Star.
London, England, 1816-01-12 00:00:00

- . -

SURREY' SESSIONS.

ALLEN QUI TAM HADLEY.
This was an Appeal from a conviction of' two Ma-
gistrates under the act of rarliament for selling coals,
deficient in measure. ..
Mr. LAWES having' stated the case on the part of
the prosecution, detailed the various ways in which
frauds could be practised, and stated that coal mer.
chants were like son wine merchants they had heard
of, who advertised 13 to the dozen. in this manner
the present defendant had dealt with Mr. Comber on
the present-occasion, and. while he bargained with
him for five chaldrons, which should contain at the
usual rate 63 sacks with the ingrain, furnished him
coals which, on being remeasured, were found thirty
bosheis or ten ''sacks deficient. This would hardly be
believed, but lr4 would prove it to the satisfaction of
the Bench, when there could not be a doubt they
would sustain the conviction.
William Turner Comber said he lived in Camber-
well.. -tie order'ed coals at Mr. Hadley's, West-
=ulster. No specific quantity was ordered, but only
what the premises would hold. Three tickets were
delivered to the witness by his servant • maid of the
quantity furnished, the witness not being►► present
at the time they came in. He was afterwards present
whcu they were'remeasured by two persons from the
Stirrey Meter's Office. The deficiency was 10 sacks
out of the 63.
Richard Rippers superintended the remeasurement.
They produced 53 sacks, or 159 bushels. They ought
to have been 189 bushels.

Mr. SPANIELS, in support of the appeal, then ad-
dressed the Court. Rev i/ua &quits'', it could not be
Mr. Hadley's fraud, and the law which imposed on
coal merchantX provisions to which no other merchant
was liable, held out also protections to them, which
if not complied with, took from them their respon-
sibility. The Act required that the merchants should
not be deprived of the control over the coals, whereas
it appeared that the cargo in question had been all
shot into the prosecutor's premises, which, by the
bye, wanted the sanction of the presence of the
master, being untenanted, and entrusted entirely to
the care of a servant-maid. Now the act expressly
provided, " that no such coals shall be remeasured
to the effect of ascertaining the whole quantity. after
more than on sack has been shot on the premises of
such purchaser, any thing in this Act to the contrary
notwithstanding."
Mr. RANDLE JACKSON, the Chairman, conceived
this clause of the Act of Parliament conclusive, and
the Appeal was therefore affirmed.
Mr. SeAssiE dim submitted that this. ase having
been bpiit and divided into parts by the qui lam in.-
forme. Nilo lies content with one coaviction, had so
is::tmed his C;. se iv ;••• • k. .iViCtiOnS instead
of one, that was oppressive and irregular, an I that
iOl t the Court would visit this case with more
than common DOSCS.
The Chairman ordered him to take the allowaace
of the *even appeals, with £2 costs in each.

7ARQL:II4AR646I V. WEBBER AVD THE REV. HR. ROW
LAM) MEL.
This was ate Appeal from a rate fixed by the parish
cf Christchurch, within which parish the defendant's

chapel is situated, by which Mr. Farquharson com-'
flained of the Overeeers of that parish for not having
rated that Chapel conformably to the other property
in rue parish.
• Mr. Isfeeate stated the case on the part of the ap-
pellant. 'lire question had been twice already under
the consideration of the Court, but on account of a
detect in the notice of the appeal to the persons con-
cerned, they would not allow it to be gone into. The
appellant once more brought the question bef.ire the
• . Court. He had given 'orrice of his appeal to Mr.
'Webber eed Mr. Hill, the former of whom was one
of the Trustees for managing the Chapel,. And the
other r. as its Minister. The objection was, that great
profit was made by it ; 81000 or £l2OO a-year, and
yet it was riot rated for a single sixpence. He was
quite astonished on what ground it could be main-
tained that the property was not rateable, when he
looked at the case of the King and Agar, in which
it was held that a chapel was rateable property as
well as any other ; and Lord El'enborough there
beta, that though the money there collected might be
very properly expended, the mere fact of receiving
money tor the pew rents made it rateable. If used
for an or %nary o. secular purpose, it would be clearly
rateable, why not so for a spiritual purpose ? •That
it yi,:hled profit in a spiritual sense, his Learned
Friends would not de:iy, and it would be for them
to chew the aneneit of the profits so derived by them.
It is not err ugh that in any one year. as laid down
by Lord Ellenborough in the case to which he had
alluded, to ..rew that the profits are absorbed, land
did.pot cease t.. be valuable on that account. The
*appellant cetrie,e‘w before the Ceirt with less chance
of success than toNoerly ; !ir wanted the abilities of.
Leae.,:.d Friend Mr. Spanker, who, strange as
might seem, was now thirsted on the other side.—
Sometinei a little falling out was an increase of af-
fection, and thus it seemed to be with the Reverend
Gentler:.. The last time the case was before the:
Court, t ..it Rev. Gentleman published a pamphlet,
which LetivAight was remarkable for nothing so moth
as a want of candour to his Learned Friend. The
Rev. Gentleman, however, had now made a convert
of his Learned Friend, and had availed himself of his
services. For the piety and exemplary conduct of the
Learned Gentleman he had the highest respect; but
bow the money which the subject of the present ap-
peal was expended by him, made no altetation on the
question, which was barely a point of law.
Mr. COWYN here called the appellant to prove the
notice of appeal.
G. Springsouth was accordingly called, and stated
that he served it upon Mt. and Mr. Webber, at
their:dwelling-houses.
Me. cOaIIYN contended it was not a notice, not being.
addressed to them individually.
Mr. NOLAN proposed to-examine the witness to this
• fact, and accordingly put ibe 'question to him, if the
notice delivered was not addressed to each ?
Mr. Come objected that this could be proved by
production of the notice itself. which they &hoold
bave been served with notice to produce.
Mr. SPALMIC also contended that the only use of w
notice was to certify to the party that there Was some.
thing demanded of Was which was not lave done,