The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-26 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.---(THIS DAY.

The Coma was occupied the whole morning with cases in
the Special Paper, the arguments in which were of a purely
technical maw-0.

EXCHEQUER.-(TH IS DAY.)

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DONALDSON.
This was an information filed by the late Attorney-General
against the defendant, the Chairman of the Commissioners of
Sewers. The information stated that a certain messuage or
dwelling-house within the parish of Sr. Margaret's,Westminster,
forming part of the Royal Palace of Kensington,long before then,
and at the time in the occupation of her Majesty the Queen,
had been improperly declared liable to a certain rate by the
Commissioners of Sewers; and the information went on to al-
lege an intrusion by the defendant; whereon the Attorney-
General prayed for the judgment of the Court. To this in-
formation the defendant pleaded, by his attorney, that the
trespass complained of had been committed under the authority
of the Commissioners of Sewers for a tax assessed by the said
Commissioners, according to the tenure and effect of the Statute
of Sewers now in force.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared in support of the inform-
ation. He contended that the plea could not be received upon two
grounds; first, that a Royal Palace in the occupation of the
Sovereign did not come within the statute of the Commis-
sioners of Sewers ; and, secondly (but this was a point on which
he did not lay so much stress), that even assuming that there
was a doubt upon the first point, the form of the plea, which
was a general one, could not be exended to cases
in which the Crown was a party. The first ques-
tion turned entirely on the Statute of Sewers. That
Statute was the 23d Henry VIII., chap. 5, sec. 9. It provided
" That the same laws, ordinances, and decrees made by the said
Commissioners of Sewers, should bind as well the lands, tene-
ments, and hereditementsof the King, as of all other parties, for
such interest as they might have in any lands, tenements, or
hereditaments, or other casual profits or advantages whatever,
wherewith the said law, ordinances, or decrees, shall in any way
extend." Now that statute seemed evidently to point to
the case of lands leased by the Crown to a tenant.
It referred to the profits or advantage which the Sovereign
might have in any property, that property being made liable
to the rate. But a Royal Palace, in the possession of the
Sovereign, could not be considered as a source of profit. The
occupation of a Royal Palace by the Sovereign, was to be re-
garded as a public duty, and any advantage accruing from it, was
merged in the public character' of the Sovereign. The effect of the
statute was simply this—that where the land of the Crown was let
to tenants, those tenants were liable to be rated by the Com-
missioners of Sewers, in the same way as they were liable to
the poor-rates, while the lands in the occupation of the Crown
were exempt from either charge. That was the first time, the
Learned Counsel contended, that an attempt was made to rate
a Royal Palace which was the residence of the Sovereign.
There was another statute bvhich bore upon the question, it was
the 3d and 4th Edw. VI., cap. 8, sec. 2. That statute provided
that " all sums of money raised under the authority of the
Commissioners of Sewers .upon any of the King's lands should
be leviable by distress." Bat this statute could only refer to
the case of tenants, as it was manifest that a distress on the
Palace in the actual occupation of the Sovereign had never been
thought of. That was an extremity which the law had never
contemplated.
Mr. DUNDAS appeared in support of the defendant's plea.
The Learned Gentleman, who cited decisions of Lord Tenter-
den, Chief-Justice Abbott, and other Judges, maintained that
the Act of Henry the Eighth, which Has a concession to the
public, gave the Commissioners of Sewers the power of rating
Royal Palaces. The Attorney-General had no right to put
the extreme case of a power on the part of the Commis-
sioners to levy a distress on the actual residence of the
Sovereign. That was not now the question, inasmuch as the
premises rated were not actually occupied by her Majesty.
The AzTostriev-GENeem. having replied,
The Couax intimated that they would consider their judg-
ment in the case.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Air. Justice COLERIDGE. )
TEETERS V. WARE.

This was an action for money to the amount of 701. Gs.,
being paid, and received by the defendant, who is an attorney.
The plaintiff is a cheesemonger, who gave 701. Gs. and two bills
of exchange for the purchase of some houses in Windsor-
terrace, belonging to Mrs. Hobson. Mr. Hobson died and left
the houses to three trustees, his widow, Mr. Ware the defen-
dant, and Mr. Charles Hobson, his son: In the year 1834
Mrs. Hobson was desirous of disposing of the houses,
and the plaintiff, taking for granted that she had a power
of selling them, entered into an agreement to pay 130/. for
them, of which 701. Gs. was given to Mr. Ware, through
Mrs. Hobson. It was afterwards discovered that Mrs. Hobson
had no power to dispose of the houres, and upon Mr. Peeters
snaking application to Mr. Ware far the 70/. 6s. which he
paid to him through Mrs. Hobson, he refused, stating that
the money was paid to him through Mrs. Hobson in discharge
of a debt due to himself. The prosecution was therefore
brought to recover the deposit from Mr. Ware.

Mi. PLATT addressed the Jury for the defendant, and con-
tended that the money was paid to Mrs. Hobson, and by her
to Mr. Ware, in part satisfaction of the debt owing to him.
Mrs. Hobson was arrested for the same debt, and if the debt
was owing to her, as must have been sworn to before she could
be arrested, how could the defendant be liable ?
His lAsanstitr summed up, and told the Jury the question
they had to decide upon was, whether the receipt of the money
by the defendant was a colourable transaction or not.
The Jury brought in a verdict for the defendant.

COMMON PLEAS-(THIS DAY.)
31‘LOUGHLIN V. PRYOR..
The final hearing of this case, the facts of which have al-
ready appeared more than once in this paper, being fixed for
this day, did not commence until a late hour, in consequence
of a great number of small motions of practice which occupied
Morn-
ingLoughlin, is the publisher of the ‘
the Court during the early part of the day.
Advertiserplaintiff, mr. 111
newspaper ; the defendant a gentleman of fortune.
The
On the road between Epsom and London, the carriage in which
the defendant was, was drawn at rather a furious rate by four post-
horses during the time of the races, in 1840, overturned the chaise
of the plaintiff, w ho suffered exceedingly severe injuries from the
collision, and was for months under surgical treatment in con-
sequence. The action was tried in London, in the sittings after
Trinity Term, 1841, when, as will be remembered, the jury
found for the plair tiff, 60W. damages.
A rule nisi was applied for to set. aside the verdict, on the
ground that the carriage being a pcst- chaise, drawn by post-
horses, the hirer was not liable for any damage. but Gist the
liability was with the owner. On the other hand it was replied
that the defendant having taken upon himself the direction
and control cf the vehicle and the postilions, and being
thereby the cause of the injury, took the liability upon himself.
The case was not commenced this day until two o'clock, and
had not concluded when we went to press.

NSOLVENT COURT--(THISDAY.)

RE HENRY CLARKS,

The insolvent, who carried on very extensive business as tea-
dealer and coffee roaster in London Wall, and subsequently at
13, Mincing-larre, appeared in Court on his final examination.
It appeared that he had become a bankrupt in June 1826, arid
ohtained his certificate in December, 1827. The amount of
debts appearing in his schedule in the present instance was
5,709!., and the credits about 1,700/.
Mr. Henry Fisher, of the firm of Fisher and Clai k, brokers,
at the Commercial Sale-rooms, Mincing-lane, was examined
respecting a bill of sale, by which he became possessed of the
insolvent's household furniture and other property. He state.,
that it was executed in lieu of a sum of 400/. advanced to the
insolvent, and which being unpaid, the bill of sale was put in
force, by which a clear sum of 150!. only was realised.
There was a fourth sum of 1.975/. :3s. 7tl. due to the firm,
which Mr. Fisher was allowed to rove, when the insolvent
was called up and ordered to lie discharged forthwith.