The Express.
London, England, 1864-05-10 00:00:00

111 12 PATZL.--111 ZWICK AID sea RAZ.

In thlsce;Tii will be was •
member of the bar, and was defending • prisoner indicted
for felony at the Middlesex Quarter Seniors before the
apayomelidant judge, Mr. Payee. In the course of the
trial he was objecting to the Donne taken by the prosecuting
mensal, when he was interrupted by the foreman of the
jury, who said, "We know what all this is for ; we know
the object." On another occasion he was objecting
to the amuse takes by the peosecating camel in pressing
an of his own witnesses and examining him as if he was
cross-examining him, pointing out that such pressure might
adios the entails to carry his eadeoee further than
the stria truth would warrant, when he was again inter-
rupted by the forams°, who said he had no right
to insinuate that • vitae' was not speaking the
truth. After this, in addressing the jury on
behalf of his client, Mr. Pater said, adverting to the pre-
vious interruptions, "I thank Clod there is more than
Doe juryman to try the case, for if it rested with me,
and that one the foreman, there could be ao doubt what
the result would be." The deputy judge upon that said
it wee an improper observation to make, and dodged It to
be retaliated. Mr. Pater refused to do so, onanding that
be hid • right to use the expremdoes Ds bad, and upon that
the assistantrjudg• (Mr. Bodkin) was appealed to. and he
indicted • fine of 101. upon Mr. Pater for contempt of
court. Au order was subsequently drawn up imposing the
fine, arid Mr. Pater received art intimation from the Sheriff
of Middlesex that it would be levied. The fin* bad not
been estreated into the Court of Exchequer, or else that
court would have had exclusive jurisdiction ; but this was a
fine imposed by • court of quarter sessions, which it appears is
leviable under the statutes on the subject without being
eatreated into the Exchequer ; and it was conceived that
this court by virtue of its general auperioteedence over
inferior courts bad jurisdiction in the matter. It is • gene-
ral rale that all aura of record can commit or impose awe
' for contempt, and adjudicate upon what is • coetempt,
without setting out the words deemed to be a contempt ;
and in the present instates, although it was understood that
the words would be set out is the order with a view to raise
the question, in feet the words were not set out, but it was
merely stated that Mr. Pater bad uttered words which were
a contempt of court, and had been toed for such contempt.
Mr. Denman, Q.O. (with whom was Mr. M'Mahon and
Mr. Heasley), obtained on behalf of Mr. Pater • rule for a
certiorari to bring up any orders of the Court of Quarter
Sessions at Middlesex imposing any Sae upon or affecting
the applicant in the matter in question, in order that they
might be quashed.
To-clay Mr. Bowl% Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Webby),
showed cause against the rule. He said that from their
salad years they were taught to respect the beach and
the sanctity of our 000rts of justice. Happily, in the
superior court; such scenes as that reader consideration
rarely occurred, and when a learned judge had occasion to
interfere, any intimation was immediately attended to, and
• proper apology mad*. In this case every opportunity had
been given to Mr. Pater to retract what he had said, but he
had not thought proper to do so.

The Lord Chief Justice said that if the learned counsel
addressed his remarks psrsooally to the juryman there
could be no doubt he hed committed • very gross breach of
propriety, and he should say he bad committed acootempt
of court. Looking at what had before happened as disclosed
by the affidavits it was high time something should be does
to maintain decorum in the court under consideration. The
question was whether this was a proper mode of priceediog.
Mr. Denman, in supporting the rule, said that perhaps
the expressions used by Mr. Pater, to which exception had
been taken, could not be Instilled ; bat he
.vrished it to be
understood that by so rpm that !redid not diminish by one
jot what he considered to be the true privileges of the bar.
There bad beep a great stretch of authority in this case,
which, if made a precedent, might have a very serious,
injurious, effect epos the freedom of speech of an advocate,
and dad materially to damage the right' of the people.
The Lord Chief Justice said this was the first time he had
ever beard of an unpleasant or unseemly altercation
between a barrister and a juryman.
Mr. Denman proceeded at considerable length to urge
that Mr. Pater had not committed any contempt of court,
but had only done that which he considered was for the
best interest of his client. The Warmed compel referred to
the "Lives of the Lord Chancellors," by the late Lord
Campbell, as showing his lordship's opinion with reference
to the independence of counsel. His lordship recited an
incident which took place on the trial of the Bishop of St.
Asaph for libel before Chief Justice Buller, when he
threatened to commit Erskine, who was counsel is the case,
for a contempt of court on his insisting how the verdict
should be entered. Lord Campbell, remarking on it,
said it was conduct which justly entitled him to his statue
in Lincoln's-inn.
The Lord Chief Justice said there was a difference be-
tween the two odes—there the counsel was right and the
judge was wrong.
Mr. Denman—But who was to say Mr. Pater was not
right
Mr. justice Blackburn said the learned counsel was not
likely to get a statue for it in TV estininster-halL (Laughter.)
Mr. Denman further said that believing from what the
juryman bad said in the course of the trial Mr. Pater boot
fide said that his client would not have a fair trial, and he
need the expression complained of. He could sot, therefore,
as an booed man, retract what be had said.
Mr. M`Nairn and Mr. lidealy followed on the same
side.

The Lord Coif Justin, said —I am of opinion that this
rale should be discharged. I think there can be no doubt
whatever that • court of quarter semi= being • court of
record has attached to its jurisdiction the power of
fm-
posing punishment for contempt of court. I believe that
a court of quarter sessions, although • court of record, is
• court of inferior jurisdiction, and this court has a right to
interfere to prevent any usurpation of the rights it enjoys ;
and I agree that if &court of quarter sessions, having power
to fine or commit to prim for contempt, Ovate that for toe-
tempt which does not ressociably and fairly admit of that
classification, this court has a ritt to interfere to protect
the person over whom the court as improperly exercised
its jurisdictioo. Now, as regards the question whether the
jurisdiction was improperly examined, it apixors to use
that we must not take upon ourselves the
functions of a court of appeal. We are not •
court of appeal from the decision of the court
of quarter sessions all we have to see is whether
the court had jurisdiction. I fled this doctrine laid doles by
Lord Denman, in the case of Carus Wilson, in which a
writ of habeas corpus was sent to the Royal Court of Jersey,
Wilson having been committed for contempt He says,
" The court may be insulted by the most innocent words
spoken in a contemptuous way, sad in each • case every
judge must form his own opinion." It appears by that
that Lord Denman took the same view of the maim
that I have maintained in the coons of the case. We have
to see whether the court could reasonably corn* to the con-
elusion that a contempt bad been committed. I protest
against our being called upon to pronounce that
we have jurisdiction over the contempt. If there
hail been anything shown us that could not have
bees adjudged a contempt, the omit would interfere to pro-
tect the person alleged to have committed a contempt, end
to prevent his being punished. But we have no right to sit
here as • jury to decide upon the facts. I agree that the
words are words that say counsel might have used in the
honest discharge of his duty to his client, and which, how-
ever harsh they might have been to the jurymso, if they
we not pet pointedly, amid not have been construed into
a toootempl, but could only be coesidered to be used in the
course of the address for the purpose of destroying any bias
that the learned counsel considered existed in the minds of
the jury. But if used for the purpose of insulting the jury.
man, they were used in abuse of the privileges allowed to
counsel ; they were an insult to the juryinao, and a
contempt which the court could punish. Mr. Pater Dow
says in hi affidavit that he did sot mean to use the words
as a contempt. I for one give the moat unbounded belief
to what Mr. Pater says ; but I fear that he at the
time let his temper get the better of his judgment, and re-
fused to do that which a gentleman ought to have done
who knew that he lid used words that be ought Dot to have
used, and who knew that be was in the wrong. If a man
will act obstinately and say, " I refuse to retract the words
I have uttered," he must abide the consequences • and that
isjust what has occurred is this case. I regret that
the juryman was allowed to make the observation
that he did without the interposition of the court.
It would have been better for the court to
have interfered and have told him that he had
batter not get into altercation with the learned gentleman
who was addressing them. I certainly think that the
words which were used in the present cam admitted of a
two-fold see= and the meaning that was to be attached to
them could only have been judged of by the gesture sod
tope of voice the learned counsel used at the time. Wee
=Cdr. Payne a judge of that I think he was. No one
holds • higher seem of the rights and privileges that are
exteeded to the her than I do, because as it has bees said,
and very properly so, by Mr. Remaly, • leaned
counsel's seal is not for his own make, but for that of his
clients. lem sorry that we have to come to the conclusion
that I have =premed, but at the same time we must Dot be
biased by our own feeliaga, but must decide the matter upon
the quasi= laid before us.
The other learned judges oonearred.—Rule discharged.

GLONIN r. BI 801 AND OTHZI3.

This was as action beneath by Mr. fferbast Glover, for-
merly proprietor of the Iforntrig Chronicle, spinet the do-
fendasta. M. Bassos and Fatty, his wife; and M. De la
Noes sad Marie, hie wile, for work sad labour, &c. The
ladies are the daughter' of the late M. Billault, against
whom and (bust de Denim the plaintiff had brought an
attire of a similar character, for a large ma of mosey,
for advocating the policy of the Emperor of the
French is the Morning Oiromick, at their direction
and request, sad abo for translating Esglish political
articles lab Preach sad vice von& M. &limit having
died, the pleistiff had brought his adios Naiad the pianist
defending* as him legal representatives. Mr. Bovill, Q. 0.,
with whom wee Mr. Bodine, obtaiaed a rule a few days
since, selling epee the plaintiff to *bow cause why
the prooesdisp should sot be set amide, cm the ground that
the came of 'Aloe did sot arise witbis the jurisdiction of
the court, mad also then as *Mks would sot lie regaled
them. That IL Billet& being demi the plaintiff must po-
oled animist Count Persigsy aloes. Today Mr. M. Chem.
bin, Q.C., showed mum against the rale, 'hide ultimately
was mode skatiste Widlellti orb.

COURT OF IXOREQUER.—KLY 9.
Sittings is Bance.—(Belot. Load Chid Baron Pollock and
Banos Martin, Bramwell, sad Pigott.)
THI ATTOIINIT-OINUAL N. LAIRD AND OTHERS.
TIN IRIAN LULL
I his was as information by the Atisessy-Cieseal.
claiming two stoma rams called the El To and tar
El Monnasir, which had been squad at Liverpool by the
Custom-house authorities for a breach of ii. Foreign
Enlistment Act. Darius them sittings is had bees Oersted
that the trial, which will bo a trial at bar Were trleZ
27Aree and a special jury, should be fixed for Friday, the
th lust. _ . .

ifirCTMT. Honyman, shortly before the rising af the mart,
mid lie had to apply on behalf of M. Bracey, the ipm•Mmaa
who intervened and claimed to be proprietor of the two
vessels, for the postponement of the trial, as the pound
that be was a material and seminary witness, sad mold set
be present on the 27th of May.
Mr. Baron Martin—Why was this moons not made before
the Chief Baron left the caul? (The Chief Berm left the
beach in the early put of the day.,
Sir G. Hooymaa —I have only heard of the matter
within the last few minutes. The solicitor Ma only arrived
from Paris within the last three hears, and be Nays be has
intimated to all the parties that this application would be
made.
(The Attorney-General aid Sir Hugh Cairns had catered
the court only a few minutes prerionaly.)
Mr. Baron Martin—On what 'rotted do you move?
Sir George Hooymea—Mr. Brevity states is his affidavit
that he was • candidate for the Imperial legislature for one
of the departments m Frame, but that his election bad
beep annulled, sad that he intended to stand main for the
seme place ; that the decree of the Emperor of the French
Sung the day for the election had only just appeared in the
Monitevr.

The Lord Chief Baron here entered the court, and on
being informed of the nature of the application, naked if M.
Breezy was one of the defendants.
Sir G. Honyinen—Yes ; and his election having been an-
nulled he is going down nano for a new trial, and this will
reader it impossible for him to he present if the trial taken
place on the day appointed.
Mr. Baron Karen—ls then any objection to fixing
another day ?
The Attorney-General—However anxious the crown may
be for an early tnial, yet it is faz from my wish to object to
a postponement under the eircumdesees mentioned.
The Lordeltiet Beroa—The election is tot an actual im-
pediment to K. Braver being here. It would merely make
it Inconvenient for him to atoned.
. . . . .

The Attorney-Gemara—Still I would sot wish to pet this
gentleman to each inconvenience.
Sir G. Honyman—lo En land we know that the abeam
of a candidate is • material impediment to bap moors. I
deal know whether that may be the ease in Femme, and M.
Brew states that his evildoer* is materiaL
The kttorney-Geemel—We cestauely desire that the
earliest day may be fixed. I understand be says he will sot
be ready noel the 6th June.
Sir G. Hooyeme—That is the day to which we wish the
trial paetpoomL
H. Cairns—So far as the other defendant, Mr. laird,
is coocerned, I agree to the trial being fixed for that day.
The trial was thee fixed for Monday, the 6th Jana