The Express.
London, England, 1849-10-17 00:00:00

MILITARY.

rscar, LEVEE AT TBi HoRME GUARDS will not IN
held thh week by the Military Secretary ; it will take place
on Tuesday, the 23rd inst., at the usual hour.

11.03 Ottelltgence.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT-YESTERDAY.
Before D. C. Mourn, Ee,_,lndee.
LORD V. WALLRY.—CLAIM BY • MIBDICAL MAN !OR

OIVINO EVIDENCE BEFORE ♦ CORONER.

Mr. Crouch, barrister, platotiff a cue. The
defendant appeared in patron. This was an action brought
by the plaintiff', who is a surgeon, residing at Hampstead, to
recover one guinea as his fee for attending to give evidence
at an inquest held on the 24th August by the defendant,
the deputy-coroner for Middlesex.
It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff 's counsel
that the inquest was held at the Yorkshire Grey public-house
at Hampstead, on the body of • female, who, it was supposed,
had died of cholera. The plaintiff had attended the deceased
during her illness, but he had not received a regular com-
mons to appear at the inquest, and the defendant therefore
sent en officer to request his attendance. Mr. Lord accord-
ingly made his appearance, end gave evidence to the effect
that, in his opinion, the deceased had died from cholera.
The Deputy• Coroner then proceeded to put certain questions
to Mr. Lord as to the mode in which be bad treated the
deceased, and the plaintiff, conceiving that he had no right
to interrogate him in such • manner, refused to answer.
The inquest was therefore adjourned, and the deputy.
coroner directed that a post martens examination should be
made. At the adjourned inquest the jury returned a millet
that the deceased died of cholera. Mr. Lord afterwards
applied to the deputy-eoroser for the usual fee which the
law allows to medical men for giving their evidence upn
such occasions, but the defendant refused to give it to
The learned counsel now directed the attention of the court
to the Ist Vie., me. 2, e. 78, which gave power to the MOM
toted* the attendant* eta medical witness, and provided that
heaegiected so to attend, he was liable to a penaltyof 61. The
third mention of the same art provided that such witness
shed* be entitled to one guinea, or to two guineas if a poet.
Manias easmaination be made. In the present ere it did
not appear that any order was made by the deputy occoner,
but nonetheless the plaintiff attended at his request, end he
wee theeefere (contended the learned counsel) entitled to the
nos which he nnw sought to recover.
The Judge ispired whether the request was written or
verbal?
Mr. Crouch replied that it wee verbal; and the learned
gentleman proeseded to contend that if the defendant
thought the plaintiff was not entitled th the fee because he
refused to answer entitle questions, be had the power of
committing him upon that ground.
The Judge—Bat has he such power when there bee been
no alialatoal?
Mr. Crouch—Yee, if the witness attends for the purpose
of giving evidence, and afterwards refuses to do so. The
proper course for the defendant to have adopted was not to
refuse him his fee, but to commit him for eleassapt Mr.
Lord had brought this action, not for the sake of equaled";
the but he had oome forward as a member of the
Medical Protection Society, who desired to have this im-
portant question decided.
The Judge thought it might save time if the defendant
would state at once the line of defence he intended to
set up.
The defendant replied that he objected to this claim on
amount of the informality of the summons which he had re-
ceived from the County Court. His Christian name was
omitted, and the document was addressed to the coroner, at
No. 1, ,liedhrd street, Covent-garden, which wee not ,his
plane oleic& ; nor was he the coroner, but only the deputy-
moronsr.
Mr. Crouch submitted that any objection on account of
defects in the sumac= was waived by the defendant's ap-
pearing in eourt.
The enure said, that, by the aced parliament, the plaintiff
wee bound to stale is the minuses' the Christian and sur-
name, the oeeepatien and residence, of the defendant ; and if
he Mod in these respite the cam mast fell to the grand.
Mr. Crenesh—list in thin ease the residence was
The defendant replied that the resides*, giveu wee the
Corener's elk*, and not his (the Deputy-Coroner's) plays of
abode.
The Indp—But that mast also be taken to be the office
of the Deputy-Coroser.
Mr. Crouch urged that those was no n1).6112114 different*
between coroner and deputy-maser. The plaintiff was not
bound to cell him the coroner or the deputpeoroner In the
sausens. It would be mere surplusage.
The Jadge—Without going into this informality, it is my
opinion upon the fide el the we that an order for the

attendance of a witness is indispensable to entitle such wit'
mess to a fee.
Mr Crouch said Its could rove that the plaintiff attended
at the request of the deputy coroner, and that he gave all the
evidence that the law required him to give under the cir-
cumstances.
The Judge—But I understood that he refused to answer
certain questions.
XT. Crouch—lle refused to answer as to his mode of
treating the dimmed, on the ground that it was irrelevant
to the matter under inquiry, and was calculated to lead to a
discussion having no reference to the cause of death.
The Judge—But the Coroner has a right to ask questions.
Mr. Crouch—Then, if he has that right, the defendant
m4kt have committed the plaintiff for contempt of wort.
The Judge—The coroner, not having issued a warrant for
his attendance, had no power to commit him.
Mr. Crouch said that the power at a judge In a superior
court did not depend upon a subpasna having been served.
The Judge—But by the act of parliament in questioo, the
coroner can only inflict a penalty on a person who disobeys
his coder.
Mr. Crouch—The est imposes a penalty for non-attend-
ance, but independently of this the coroner had the power
to commit. If it were decided that a medical man was not
entitled to recover, unless he shall have received a formal
order to attend as a witness, great inconvenience must arise,
and inquests must be adjourned from day to day, a mode of
proceeding which it was desirable to avoid.
The Judge said that, according to the act of parliament, lit
was essential that a summons should be issued by the coro-
ner before:a party could claims right to the fee for his attend-
ance. In the Fount case no summons had been batted, and,
therefore, the plaintiff must be nonsuited.
Mr. Crouch submitted that the defendant ought not total*
advantage of the absence of a summons ; and there were two
witnesses present who could prove that he said he would not
avail himself of such advantage.
The Judge said he could not take cognisance of this fast,
and he should nonsnit the plaintiff.
Plaintiff 'unsuited.
, The defendant applied for his coats, but the court refused
to allow them.

THE POLICE COURTS.
BOW-STREET.

ROBBERY BY A POST•OPYICI CLastr—A young mare
named Mackenzie Mackay, a clerk in the district depart-
ment of the General Post-office, was charged with stealing a
letter containing a silk handkerchief and a shilling, the pro-
perty of the postmaster-general.
Mm. Charlotte Radford, a widow lady, residing at Me-
dina-place, Brixton-hill, being swore, stated that on the 16th
inst. she wrote a letter to Maryanne Doughty, at Margate,
enclraing a small silk handkerchief and a shilling, both of
which were wrapped in a small piece of tissue paper, which
she, accompanied by her husband, posted at the branch post-
office neer the Brixton church. The articles produced were
the same she had enclosed. . . .

Kr. Walter Seulthorpe, 'superintendent-president of the
General Post-office, proved that the handkerchief and frag-
ments of the letter were found in the pocket of the prisoner's
coat. . _ .

WilUam Cole en inspector of letter-carriers, proved that
having placed himself on the hutment of the building near
the water-closets, on Monday last, for the purpose of watch-
ing a suspected clerk, he saw the prisoner enter, and
take from his pocket a letter, which he opened, and took
out the contents, which seemed to be wrapped in a small
parcel, containing a 'dyer coin, which he put into his mouth,
and also a small silk handkerchief. He then tore up the
paper in which the articles were enclosed, which wetness
communicated to his superiors.
The prisoner said he would reservo his defence, and he
was fully committed for trial.
A SIMILAR CHARGE AGAINST ANOTHER CLERK.—Wil-
limn Thomas Alford. who was charged with stealing an-
other letter containing cash, the property of the Postmaster-
General, was remanded.