge arising out of
the same transaction. No question could now arise
upon the subject, as the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs had certified that the requisitions of those Acts
bad been fully complied with. It would be the duty of
the magistrate, therefore, simply to act upon the written
and oral testimony which would be submitted to his
judgment regarding the prisoner, as he would an ordi-
nary person who had been apprehended within his own
jurisdiction. The difference could be only in the issue
of the case—the prisoner at the bar being sent to take
Vs trial before the tribunals of another country, instead
f being tried by our own.
Mr. Clarkson applied fur the immediate remand of the
risoner, who hal been apprehended under the most ex-
aordinary circumstances. In the year 1843 (and be
s cold call upon his friend, Mr. Chambers, who was then
the advocate of the man whom he now opposed, to con-
fine what he stated), the same parties were in motion
gainst the prisoner, who, after being kept in prison
irom June to October, was discharged by the magis-
trate because they failed in making out a case against
him. He had been ever since a resident in England,
and if any evidence, got up in another country in his
absence, were to be admitted. against him, it would be
o more than sheer justice to allow him copies of the
veposit:ons, and an opportunity, if he required it, of
meeting the charges by counter-testimony. What was
the present position of the prisoner ? The prosecutors
]-ad laid their hands upon 2,0001., or thereabouts, depo
sited in the Union Bank by the prisoner (having pre
iously indemnified the directors of the bank), and conse-
quently, he had commenced an cction for the recovery of
tt e amount. judgment uprn which was to be pronounced
in the city the very next day. The prosecutors knew this,
and hence the course adopted by them. He (Mr. Clark-
son) had been so hastily instructed on the matter,
il•at he hoped his Worship would, by remanding the
r isoner fur a week or a fortnight, enable him to do jus-
ic.,, to his client, and his client to do justice to him-
(_ by examieinm more minutely the multifarious
c'reurnatances of the case as alleged against him. He
epprehended that nothing so monstrously unjust as send-
is g the prisoner out of the country before this oppor-
tunity were given him could be contemplated by his
WerNhip. who was
judge of the case as expressly
enjoined by the Act to
d one of every-day occur
r` ace within the •
rho:, esrh to other toanntofplOiinstsowilil thC;osucra.se,Hine.
beiontena, the Act could have no refer-
' ace whatever,
eng of subsequent date ; b it for the
d
c sent he should
e Julism'avvieeout
himself to his appll •
so immediate renas.e2 fine
Mr. Chambers Zeunwill* g to oWect to theeatatpunplilf‘a.r
ten of his friend, bnt doltnbied whether the Acts in
proceedings should be
tmestion, which directed that
empowered the
1 ken " with all convenient speed,"
point he should,
agistrate to grant a remand. This
erefore, leave in his Worship's hanls.Hwehhead almost
beforev
I rgotten the circumstances of the case
nder the consideration of the Bench ; but henbel
that the charge, as it now stool, was based upoeneda
- document exhibiting a forgery in two respects—the
mount said to be deposited, as well as the name
of the depositor, being altered. Should the magis-
trate believe that this charge was established by the
eepositions and commit upon that :conviction, it would
V en be in the power of his friend to apply for a writ of
abeas corpus, and submit the obj-cti(ns which he had
to or to tho superior authority.