The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-11-02 00:00:00

TI-IE BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS.

'At the qtiarfef sessions; held on Wednesday, for thethe borough of Liferpool, the following prisoners were
tried before the recorder, Gilbert neaderson, Esq. :
lienry Kynaston (41), tallor;, for stealing one coat and
the stun of 55., the property of William Shaw, was
sentenced to two calendar months' lniplisonmeni with
hard labour ; Mary Melvin (45), hawker, att accomplice
in the foregoing robbery, and a receiver of the stolen

property, four months ; Ellen Ewington (44), for stealing
two saws,. one plane, and other articles, the property of
John Hughes, three years ; Sarah Anne Timmms (25),
for stealing one watch, one chain, and two keys, the
property of Owen 'Williams, one month; Maria Hall
(36), for being concerned in the previous robbery, same
term of imprisonment ; Wm. Kenney (26) labourer, and
Ann Kenney (24), for stealing two coats. the property of
John Davies, four years each ; Margart Mary Ryan (21).
for stealing three chemises; two flannel petticoats, and
other articles of wearing apparels the property of Mar-
garet Doran, was sentenced to three years' penal servi-
tude , Richard Jennings (40), shoemakers far having
unlawfully and maliciously cut, stabbed, and worinded
Catherine Staunton, imprisoned for four months; John
Bold (49), hoarding-house keeper, for having committed
a similar offence on Anne Doolan, four months • Thomas
Fletcher (40), clerk,' for having defrauded Robert Smith
of the sum of £7O, was discharged for want of sufficient
evidence to convict ; Mary Mackenzie (24), for stealing
one shawl, the property of William Sanders, was sen-
tenced to nine months' imprisonment; Honora Edwards
(23), for stealing L 2 195., and a few articles of clothing,
the property of Pierce Cummins, was sentenced to nine
months' imprisonment.
THE CLERK OF THE PEACE'S FEES.
The criminal business having been disposed of, the
following appeal case, in which the Clerk of the Peace
for this borough (P. Wright, Esq.) was plaintiff, and
the Town Council of Liverpool were defendants, came
on for hearin!),-.
Mr. Temple appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Lit-
tler defended.

Mr. Temple said he appeared to show cause against a
rule that had been made at the. last sessions, andhe-had
an objection to make which he a.pprehended would be
fatal to it., and which objection was, that the nile had
been moved for without an affidavit, and in no instance
in •the boOks had any order been moved for without an
affidavit. : More than that, in the , superior court,
(although he. apprehended that the court which he then
addressed would not adopt any principle or practice,
which was contrary to that of the Court of West-
minster), there was an express rule of Court, which
says (it was rule 146 of Hilary Term. 1853,. under
the Common Law Procedure Act,) " That no rule
which the court has granted upon the foundation
of any affidavit shall be of any force, unless such
affidavit shall be made before the rule is moved for, or
produced in court at the time of snaking the motion."
It then went upon the assumption that there must be an
affidavit made, because if not, there is nothing before
the court. In-page 21 of the Law Journal, in the case
of Pocock v. Pickering, there was a rule moved for to
rescind the judge's order, and the court held the objection
which was taken at the time, that the affidavit had not
been filed. Lord Campbell discharged the rule upon
that ground. The learned counsel contended at great
length, that'the court had no power or authority at all
to change any of the items laid down in the table of fees
as detailed in the scale made by Lord John Russell.
The Court of Queen's Bench was the proper tribunal
where the case should be decided. He also quoted from
" Archibald's Practice" in support of his argument, and
.observed that the court had no other alternative than to
.discharge the rule with costs. He also took as an
objection, that there was no affidavit of service made in
that case. lie could not conceive that the Court of the
Recorder should differ froM that of the superior courts.
Mr. Littler contended that the affidavit need not be
made on the hearing of the rule, but on its being
granted.
Mr. Temple remarked that he did not appear at the
granting of the rule.
Mr. Littler said that the mere fact of the affidavit not
being made could not be entertained as a valid objection.
The court thought fit to grant the rule ; and, as a
matter of course, the material upon which it. was
granted were quite sufficient to warrant the rule without
the affidavit.
Ari. Templeto
en-
deavouredi
money, by endeavourinm 0 for
reduce the scale of fees t •
deprive observed
his that
client e Town
various Council
sums
of
instance, where he charged 6s. Bd., it was attempted to
reduce it to 5.5., and so on with other items. He denied
the authority or jurisdiction of that court to decide in the
case. The Court of Queen's Bench was the proper,,l)lae Place
into which it should be moved. He quoted the7th
to andthe
Bth George 4th in support of Mr. Wright's claim
fees which he charged. It had been contended by the
other side that the act which he cited in soil)ort of his
In con-
but he denied the truth of .this proposition.
which
case was repealed by the Municipal Corporation Act,
elusion he reiterated- his objection, that the court.o
he then addressed had no authority whatever t deal
had to erform
the fact that the Clerk of the Peace
pecuniary
with the scale of fees in any manner. He also instanced
certain functions for which he received no
remuneration at all
to do so ?
table of fees if he had no jurisdiction
of Queen's Bench,
Mr. TeMple replied that the Court
wer only.
The learned Rec. order
.asked who was to settle the
by nuindainuB or by action, had that po d
Mr. Littler addressed his Honour,
objection raised by his learned
,reference to the first r
to
look
over the table
friend, the court had full power to
Ho also contended
of fees charged by an stated that in
7th and Bth George IV„ was
client's case, viz., th
t act, the Municipal Corporation
repealed by a subsequent that the act quotedits (b:yr:Mr. Temple in support of his
Act..
a.
The Recorder
s e.ted that if the patties tot e 'action
case then, and sogg
arrangement in the interim, he
ul he was not going to decide the
did not come any
should(thisday)
'the on Friday
eleven o'clock deliver his judgment in the case at
court positivelytltieon rose.

LIVERPOOL INFIRMARY FOR ullnpurs.--Returns
for the month of October.—Fresh patients admitted,
17'8; Patients who have .received treatnient, 379;
_Patients remaining under treatment, 231. Honorary
medical officers, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Hey; assistant
medical officer, Mr. Rowe; treasurer, Arthur Dempsey,
sq.; honorary surgeon dentist, Mr. Newman..