The Express.
London, England, 1852-02-02 00:00:00

Tab) Intelligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—SATURDAY.
1 &maws is Beano.—Bll7olll LOU) C. 11,11•810.1., Ma. I MICR PAITNICOM,
Ma. Jessica Oottamos, alb Ma. Ji. soca Winnow,.
Tux QUEEN IP. Tim LANC•alllitll •ND Yorticallial
ItAILWAT COMPANY.—M•ND•NuS.
Sir F. Thesiger moved for a mandamus commanding the
; company to make a line of railway, being the Holford
branch of the Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway.
The powers of the company for making the line would ex-
pire in July in the present year. Upon the application of
• the landowners, for whom he applied, the company en-
. swered that it was the intention to ho allowed to abandon
• , the line.—ltulo granted.
Ds us VIetiIIY.—ALLUORD MISCONDUCT OF AN ATTonNET.
A rule bad been obtained, calling upon Mr. Vesey, an
attorney, to show cause why he should not be struck off the
roll, and calling upon Mr. ILXIMAII to chow why lie should
not be committed to prison. The matter came under the
7th Viet. tap. 73, sec. 32, which reacted that any attorney
who sbuirld permit an unqualified person to practise iu his
neme should be struck off the roll, and the unqualified per-
son should be imprisoued.
By the consent of the parties the matter was referred to
the Master.
Mote r. Ilisoosis ANII OTII MIN.—TUN CIIAILDE OF
CAM) CIINATINO AT 131i1611T0N.--CERTIoILAISI.
In this ease which has been so often of late before the
public, Mr. reterselorff applied for a rule for u cerLiruri to
bring up the proceedings to this court. The burned gen-
th taan stated that he applied on the part of Browne, hut
with the consent of the other two defoidahts. The grounds
for the application were that the defendants wished to ob-
tain a social jury and the assistance of Queen's counsel;
and i specially that, during the examination of the defend-
ants before the inagistratt a at Brighton, there had lig_ii re-
port., and statements printed in the local newspapers calcu-
lated to excite a prejudice against the defendants in the
county of Sussex, and no deprive them of a fair trial. lie
said the prosecutor had consented to the rule, and he thought
he was entitled to it as a matter of course.
Mr. J. P. Doyle said perhaps that was the proper time
fur hint to state that he appeared for the prostieut,on, sod
that not only was he not instructed to consent to the rule,
but his instructions were to give it every opposition. (A
laugh.)
Mr. l'arnell said he appeared for the proeccution—(a
laugh)--at boast, for the gentleman who lead loot his money,
email he was repeated to consent.
Mr. Doyle said he appeared fur Capt. Chase, the chief
officer of the Brighton police, who was the real prosecu-
tor, hound over by the magistrates—(a laugh)—and di-
feet ly charged collusion bet WOO, the defendant and the iiiigi-
ual prosecutor. On the pith or December an application
was made to Mr. Justice Coleridge, in chambers, es part*,
for a ceritorari, and to change the venue, founded on the
same affidavits, with the consent of Mr. Hump, as pruaecu-
tor,. annexed, which are used in the present motion. His
lordship made no order, but gave heave fur It.IIMIIItItIS tohu
issued, calling on the prosecutor and his attorney to show
cause why an ewer, as prayed, should not be made. Tho
summons was taken out on the next day, but up to this
tine 11../ .1141310DM had been nerved on Mr. Sill, who then
was, is now, and has been all along attorney for the prose-
eutitio. The matter may be said to be, in fact. pending,
and this application was really an appeal. Nothing more
was heard until the 2nd of January, when Mr.
Sill was itt attendance at chambers on other business. Ilia
anew: m was drawn by the clerk to some persons who ap-
plied to have the order :es a twitter of course. Mr. Sill
found there a person who called himself managing clerk to
the attorneys for John Broome, Mr. Damp, to give his
consent in person, and an attorney who represented himself
as the attorney tor the prosecution. There were other per-
sons not unknown, and amongst them ma Mr. Henry 'Demme,
better kit...wit as *. Barry Broome," who appeared to ho
the protector of Mr. Ilainp. (Laugiiter.l Mr. Hemp, when
questioned by the clerk, said that Mr. hill was Ida attorney,
Mid Mr. hili fitteettiit.i in bringing Mr. !lamp into the
roots where Mr. Justice Erie was then sitting. They were
followed by the other parties mentioned, whose improper
iuterlecence and control over Mr. Hemp became so evident
that the learned judge entered them to be removed. In
reply to the question of the learned judge Mr. Hump
again slated that Mr. Sill was his attorney, and Mr. J ustice
Erie care the (wog man appropriate warning and
advice. On retiring from the judge's room, Mr.
Damp said to Mr. Sill, in his own words, that
'. he did not want to have anything more to say
to In: 131V0111.1"—(a laugh)—that he was very sorry, and
that he would return home that night, and place Himself
under the din Olen of his pi:trills:l. It appeared, how-
ever, front subsequent proceedings, that the defendants, or
their agents• again almost hold of him aliet as soon as be left
the Judge's Chambers. The change of preset:it:or made by
the Brighton magistrates immediately afterwards, was
done, if nut by the direction, certainly tinder the IMlCtlyll,
et Mr. Justice Erle, who made an order that the affidavits
tiled by the &IC:Wants should be given off the tiles of the
court, to be laid before the nuatistrates. In acting as they
diet the magistrates were influenced not only by a sense of
public duty, but oleo by a feeling of mercy towards the un-
lOrtunate young noun, that be might be relieved from the
importunities and persecutions of the agents of the de-
fendants.

Mr. Petersderff said he was not prepared for the appear-
ance of tither of his learned friends. Ile thought Mr. Doyle
was irregular in addressing the court.
Lord Campbell said it aas by no means irregular; on the
contrary, Mr. Doyle had come there to state facts to prevent
the Court from being deceived, for which they were obliged
to him. Irrespective of the facts adduced to show collusion,
he (Lord Campbell) considered that the grounds laid for a
certiorari were nut sufficient. There was no renson to
suppose that the jury would be prejudiced by newspaper
reports published before the iudietment was found.
Rule refused.
EIPAILIE ItAItBIIAY.—THE LATP. JCIME dr TUN LIVEIt-

POOL COUNTY COURT.
Sir F. Kelly was instructed to move, on behalf of Wil-
liam Ramshay, Esq., a gentleman at the bar, for a rule to
show cause why an inforreation in the nature of a quo war-
ranto should not be exhibited against Joshua Pollock, Esq.,
calling upon him to show by what authority he claimed to
exercise the office of judge of the county court of Lanca-
shire, h,-Id at Liverpool. Although the affidavits branched
into a variety of matters, still he belie sill his application
would come within a narrow compass. Mr. Itamikay was
appointed early in IMO by the Earl of Carlisle, Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster, judge of the county court of
Lancashire, held at Liverpool, and he continued to hold
that office elovrn to the month of November, 18.11. lie had
a great number of affidavits, which he need not read in de-
tail, from a number of petsons, members of tho profession of
the law practising in the Liverpool County Court, as also
from suitors in that court, and other persons in Liverpool
interested in and well acquainted with the proceedings of
the court during the whole of the period in question whilst
Mr. Ramshay presided over it, approving of the conduct of
that gentleman. •
Lord Campbell said the court could not enter into the
question of Mr. Itamshay's conduct ; that was a matter
upon which the Chancellor of the Duchy was competent to
pronounce au opinion, and he had done en.
Sir F. Kelly thought their lordships would find that it
was competent for Mr. Mirnshay to raise the clUeStion be-
fore @jury whether he was unable to perrorin has iluties, or
had misbehaved himself so as to justify the decision which
the Chancellor of the Duchy had pronounced.
Lord Campbell—Does your affidavit show that Mr. Ram-
shay was not heard ?
Sir F. Kelly—Oh no, my lord.
Lord Campbell—Does it show that there was any charge
against him which would not go to prove his inability or
misconduct ?

Sir F. Kelly—We say, my lord, that he has not Irrn
guilty of any misconduct; and there is no doubt aN to his
ability.
Lord Campbell—You wish us to enter into the merits of
the ease ?

Sir F. Kelly—Clearly. I am quite aware that the court
will not finally decide upon affidavits the question of ability
or inability, or good behaviour or misbehaviour.
Lord Campbell—Can we grant a quo warrants against
Mr. Pollock upon the ground that the Earl of Carlisle, the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, haling heard the
parties, and heard charges against Mr. Itamahay that would
amount to misconduct, has improperly decided, and tho
question can be referred to a jury ?
Sir F. Kelly —Yes, my lord.
Lord CamptieU.—Then we aro ready to hear you argue
that question.
Sir F. Kelly said it was impossible that he could do so
without goilig into a general statement of the Own. Matters
were brought before Lord Carlisle as to the general conduct
of Mr. Itamshay throughout the whole time he had held the
office, and also is to his usiduct in the particular case in
respect of which the complaint had been made, and to which
alone he submitted the inquiry ought to have been limited.
The affidavits were not only upon the solemn oath of Mr.
Itamshay, hut of a great variety of persons competent to
pronounce upon the mitten in question, entirely acquitting
him of the slightest ground of imputatits.
Lord Campixil—According to my present view these aro
questions over which we have no jurisdiction.
Sir F. Kelly would proceed to the point of law as it arose
upon the statute, and he heel to submit that the decision of
the Chancellor of the Duchy, which was the same as that of
the Lord Chancellor with reference to any other county,
was of ',unveil in point of law; and was uo less open to
question upon a motion for mandamus or quo warrant')
' than the dismissal of a finish clerk by a rector. If a parish
clerk sees dismissed it was competent for him to come before
the court and claim a mandamus to restore him to his office.

Lord Campbell said ther;;;;;;:pcatcili;tll7te, is
which that court had interfered to moon; a pari,h
but then he would have been diamicaml without having
been heard.

Sir F. Kelly said it waa the common practice to grant a
mandamus where there was a guerion of tact. The rector
was not the final judge, neither was the Lord Chancellor.
The livelihood of the party charged—his whole interest in
life—and what was even dearer to loins than that—his
charseter—depended on the reoodt—and it would be hard
indeed, if there were no other means of inquiry than before
a rector in the one CAW, and the Lord Chancellor in the
other, who had no power to et:tvr upon such an inquiry,
and (mid not administer an oath. . . . .

.....
herd Campbell—We must bah to see what the legiclw-
twee has enacted in this matter.

...Sir E. Kelly—Undoubtedly, and it was to that he was
about to refer. Ile apprehended that the law M the present
we was similar to that of the rector and the parish clerk,
the common law having given the same power to the rector
as the statute had to the Lord Chancellor; and if them
had been a dismissal, and it Was alleged that there had been
no inability or miseentluot, and a good prima fade ease was
brought under the consideration of that court, the question
betlur there had been a dismimul without due eat ,e 11'31
one which emelt to be teat to a jury. There were two

• ,
1 4
trok,x
4-114".."