The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-30 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS. TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 30 1549.

tine's ruk, or for a rule to quail, the writ or ie en., j. To.
rule of his learned friend was obtained lost Wednesday, and
it called upon Mr. Wakley. the coroner for Middlesex, and
also the guardians of the Holborn union, to show canes why
upon Mr. D:ouet surrendering to the coroner's warrant which
had been inued against him. and givinf security for Ms per.
local appearance at the Central Criminal Court to answer
the chirp or manslaughter, be should not be discharged out
of cum, sly. lie was instructed to appear on behalf of the coro-
ner and to state that it wee on put Ho ground., and not from
soy private moires, that Mr.jWakley wished to bring before
the court certain objections, which he considered to be round,
to the course of the present pr.mecling. The 'affidavit upon
which he moved sated that the coroner's jury, after a full
cansidireSon of the facts convected with the deaths of the
parties uo -n whose both, s the it guest was held, had found a
I verdict of manslaughter against hies Drouet. In enniegurnes
of that decision, the coroner had issued his; war ,nt agai-st
Mr. Drouet, who, however, was studiously concealing him-
self ;land the officers, up to the present time, bad not been
able to am st hint. He (Mr. Lush) submitted that
Mr. Drouet, by his application, sought to put the
court in this dilemma. He said If the court would
admit him to bail then he would surrender ; but,
if not, he would take his attunes of escaping.
What security bad the public that Mr. Drouet would ever
be tried at all if the court did not make him surrender to
the warrant before be was admitted to bail ? Fur this rea-
son he contended that the coroner ought not to be called
upon to return the depositions until Mr. Drouet was in
custody.
Mr. Justice Ere ra'd, after consulting the Registrar from
the Crown office, that sitting in that court scone it was his
duty in deciding upon the present core, to abide by the
established practice which bud been settled by the full court.
The officer et the court informed him that Mr. Drouet wag
entitled to his certiorari, end he (the learned judge] was of
opinion that it wes • valid writ. With respect to the evil
suggested by Mr. Lush, the course adopted he the court, in
these eases, prevented such an occurrence taking place, be-
cause, before the rule could be argued, Mr. Drouet must
surrender to the cot net's warrant. It appeared to him that
the application war answered in every respect.
Mr. Lush said he had dote all that it war his duty to do in
submitting to the court the objection which he had men-
tioned, and the coroner had also done what he conceived to
be his. Mr. Wakley war desirous of making it known that
he was no party in giving Mr. Drouet any advantege over
other persons similarly situated.
Mr. Justice Brie held that the criminal law shoal 1 be im-
partially administered to all persons. It was upon that thot
be considered the conduct which Mr. Drouet had pursued in
respect of a public officer WU justified.
Mr. Lush observed that this was an application by a party
not in custody.
Mr. Justice Brie replied, that it was only an sin.licatien of
a party to be admitted to bail, and before Mr. Dv-tittle
counsel could be heard in s epport of his role, that person
must surrender and be in custody in respect of the warrant
upon which be sought to be admitted to bail.
Mr. Ballantir.e said he must now ask wheth' r Mr. Wakley
intended to produce the depositions.
Mr. Lush replied that he was rot instructed upon that
point. He had, however, no doubt that Mr. Wakley would
return them, as he wee most anxious to obey the command

of the court.
Mr. Ballantine said that according to the terms of the Ca-
tiorari which he had obtained last Wednesday, the at p
were ordered to be returned peremptorily on Saturday
morning last. As his lordship bad now decided upon his
learned friend's motion, C.e depositions, if they were in court,
should ha at ones forthcoming.
Mr. Lush said of course the depositions wculd row be I
returned, Lut a reaeonaLle time must be allowed for
doing so.
Mr. Bailantine did not think a reasonable time ought to be
allowed ; the depositions ought to he in court. Ilis client
was meet anxious to have the matter disposed of.
Mr. Justice Erie remarked, that if a party discbeyed a
writ of e rtiorari the person aggrieved by such a preceding
might apply fur an attachment.
Mr. Ballantine said in ordinary casts disobedience to a
certiorari was not a matter of consequence, but as a Warraat
was out against Mr. Drouet it was important to have this
matter core into at once.
Mr. Justice Erle : If your client sustains inconvenience,
ke has the remedy I have mentioned.
Mr. Ballantine, after consulting with Mr. Drouet's att..r-
ney, said he was dire cted to apply f r an amehment spinet
Mr. Wall y.—Mr. Justice Erle inquired upon what affida-
vit t—Mr. Btllantine r-tplied Lion no efildavit, tut upon the
whole funs as they were now baton the court.—Mr. Justico
Brie said it wes necessary for Mr. Ballantine to have the
affidavit of the pasty who served the rule upon the coroner.
—Mr. Ballamino said he would attend to his lordship's Lug-
geetioL.—T... pr. Covricirs then dront:tel.
COURT OF COMMON ELEAS.—YEsTEUDST.
Sittings in Baran.
WHITP. r. WWLRY. —COUNT Y COUST ACT.

Mr. White now showed cause against a rule obtained on a
former day, and calling upon the plaintiff in tt is c.so to
bring in the record in order for the defendant to be at liberty
to enter thereon a sugg. stints to deprive the plaintiff of his
costs under the Coui,ty Court Aet. The action war tried
before the Secondary of the City of London, when the
plaintiff, a surgeon, re.iding at No. 1, W. etminster-bridee.
road, Surrey, recovered a verdict of 21. 10a , being the
amount of medicines rupplied by him to the defendant,
clerk at the Union Club Rouse, Trafalgar-square. It 'o-
pened a small portion of the medicines were ordered and
supplied at the plaintiff's own house, and the residue
delivered at the Union Club Rouse. The ground of
the rule was that es the amount was less than
201. the action ought to have been brought in
the Westminster Middlesex County Court, within the
jurisdiction of which court the Wei dent lived. The learned
coon el in showing cause finely objected to the sufficiency
of the affidavit on which the rule was obtained, as not du
tinctly negativing the first and third exe.ptions (where a
plaintiff is still entitled to sue elsewhere firth in the elun'y
court), to to found in the 12Sth steam of the County Court
Act. It enacts, " All actions which, bekne the passing of
this act, might hare been brought in any superb r court
where the plaintiff dwells more than twenty miles from the
defendant, or where the cause of action did not arise wholly
or in some muterial point, within tee jurisdiction of the
court within which the defendant dwells or carries on hi*
tel.-thou at the time of action brought, or where any ofne- r
of the county court shell be a party, may be brought in
any such superior court at the election of the putt
suing." In the present instance the affidavit did
net state in the pest tense that defendant dwelt
within the jurisdiction of the Westminster County Court at
the time of action hrought, but cnly to this 'free, " was and
is emp!eyed, dwells and carries on his business there " A
similar objecton areiied also to the allegation that neither
pleintiff nor defendant was an officer of the County Court.
Moreover, it was submitted upon the merits of the case that
the words " wholly or in some material point." in the re
lion above referred to, meant wholly or in same material
point pervading the whole cause of action. If, thendere,
any material part of the plaintiff's claim arose el esthete
then within the district within which the defendant dwelt
at the time of ne'ion brought, the plaintiff was not
confined by the statute to suo in the county
court of teat district. Then in the present case
some of the medicines havieg been supplied in Surrey and
out of the jurediction of the Westminster County C not, the
plaintiff was rot bound t. ine in such court. Tee proper
interpretation of the section in this respect was a question of
great importance, and had never yet been decided.—Mr.
Js yce, iu support of the contended affidavits were not
to be scanned with the stricture' of pleadings, end it was out-
fich ntly awed in the present instance that, at the time of
action brought, she defendant dwelt within the jurisdiction
of the county court, sod that neither of the parties wee an
effieer of that court. With regard to the third objection,
which went to the meats, the scope and object of the act
ought to hr looksd to, and if the construction contended fur
on tae ether side were to prevail, the operation of the Count)
Court Act world be very much euetatied. He sub-
meted the words " acme material point " meant some
portion of the whole cleim. Such a construction would clone
give a fair operation to the act. Tho pre ise point was now
under the consideration of the Court of Exchequer in the
case of" Woad th Perry." The court said it was not neces-
sary for them to give an opinion upon the general point,
which was one of great importance, and might require
deep consideration. In their jndiment the affidavits were
insufficient on the greeted of the techoical objections erred
to them, and the rule must therefote be disenarged.—Rule

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Yerritimv.
bitting, in Santo.
MARKHAM R. HOPRINS.—A MASTER'S TAXATION or
COSTS WILL NOT BS RILVIRWED RICEPT IT APPEALS
CLEARLY HE WAR It ERROR.
Tais was a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why
tle master she aid not review his taxation undo r tie follow-
ing circumstances :—Tke action was brought against a pro-
visioaal committeemen of a railway for services renderer by
the plaintiff. It was called on and disposed of as an unde-
fended cause, before Lord Denman, at the last Warwick alai x, F.
In the course of te-e same day the attorney and witnesses of
the defendant arrived. The cause of their non-attendance
i in time was represented to. the learned judge, who permitted
the cue to be reinstated in the list upon the dcfen ant's at-
torney personally undertaking to pay all the costs incurred
by reason of the postponement of the trial On the fol-
lowing Saturday it was called en again and tried,
red a verdict was returned for the plaintiff
about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Upon the taxation now
objected to, the Master allowed each of the plaintiff's wit-
nesses a guinea a day for tavern expenses far the day the
cause was tried and for the following Sunday and Monday.—
Mr. Whitehurst, Q.O , who supported the rule, s onteiided
that that allowance was exorbitant and unreascu :ble. The
witnesres lived within reach of their residences, which were
principally at or near Northampton, and they could have re-
turned to their homes oo the very day the trial took place.
IThere was a train direct from Warwick to Northampton,
about 6 o'clock on the Saturday. The trial was concluded
several hours before, acid there was not the smallest
neosesity for their remaining in Warwick until Mon-
day. If they chose to do ar, the Muter should
not have allowed for their expanses —Mr. Rumfrey, Q C.,
who appeared to show cause against the rule. set witted that
there was not sufficient time for the a itneyes' departure after
the trial, and before the train left Werwiek. They were
staying at an botel,and,uponreaching it after the termination
of the trial, they bad not time enough to make the necessary
arrangements for their j•urney before the hour at which the
train started. They therefore declined to leave on the Satur-
day, although they were asked to do ,o.—The Court would
not interfere with the Master's decisint, unless it appeared
clearly be was in error. That did rot appear in this c.l'.
A I IktS , n able time otieht to be allowed winless's to reach
titeir homes after the termination of a trial, and
their expenses for that time should be allowed. It
necessarily varied according to circumstance, hut it was a
matter peculiarly f.tling wtthin the jurisdiction of the taxing
officer to determine. The witimmes in this ease should be