The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-25 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

HILTON O. LORD GRA;TII.I.I.—PREROORTIVI 01 THU
Caoww.—ln this case, which wan an action to try the right
of the defendant, who is a lessee of the crown, to work ore-
thin mine. in Staffordshire in a manner that endangered the I
foundations of the housed erected on the superincumbent
sue.' the Attorney-General, on behalf of the crown, which
►ai been called on to intervene by i:s tenants, had obtained
a 11111 e for a trial at bar. Subsequently a rule was obtained,
in this exercise of the alleged prerogative of the crown, for
I namasoning the jurors front the county of Middlesex. Mr.
Gabon, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show sauce why the
last-named rule should not be discharged, on the ground
that the prerogative of the crown to choo-e the county from
I which the jurors for trying a cause in which it was inter-
sated should be summoned, was confined to actions in which
the crown was plaintiff, or, at all events, to actions not local
as theprewent action was. The AttorneyeGraeral and Mr. Ellis
Awed rank in the first instane.e, and 'treed thst as the de-
mat had claimed " side le roi" all the incidents of the
sirs tine
rat"et,ehasedtl2e ti;:itiglheonutahwoltatis boactfoiorndawinaslgesin,
it was is fact • personal, and therefore a transitory,
and not a local action ; and that if, as had been
admitted, the crown had in this ease a right to a trial at bar,
it also had the right to select the county from which the jury
should come. Mr. Godson, Mr. Stammers, and Mr. J.
Brown, in support of the motion, insisted that the matter in
dispute had been settled by the decision in the case of " The
Attorney- General r. Lord Churebill," either because the pre-
bent wan on all fours with that case, or fell within its prin-
ciple, that nothing was prerogative which could not be de-,
monstrated to be so by 'apes., decision, by precedent, or by
passages in text-writers. The Attorney-Getters', as a matter
of prerogative, replied on the whole cap.
The court was of opinion that this case was to be governed
by the principle of the decision in the case shove mentioned;
and that the particular prerogative under consideration was
not supported by any express decision, precedent, or passage
in a text-writer of authority, and that it did not apply to local
actions. The rule, therefore, for summoning the jurors from
Middlesex must he discharged.
The Attorney-General then obtained a rule nisi for that
purpose, on an affidavit that a fair trial could net be had
before • jury from the county of Stafford.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Jounce Coleridge.
LANE D. BRITTT.—ATTACHMINT •0•INIT • WITNII3B
TOR NOT OBEYING a Bvnr4'N•.—Mr. Pearson moved for an
attachniert of; ,init a person of the name of William Wicks,
for not obeying a subpiena u a witn'•w in a case of "Lane
o. Brett," which was tried on the 23rd of April. The action
was on a promissory note, which was connected with certain
trenueticns relative to the purchase of some pictures from
Mr. Brett, by Mr. Maclean, M.P. for Oxford, but which was
not completed. Wick, was an important witness, and was
present us court the day before the ease waa tried, and then
expressed his determination not to attend and rive evidence
at the trial. He had been duly served with the subpirna.—
Rale granted.