The Express.
London, England, 1848-11-28 00:00:00

IleGee the llsogF of the Roth.

THE QUIRE 17.FROSS EIL—JtriTSDICTION or COUIT TO
STAY PROCREDINOS ON BCIRE FACIAS TO RECALL A Per
Muter of the Renegers judgment in this casee
which was an application by the defendant, who had ob-
tained a patent far an improved method of manufacturing
iron tubes, to discharge a writ of wire facies to recall the pee
tent sued out by Mr. Irving Van Wart, a foreigner, or to
stay preceediogs on such writ.—llia lordship said an applies.
tion had been made to the Attorney General to stay pro-
ceediogs on the writ, or to cause a ankle prosequi to be en.
tired, but that app:ication was unsuccessful. The present
application was then made to this court and the reasons al-
leged in support of it were in effect—fire;, that the person et
whose instance the Attorney-General authorised the writ to
be issued was an alien ; secondly, that he had no special ba►
terest in the matter, bat was acting in collusion with other
persons to injure the patentee ; thirdly, that the security
given by him for the costs of the proceedings was not proper
or sufficient. Re was of opinion that be had no authcrity to
interfere. A stirs facia to repeal letters patent wee
a proceeding of the crown for the benefit of the public.
It had been said that the writ issued as of course, and that
the fiat of the Attorney-General was granted of course. lie
thought that this was not the cue ; but the Attorcey-Gine-
ral had an important duty to perfume before he authorised
the writ to be issued. lie had the right to control the pro.
ceedings in the action, subject to this—that he most premed
regularly according to the rule of the court in which the
procatdinp took place ; and he apprehended all courts
would exercise over the Attorney-General the same sort of
control that they ex.reised over other suitors, sad that he
would not be permitted to prosecute a merely vexatious suit.
Bat he might at his own discretion enter a nolle pro-
eequi, and had a right to determine for: what the writ
of seire facia should issue, and at whose instance, and on
what security he would permit the action to proceed, and the
court had no power to control him in these respects. The
" Attorney• General o. Memos" was cited as an authority
that the court had jurisdiction to interfere ; but it afforded
no ground fer that position, and he sporehended that the
Lord Chancellor, sitting as •judge in the Court of Chancery.
whether on the equity or law side, had no authority to inter.
fere with the discretionary exerlse of the royal prerogative.
Though, if there apparently were a hardship on the party
either as to the security for costs or otherwise, the judge
might properly suggest to the Attorney-General the pro-
priety of giving the meter further consideration. It was
very material not to confound judicial authority with minis-
tale' authority, which was etten connected with judicial
authority. Being of opinion that he had no jurisdiction ba
ought perhaps to pus no opinion on the cue. But as he
had had au opportunity of considering it, be might observe
that he saw no reason to doubt the propriety of the opinion
arrived at by the Attorney-General on the points submitted
to him. If a monopoly was alleged to be a public grievance
the crown ought not to be di cabled from allowing proceed-
ings to be taken to recall it because the party applying was
an alien or had no special interest in the recall of it, or was
endeavouring to promote the interestof another person. He
had no doubt that if it was shown to the saisfaction of the
Attorney-General that the security for cats was insufficient,
he would stay the proceedings. Ile must refuse the motion
with costs. It was ultimately arranged that the proceedings
should be stayed till the first seal after term, to give the de-
fendant an opportunity of applying to the Chancellor.

TiMaDAT.—Before Ilee-Chanosilor Knight Strum.
Ex
RATS FIAm —This was a petition to annul a separate to
She effect to a j3int flat. The bankrupts were two partners
in the Ccylon firm of Ackland, thyd, and Co., and had
come to this country with a view to the settlement of the
affairs of the firm, which were in the course of being wound
up, under a deed of import:tont:tip, in Ceylon. Steps were
taken to make them bankrupts in this country, but before •
joint fiat could issue one of them, Mr. Ackland, sued out a
separate fiat against himself. The joint fiat was then issued,
and the present petitioner sought to hare the separate fiat
annulled. This was opposed on the ground that the only
joint treats in this country wee subject to liens for more
than it was worth. The petition stood over to this day
without prejudice to the proteedinas under either fiat. Mr.
&venetian and Mr. Smythe, for the bankrupt Ackland, slid
that an arrangement had been come to for striking Mr. Ack-
land's name out of the joint fiat, which would be prosecuted
siting the other partner, Mr. Oserin, separately. Mr.
Bacon and Mr. De Gee, for the petitioner, acceded to this
proposal, and the Court ordered accordingly, the petitioner's
outs coming out of the joint estate (if any), and those of the
respondent out of the separate estate or the bankrupt Ack-
land.

SATURDAY. —Before tice.aninoellor Wigraro.
EMERSON v. EKERSON.—PRACTICE.—Upon the MEN
coming to a hearing in Nov., 1816, an order was made that
it should stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff to amend
the bill by adding parties. No proceedings having sines
been taken in the suit, Mr. R. W. Moore, for one of the de-
fendants, new moved upon notice that unless the bill should
be amended within one week after the date of the order to
be made on the motion, the same might be dismissed with
costs. He stated that on the last seal day he had made the
common motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, when an
order had been refused by the court pending the order to
amend. Sines that time be had inquired into the practise
of the court, and had been reoemmended by one of the regie-
tran to move upon the present notice.—His Honour made
an order in tho terms of the notice of motion.
Mowers v. ORE.—PRACTICE AS to THE ATTOINTMENT
OP GUARDIAN AD LITEM.—MT. Frith applied for the ap-
pointment of a guardian ad litres to two infants ; one of
whom resided at Brighton end the other in Derbyshire
without the expense of a commission.—His Honour refused
the motion.