Star.
London, England, 1828-05-05 00:00:00

- - -
LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAT 3.
Mr. WAKEFIELD moved that Mr. Chambers be com-
mitied to the Fleet Prison, for not having put in his an-
swer to a bill filed against him.
Mr. Chambers, who was in Court, stated, that the
S licitoi who hAd his papers was out of town, which
prevented his being able to put in his answer within the
time requited.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR observed, that Mr. Cham-
bers must comply with the rules.of the Court. He then

withdrew, in custody.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, M* 3.
C(tOKE V. ;ANNE&
The question in this case vas, whether Lincoln's Inn
was liable, as part of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn,
to be rated for the support of the poor of that parish?
A trial took place, and the verdict was against the Inn,
and in favour of the parish.
An application, however, was made to the Court for
a new trial, partly on the ground that two inquisitions
which had been taken before the Lord Mayor of. Lon-
don relative to these premises bad been improperly ad.

mined in evidence.
Lord TENTERDEN—We have considered this case
and metety on the ground mentioned, without at al
going into the test of the case, we are of opinion that a
new trial ought to be granted, as the premises with re-
spect to winch the inquisitions were taken were not in
the City of London, but in the County of Middlesex,
and the proceeiings were, tterefore, corm non judice,
and ought not to have been admitted in evidence. It
was contended at the bar abo, that a certain letter from
the Privy Council, which had been offered in evidence
and rejected, ought to have been admitted. We are of
opinion that the letter was properly rejected.—Mule fix
a new trial absolute.
- sex. v. LONDON GAS AND COKE coNtea NI.
The object of this case was to try whether the Lon-
don Gas and Coke Company were liable to be assessed.
for the poor rates of the parish of St. Bride's, in respect
.of preinis.3 held by them.on the banks of the Thames,
in that parish, and in the Ward of Fart ingdon•Without.
The premises in question were erected on an embank-
ment carried to a cert•lin extent into the river, and as
this was considered au object of importance, they were,
by in Act of the 7th of George IV. exempted from all
taxes and assesstrients.
Mt. BRODRICK, on behalf of the palish, contended
that the exemption from taxes and assessments did not
extend to the poor rates; and that sto.h was understood
to be the meaning of the statute appeared from the acts
of the pasties, tia the Company had never refused to pay
the sum assessed on them for the poor rates, in respect of
these premises, till the year 1826.
Mr. BOLLAND, contra—lt appeared clearly from this
and other analogous Acts of Parliament, that the ex-
emotion did'ext:nd to the poor rates.
Lord TENTERDEN—Embankments of this description
might be or great service to the parish, and it might
have been very 'readily acceded to, in favour of tr.:e-
ntente erected on such embankments, that they should
be exempt from assessments for the poor rates. Upop
a review of this and other analogous Acts of Parks-
ment, we, are clearly of opinion that the premises In
question are exempted from the poor rates. It has been
said, that they are not exempt from the payment of the
window tax, but that tax bulling eminence at the time
Of passing this Act, and, therefoa, vested Onto different
principle from the poor rates. It iirsingulise„to be.sure,
that the parties should have gone on for so long' atime
paying these rates. It is probable, however, that they
would have continued to pay, if they had not been
screwed rather too high of late. It often happens that
people, by grasping at too much, lose every thing.
The r st of the C •ert concurred, and the rate was
ordered to be amended lursuant to the judgment.
HULL DOCK CCMPANY V. LE MARC.

This acticti by the above Comptny, to re-
cover 71. due to them, as they alleged, from the defend-
ant, for wharfage of goods shipped by him from their
wharfs. The questitin was, whether, under the Act of
11th Geo. 111. by %%Well the Company was constituted,
they weir emplwered to receive w hattage dutie., both
tin goods flipped from their wharfs, or only on goods
landed on their wharfs?
Lord TENTERDEN said, that the Act was very am-
biguous, but they had iiied to make sense of it, and
were of opinion that the Company had a right to
wharfage only on such goods as were lauded on their
wharfs.
" At 12 o'clock the JUdges went to the Exchequer
ChaeLber.

SECONDARIES' OFFICE, 11Ar 3.
BROMLEY V. SHIANT.
• This was an action brought by Mr. John Bromley,
surveyor and auctioneer, of the Commercial-road, to
recover the sum of 591. 10s. for surveying and valuing
freehold property. c nsisting of twenty-lout houses and
other buildings, in Maudlin's Bents, within the limits
of St. Katharine Docks.
The plaintiff's sun proved that the plaintiff had valueJ
the prop. rty in question, to the amount of and
that he had made valuations for claimants at St. Katlia-
line's to t!.e amount of upssalds of 270,0001., anJ had
never made a loWer charge than one per cent. whieti
was what he bad charged the defendant. Several stir•
veyors proved that one per cent. was a moderate charge.
and that the plaintiff was a skilful valuator. A witness
was.cailed ou the part of the defendant, who stated that
he would have made the valuation at one•half per cent.
• but admitted that he had lately charged 2,3 i per cent.
The Jut y returned a verdict for 594 108., the amount
. of plaintiff's charge.

•
Wednesday after noon a file brae out in the extemive
• wright-shop pawned by 11r. Burn a, Robertson-street, Brownie-
law, Glasgow. The alarm was instantly conveyed to the Police
Mee, end the aro-engines went speedily ou the spot. The devour-
ing 'element, however, raged so furiously, that to save any part of
• laid betiding was impossible. The fire broke out at the west eatre-
ssay of the mortises, and in less than an hoar and a half the whole
Inaildltsiwas.a complete mass of ruins. The engines were directed
,:ebka, to save the adioining buildings. no great was the eonflagra-
that, and the numbs-slim embers Sying, that a slated house opposite
• alight Bev, and pat t of the roof was destroyed before the flames
were subc!utd. 'There was little of the property saved, and the
poor worknt.o lost the grt:atk r part of t:aeir tools.