The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-01 00:00:00

SHERIFFS' COURT.

CROWN EXTE;:I37-1101PAOi-0; THE SALISDURS
BANR.—THE QVREN O. BRODIE —On Saturday afternoon
• jure was specially empanelled to ascertain in what amount
this defendant, who is a banker at Salisbury, was indebted
to the crown for monies deposited on account of the militia
and excise departments.—The Under-Shcriff, after reading
the writs, said that thy present proceeding was instituted for
the purpose of enabling the officers of the crown to attach
the property of the bank in liquidation of the claims without
further delay.--An affidavit, sworn before Mr. Justice Erle,
was then put in, in which it was stated that a sum of 971.
had been paid into the bank on account of the militia ser-
via ; that the bank having stopped payment, there was
pod season to believe that the defend►nt win insolvent.—
'The Under-Sheriff said that this was the only evidence, and
the jury would give • verdict for 971.—The collector of ex-
cise for Salisbury was then called, and proved that sundry
autos of money had been paid into the bank, and that there
was • balance now due, on account of the excise department,
of 2791.—The jury gave a verdict for the said sum.
SOAP DUTIES.—A third inquiry took place as to a debt
due to the crown by a soap manufacturer, at Liverpool, for
duties. Evidence was then adduced, and • verdict given for
the amount proved to be due, 5,0001. 3s. 3d.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Moy EN-, Judge.
THE ROBBERY' OP PLATS 1N MADDOX-STREET.—ED-
WARDS O. TRAFFORD, ESQ.—IC will be in the remem-
brance of our readers (for the ease has already been twice or
thrice before the court) that this was an action to recover the
mm of 20!., in the form of damages, for the injury alleged to
have been sustained by the plaintiff and his wife by means o
the false imprisonment to which they had been submitted at
the instance of the defendant —Mr. Trafford, the defendant,
occupied a house in Maddox-street, Hanover-square, and the
plaintiff and his wife were his butler and housekeeper.
During the absence of the defendant and his wife there
was • robbery of plate, to the extent of 1,0001. in value,
and after some time the plaintiff and kis wife were taken
into custody on suspicion. Having been taken before the
magistrate, they were remanded, but on being brought up the
charge was diamissed. It was for this imprisonment that
the present proceedings had been instituted, with a view to
the recovery of restitution in the shape of pecuniary corn.
pensation. Further evidence was cn this occasion adduced,
for the purpose of showing that the defendant had good, suf-
ficient, sad reasonable ground for placing the plaintiffs in
custody. Amongst those who were examined was Inspector
Beresford, who stated that in consequence of information he,
received, he, in June last, made a report to the commis-
sioners of police to the effect that the house of the defendant,
No. 14, Maddox-street, had been left without any person to
protect it. The commissioners thereupon, by • written
communication, apprised the defendant of the fact, and
directed his attention thereto. To this communication the
defendant wrote a reply, bearing date the 23rd of June.
This letter was now read, and was to the effect
that having, on a previous occasion, when absent from town,
left two servants in the house, whose conduct they had
had reason to believe had not been correct, they had deter-
mined, on their next going from borne, that they would not
leave any persons in the house ; that on their return, in that for-
mer instance, they had found that abed, bolster, and pillows had
been robbed of the feathers, and having been then tilled with
• different quality of feathers, had been sewn up that a bag
containing these feathers had been found in the possession of
the present plaintiff and his wife; but although these ser-
vants were consequently under suspicion of dishonesty, yet,
from circumstances, the defendant was csnstrained to keep
them in his service till the expiration of the month's notice.
The letter then went on to request that a policeman might
be deputed to watch the premises, and added that the ex-
pense of such an arrangement would be cheerfully paid by
the defendant —Mr. Wordsworth then contended that there
bad been a sufficiency of evidence produced to justify the
apprehension of the plaintiff.—Mr. Dod, on the other hand,
argued to the contrary, and said that the fullest amount
which the court could award would be but • meagre compen-
sation for the injury the defendant had inflicted on the plain-
tiffs.—The learned judge said he would look through the
additional evidence, and give judgment on Mendes, (this day),
at ten o'clock.
ATTORNEY'S PRIVILEGED.— JVHONIENT.— WOOD O.
Liwis.—This was an action to recover 71. 10s. of defendant,
an attorney, residing in Grosvenor-street, who plesaled his
privilege.—Mr. P. Bsnkes appeared in support of the de-
fendant's case and plea of abatement, and Mr. Hildyard for
the plaintiff. —Mr. Bank,' addressed the court at consider-
able length, contending that the 67th section of the new act
for the recovery of small debts did not destroy the privilege
of attorneys of their right of being sued in their own courts,
as they were not specially mentioned in it, which was re.
*mired, as they nude' not came under the designation of
persons." A great number of cases were cited.—Mr. Mild-
yard commeafted his argument, but was stopped by the
learned judge, who gave the following important judgment
The Judge said If I thought that any additional labour
ofmy own could throw any light on the matter, I,would post-
pone my judgment for farther consideration. But the case
ku been so fully argued by defendant's counsel, that I feel
satisfied no further research could put it in a more favourable
point of view for him, and I may, therefore, at once state my
opinion and judgment upon the question. This action is
sought to recover 71. 10s. for goods sold and delivered. The
defendant Lewis, relying on his common law privilege as an
attorney, denies the jurisdiction, and demands to be sued in
the superior court to which he belongs. The plaintiff replies
that the privilege is abolished by the 67th sec. of the 9th and
10th Vic., cap. 95. lam clearly of opinion that the privi-
lege Is gone as te attorneys, without any reservation ; and,
moreover, that the rights and privileges of the Universities
of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as of the Stannaries of
Cornwall (as to exemption from the county courts jurisdie-
thm) would have been likewise abolished but for the saving
chums (140 and 141) of our own act. It is quite true that
not only attorneys, but all the ministerial officers of
justice, bad • privilege of suing and being sued in the
warts to which they respectively belonged. If it was not
the intention of the legislature to abolish by the 67th section
this kind of privilege, what on earth could have been the in-
teation ? But lam utterly at • loss to conceive bow Lux ,
gauge mote plain or express could be used in carrying out ,
this- intention. The 67th section is is these words And
be it enacted, that no privilege, except as hereinafter ex-
cepted,
shall be allowed to any person to exempt him from
the jurisdiction of any court holden under this act." In the
subsequent clauses (140 and 141) these exceptions are set
oat, and no mention is made therein of the common law ,
privilege, by vistue of which Mr. Lewis now claim. hie
exetion—Erpressio souses est =hail) alterina. With
rugged
to the numerous cases to which reference has been
made I cannot find that any of them go beyond this point,
that without express words of enactment, the then existing ,
privilege of an attorney or ministerial officer of a superior
court, could not be discharged. These express words are, in
my judgment, to be found in the 67th section of the act.
Most of the cases referred to in support of the privilege seem ,
to me to have little immediate bearing on the question now
before the court. Some turned upon the distinction
between an attorney plaintiff and an attorney defendant, as
in " Board e. Parker ' (7 East, 48), and " Elkins v. Hard-
ing" (1 Cr. and J., 345). In other cases, as in " Lewis e.
Herr" (5 Dowling, 447), and in "Dyer and Levy" (4
Dowling, 632), the question was, whether the 2nd Will. IV.,
cap. 39, called the "Uniformity of Process Act " took away
the old common law privilege. It was held in those eases
that • new form of process was prescribed in lieu of the old
mode of proceeding by bill ; that the attachment of privi-
lege_was abolished, not the privilege itself: In the ear of
Wiltshire e. Lloyd " (1 Douglas, 380), it was question-
less held that an attorney claiming his privilege was not
liable to be sued in the Middlesex County Court. In
order to know the value of that decision, and discover its
applicability to the se
the it is requisite to refer to
the ad constituting the Middlesex County Court, the 22d
Geo. 11., can. 33. I find that the fourth section of that
act says, "No person shall be liable to be summoned to
the County Court who was not so before." Not • word is to
be found in the act about privilege, which it leaves exactly
where it was. In that case during the course of argument it
• was stated that the legislature had found it necessary to passe
woad act for the ataMishment of the Westminster Court of
Requests (24 Geo. 11., cap. 42), merely because it was found
that attorneys were not included within the jurisdiction by
the general words used in the first act (23 Geo. 11., cap. 27).
It is true that in the second act the privilege is specifically
abolished, but the preamble merely declares that " doubts
had arisen whether attorneys were, even under the general
words of the first statute, subject to the new jurisdiction."
The legislature merely intended to set all those doubts at
rest. Ido not think that argument could go further. To
return, however, to the case before me. The plea in abate-
ment is what in law is called an " odious plea," and wholly
disentitled to favour. If any serious doubts could exist,
f..71":::./.arott abed, whilst treating 0", "orivilege in his Hie.
Wry of the Common Pleu (pago2o9 ), lays down this prin-
ciple—. Whenever an attorney is impleaded out of his own
court, he shall say that he is an attorney of another court.
But this is to be understood only when the plaintiff can
have the same remedy against the officer in his own
court ax in that where he sues him." Now, let us see
what the inevitable practical effect would be of uphold-
ing this privilege of exemption in attorneys. Would
it not, in fact, amount to an absolute denial of justice?
So far as attorneys are concerned, the title of an act
should be amended, and called " an act for the more difficult
reooveof small debts." The 129th section of the 9th &
10th Vic., cap. 95, is in these words :—" And be it enacted,
that if any action shall be commenced of the pasting this
act in key of her Majesty's superior courts of record for any
cause other than those lastly hereinbefore specified, for
which a plaint might have been entered in any court holden
under this act, and a verdict shall be found for the plaintiff
for any sum less than 201., if the mid action is founded on
contract, or lees than 51. if it be founded on tut, the said
plaintiff shall have judgment to recover each sum only and
no 0041; and if a verdict shall not be found for the plaintiff,
the defendant shall be entitled to his costs, as between
assiwasy sad client, unless in either ease the judge who
shall try the cause shall certify on the back of the re-
eled that the action was fit to be brought in such supe-
r/se court." Thus, if the expense and difficulty of pro.
hithesea Ikr mall rums in the cornea courts
wen enatmeive, hew much more so will this sec-
Al Mike It blare? Inpractice it !mold secure a
whit immunity to atinguip, defendants, if the privilege
IMO lON bibs reesinimill. It does not appear to me at all pew
boo tug intivase weld mildly that an nation for Within
In ones et eroffna" tort, was a lit one to he
been& is a verifier wart. surely beano the defendant
sots en attersay. Admit*" eves disk* privilege edge.
NI wenld be dearly 10
cad bow is a=el entsthe a plaint wataaall=
essweiviwlllest et net the wall Wend 111 WIITO hY
privilege Ilse be 11eM ty time eseldbe me gumption
waled. The pink Wryest, name to excite se melt excite
• In thezell=.llol, sawn as my opinion lee tai !es
from • et / egg, if Mr. Lewis undertakes te
move the Qom% Semi fee a writ of prohithlssley tie
=WM, seen is argued loafers that engeg—
nil bowed* await his chug Mel