Star.
London, England, 1830-06-21 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 19.
LUCAS V. 31URRELL.—The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved
that the defendant might be discharged out of custody, for contempt,
without payment of costs, in pursuance of arrangements by the in.
terposition of Mr. Hume, a respectable solicitor, who had taken a
good deal of trouble gratuitously, in behalf of the prisoner.
The Loa') CHANCELLOR granted the motion, and mentioned
that Boniface, the prisoner who was kept in the officer's house instead
of being sent to the Fleet, on account of old age and illness, as stated
a short time since, had now got safe home.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that he was glad of it, and that
he understood that he was indebted to his Lordship for the means of
his support at the officer's house, and for his conveyance to his home.
The Solicitor General was afterwards obliged to retire from Court,
on account of illness, and as this circumstance threw all the business
out, the Lord Chancellor had nothing to go on with, and rose at a
quarter before twelve o'clock.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JUNE 19.
A poor man named Lye, from Northallerton, was brought up In
the custody of the officer of the Court.
Mr.KINDERBLEY moved that the prisoner might be turned over
to the Fleet, for not putting in an answer to the plaintiff's bill. It
was for his benefit that the answer should be put in, which was
was a mere matter of form, and the plaintiffs had offered to do it at
their own expense, and had done every thing else in their power to
induce him to answer; but he either thought, or pretended to think,
that it was a will he was required to sign, and refused to do it, in
consequence of which the suit could not proceed.
Attempts were then made to explain the matter to the prisoner,

expio.
it he was so deaf, that all the efforts of the Court were In vain.

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that it was quite evi-
dent the law in this manner wanted altering ; such a scene as this
ought not to occur.
Mr. KINDERSLEY said he would try to make him understand
out of Court, and mention the case again.
The prisoner was ordered to be brought up again on Monday.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 19.
Ant v. INHABITANTS or BARNES.—.The proprietors of the
Hammersmith-bridge were rated by the parish of Barnes, in respect
of profits derived by them from lands in the parish. The propri-
ctors appealed to the sessions, and the justices confirmed the rates,
subject to the opinion of the Court, on a case. The case stated the
provisions of the Act of 5 Geo. IV. by which the company was
enabled to erect a suspension-bridge over the Thames at Ham.
mersmith, to make roads, and to erect toll-gates, at either or both
ends of the bridge, and to take tolls. The Company purchased
two pieces of land from different persons on the Barnes side, for
the purposes of a pier and part of the road, and the preceding oe-
cupiers of the land had paid rates in respect of it.
Mr. MESSMER contended that the Company had the option to
erect a toll gate on the Surrey side or not, and they had not put a
toll-gate there, but only on the Middlesex side. The bridge was
one-half in the parish of Barnes, and-the other half In the pariah of
Hammersmith, but the Company thought proper to 'establish a toll
only at the Hammersmith end, and no toll was taken at the Barnes
end. Any person might pus through the gate at the Hammer.
smith side, paying his toll, and return, and again, without proceed.
ing to the Barnes end at aU ; any person might enter on the bridge,
at the Barnes end, and come up to the gate at the other end, and
then return, without the payment of any toll. The advantages front
the toll were therefore derived entirely from the gate at the Hammer-
smith side, and it was there only that the Company ought to be
rated.

Mr. Justice BAILEY—What do you say to the instance of ca-
nals, which are rated for every parish through which they pass ?
Mr. THESSIGER—But here the advantage was derived from the
toll, and no toll was taken on the Surrey side.
Mr. Justice BAlLEY—Suppose your bridge had no Barnes end,
how much toll would you take? An instance has occurred of two
counties, who, being bound w erect a bridge over a river, erected
each half a bridge, on distant parts of the river, but they did not
draw much toll

11r. THE/HOE R—The present case was like that of a lock or
sluice in a canal, which paid rates only in the place where it was
situate.

Mr. Justice BAILEY—The real question is, whether the Com.
party derive any profit or advantage from the land on the Barnes
side ; and what would be the use of their gate, if they had no road
on that side ?

Mr. THESSIGER—It was entirely at the option of the Company
whether to have any gate at all, or to demand toll, and if they chose
not to take toll, they would not be liable.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—They may make their property unpro-
ductive if they please.
Mr. Justice PARIE—It is quite a settled case. The rates must
be paid for the general subject, on behalf of the different places
where the different parts may be situated.—Order confirmed.
EXPARTE RAYNER V. THE CORPORATION OF RYE.—Mr.
GURNEY moved for a rule to chew cause why a mandamus should
not issue, requiring the Mayor, Jurats, and Burgesses of Rye, to'
hold a corporate assembly for the admission of a person named
Rayner to the freedom of that town.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—IS it the customary practice to admit
each inhabitant ?
Mr. GURNEY—SO 1 am instructed.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY—Does that appear in your affidavits?
Mr. Gum it•—No, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—This Court cannot call on the Corpora-
tion to admit a party to the freedom unless some specific claim be
established, either by birth, servitude, or marriage, as the custom
of the town may be.—ltule refused.
THE RING V. NICUOL.—This was an indictment for perjury,
tried at the lastt Spring Assizes, when a verdict of guilty was re-
turned.

The present application was to reverse that judgment.
The defendant had been arrested by a sheriff's officer, and in an
action afterwards tried, lie swore that officer, at the time of making
the caption, clasped him round the body with his arms. This was
the assignment of perjury on which the indictment was founded.
The Court were of opinion there was not sufficient evidence to
support the conviction, and ordered the judgment to be reversed.

WESTMINSTER COURT OF REQUESTS.

A POLICEMAN'S CROWN CRACKED.

IMBERT w. LowaY.—The plaintiff is a discharged policeman
of division 8., and the defendant, Mr. Lowry, the superintendent of
that division, who was now summoned for Bs. 3d. being a balance
of pay due to the plaintiff at the time of his discharge. The amount
was admitted by Lowry to have been due, but his objection to pay-
ing it arose out of a clause In the regulations of the police force,
numbered, we think, 15, and which the defendant handed to the
Bench ; it is there stated, that when any man is discharged, or re.
signs, he shall give up all his clothing and other appointments in a
good state of repair, and that if say of them shall have been wil.
fully damaged, the amount of the same shall be deducted from
the pay due to him. In the present case, Imbert, who had been
only about seven weeks employed, had a second-hand hat served
out to him, worth, when new, it seemed to be understood, about I3s.
and at the time of his being discharged, the crown of this hat was
cracked, and the Commissioners of Pollee valued the damage done
to it at Os. but Imbert objected to receive the 2s. 3d. and thought
proper to summon the superintendent for the whole amount, taking
his chance as to the valuation the Commissioners of the Court of

Requests might put on the hat. The Court inquired ifMr. Lowry
had brought the hat with him; be said he had not, but he seemed
to think the valuation of his Commissioners ought to be final; not
so the Commissioners before whom he was; they hinted that it was
likely they would be better judges of such a fact than their name-
sakes, if the hat had been produced, which it ought to have
been. The plaintiff Imbcrt hoped the Court would not be
hard with him, as he had even had his boots soled and
heeled and toe-tipped before he gave them up, and he denied
that the hat had been wilfully damaged. Be was asked by the
Court if it had been done in any fray, but be could not say it had.
The Commissioners eventually ordered Mr. Lowry to pay the sum
of 4s. 3d. and costa, allowing 4s. for the hat, which they considered
ample, as it was not new when the man had it, and had been worn
seven weeks. The Superintendant prid the money into Court, but
did not seem at all satisfied with the decision, because his Commis-
sioners, the worthy Colonel and Banister, had valued:the damage at
six shillings.

J tsu rre.—A return has been presented to Parliament
of the notices or statements which, pursuant to Geo. IV. chap. 7,
have been delivered to the several clerks of the peace in Great Bri-
tain and Ireland by Jesuits. The return has been ordered, to be
printed.