The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-05 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH Dec. 3.

After Term Sittiop at Nisi Prins at Westminster.—(Betore
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jary.)

BLAKE r. BTIPBIIIIS AID °TESSA

This was an action for libel. The defendants pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Lush. Q.C., and Mr. H. Jamul were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Rew were counsel for
the defendants.

stating the plaintiff's ma*, said he was a
solicitor who had been in practice upwards of forty years in
the neighbourhood of London, and be complained of a libel
published by the defendants in a legal work, " The lA,
relating to Attorneys." It appeared that a few years since
an applicator. was made to this court to strike the plaintiff
off the rolls for certain improper dealing with kis client's
money, but the court, after investigating the circumstances,
declined to indict so severe a sentence. but directed that he
should be suspended for two years. That period bad ex-
pired, and the plaintiff wee again in practice. The ease was
duly reported in the 30 Law Journal, Q. 8., N.S.
The learned counsel (Serjeant Pullen) who compiled the
book had taken an erroneous view of the case, and that was
what was the subject matter of complaint. The book com-
mences with laying down this general proposition of law,
which be (Mr. Lush) did not for a moment dispute—" Il so
atone; or solicitor be guilty of a criminal offence, or other
gross misconduct, the court of which he is an officer will
interfere, with a view to determine whether the misconduct
his disqualified him from any longer continuing as such
officer, and on a gross ease being proved, will peremptorily
order the name of a defaulter to be struck off the rolls, and
this mummery jurisdiction will be exeraiiisel in • clear mss,
whether the offence was committed when meting In a pro-
fessional capacity or not." Theo there is a tote of rotenone
(see Re Blake, 30 Law Joureal, Q. 8., N.S.)
The Lord Chief Justice—With the exception of the re-
ference, the passage just quoted is taken from a most admi•
rable and excellent book, "Lush's Practice." (Lamghter.)
Mr. Lush—l did not know at the time I was paying
myself so high a compliment. The second part to which
there was most cause of complaint was as follows:—" For
the power to remove from the rolls the tame of an attorney
who has miMooduoted himself is simply the power of the
court over one of its officers shown to be no logger worthy
to be Muted." And then there was a note of reference
(see Be Blake, 30 Law Journal, Q. 8., N.&)
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is a mistake, certainly, com-
mitted by the learned author, in Mating that the plaintiff
wee struck off the rolls. The first quotstioa was certainlyPrikvi iirTud;h said he felt that.

Evidence was then given for the plaintiff of the publios-
tioo end sale of the work.

`The plaintiff was also examined, and be was cross-
examined with a view to show that there were other Blake' ia
the profession, and that all referee°, made to the identifica-
tion of the pence in the Law Journal report win Francis
Blake ; but he was unable to say that be knew any other
Blake except from the " Law List."
Mr. Lush having replied,
Mr. Bovill addressed the jury for the defendants, urging
that everything was tree in Mr. Blake's oast% and his having
been found guilty of fraud by the court, but the only ml.
take was striking him off the rolls. The learned counsel
urged there was no malice.
Mr. Lush said he did not sharp mall" exempt legal
malice—that it was not a fel! statemeet of the met.

Mr. &will farther contended there was no express malice,
cod that the puMicatioe was hcca Wet

The Lord Chief Justice said yes; but wb the conse-
quences were injurious to another, oould it be said the party
had made a fair rispreeenterion of the facts, what by mis
take there was a lamentable mistake in one of the main
facts of the owe

Mr. Bovill appealed to the jury whether the statement
had been proved to have reference to the plaintiff?
The Lord Chief Justice said he thought it had.
Mr. Sarin said, that being so when the reader referred
to the Law Journal the sting of the libel, if it was a libel
at all, which he doubted, was taken out of it, beamss in
the report in the Lam Journal Mr. Blake wag sutheaded,
and not struck off the rolls. The plaintiff was coevicted by
the court of a gross fraud on • poor farm hula?, and the
court in its mercy ordered that he should not be struck off
the rolls, but suspended him for two years. The learned
author, speaking of the power of the court to strike an
attorney off the rolls, said the plaintiff wee struck off,
instead of that be might have bees struck off. He milled
upon' them to mark their genes of this mistake by giving
very small damages. Since the action had been brought the
error had been corrected.

The Lord Chief Justice mid it was very unfortunate that
this action bad ever bath brought, and still MOM so that it
should have been resisted, as it bad been. A serious mis.
take had been made by the learned author in the passage
on which the plaintiff mainly relied, and alas, they were all
—the most careful andguarded—lialge to mistakes, sad this
was a mistake which might hays been dealt with in a diffe-
rent spirit by the plaintiff, by his asking before be brought
his action for a correetion of the objectionable pariate. The
defendants were u wroug.as the plaintiff, if net more so, foe
instead of at ono. apologiuog and correcting the mistake in
the best way they could and cancelling the sheet they
had come into mirk feeling they bad • "raw " they could
work, and had iostructed their counsel to do all he could to
wound and humiliate the plaintiff by the stinging observe.
Cons be had made. It was not • coarse for persons to pur-
sue who were in the wrong, and their conduct should be
taken into consideration by the jury io estimatiog the
damages. It would hay* been far better if the defendants
bad made an apology to the plaintiff instead of setting him
at defiance. It was not bemuse a man had once in his life
committed an improper act that he should be trampled in
the dust.

The
101 Y jury returned a verchet for the plaintiff —damages,
.

The court pre the defendaote leave to am generally
on the points of law raised during the trial.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dmo. 3.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Midilleses.—(Before Yr. Judos-
Willie and a Common Jury.)
CASTLE NOHRINGTON- ammo TRANHACTIONI.
This was an action to recover 2.51., which was maid to be
due in respect of certain betting trained:thus. Both parties
were tradesmen in the neighbourhood of Chelsea, and the
plaintiff had employed the defendant to make bets for him
upon bumming. In reference to the last Goodwood
races, he gave the defendant 31. to take the odds against
Blondin for the Goodwood Stakes, and spinet Dollar for
the Cup. The defendant obtained from a pergola named
Butcher 161. to 11. spinet Blondin and 61. to 21. against
Dollar, sod told the plaintiff so. The plaintiff won both
beta, and his case was, that when he applied to the
defendant for the money, the only answer he got was
" I do not mean to pay you, I have been dou myself, and
am you can't get any law to serous the payment of beta, I
mean to stick to the money." This statement wee made in
the presence of two peewee, who with the plaintiff were ex-
amined to prove the tact; and also that Butcher had paid
the defendant 221., which, with the plaintiff's own Y., made
25/. in all. .

For the defence it was attempted to be shown that thebets
were made by the defendant on lus own account, and that
the 31. he had received from the plaintiff had been paid
upon soother transaction.
The defence, however, wu not sustained, and a verdict
was returned for the plaintiff for 251.

WALLER V. EVISIL
The plaintiff is this case was the proprietor of the Shore.
ditch Ob.errer, sad the defendant was the printer of the
SA.reducii Adrertuer, and the proceedings arose oat of an
action tried in this court some time ego, in which •
person aimed Williams sued the present plaintiff for libel.
What was Dow complained of was as article is die Shore.
ditch Advertioer, commenting upon the previous litigation,
and charging the plaintiff with slanderiag the best man in
the wish is his newspaper wbea it suited his purpose to
do so.

—lir. Pearce and Mr. Butler Rigby appeered for the plain•
tiff. and Mr. Mice for the defendant.
Mr. Justice Willem, in the course of the wee, Interposed,
and having looked at the article in the Monday', Observer,
epos which the previous series vas feuded. amid the en.