The Express.
London, England, 1851-11-26 00:00:00

IN RE BINNS, AN ATTORNEY.

A rule nisi calling upon this gentleman to answer a
charge connected with his profee.ional character, haring
been granted upon the exparte statement of a certain party,
Mr. E. James showed cause againq the rule. lie com-
plained of the great injustice that had been done his client,
by publishing his name in connection with so serious •
charge, upon an exparte statement made by an individual.
It was directly opposed to the usual practice of the court in
respect to such matters, and the result was most unwar-
rantable attacks made upon Mr. BMus in some of the
morning newspapers. Mr. Dines was prepared to prove
the utter falsehood of the charge from beginning to end,
and was extremely anxious to have the matter investigated
with the utmost possible speed, in order that he might be
able to adopt proceedings against the newspapers, for the
justification of his professional character.
Mr. O'Malley said he represented very poor parties con-
cerned in this matter. tinder such circumstances, he
trusted that his clients would be furnished with copies of
the affidavit, to be used on the other side, without being
required to go to the expense of procuring office copies.
Mr. E. James—Oh certainly, we will reader every assist.
mom in our power, so as to have the inquiry disposed of u
speedily as possible. The matter had already been made
the subject of public attacks in newspapers, to the serious
injury of Mr. Binna's professional character.
In the Morning Advertiser of yesterday appeared an
article renewing the charge against Mr. Blom, and com-
menting at some length upon his alleged misconduct.
Mr. Justice Erle--Let the matter be referred to the
Muter, both sides furnishing copies of the affidavits used,
and no objection to be taken by either party as to thimenot
being office copies. It is scarcely necessary to observe that
in matters affecting the character of attorneys, it is the
usual practice not to mention the name upon an ex parte
application. The learned Judges of the Court of Exehequer
had also agreed that that was the proper practice.
Mr. Joyce, who made the application for the rule nisi,
said that he was not aware of the practice.
Mr. E. James hoped that these newspapers which had
mentioned the matter would do Mr. lions justice by say-
ing that he courted the most thorough investigation into
his character, and pledged himself to further the inquiry
as speedily as possible.
Mr. BMus himself drew his lordship's attention to the
fact of his being severely attacked in an article whisk
in a newepaper yeeterday =erring, and pro-
eh d the charges therein made against him te be utterly
untrue tram beginning se end.

.7;us Citrzir e. DUmLICLIPP.

Mr. Peacock applied for a rule Ceiling upon Mr. John
Dunaielit to show amuse why en information in the nature
of a quo warranto should not issue requiring him to show
liy what authority he held the office of Mayor of Derby.
m• aildavita disclosed a course of proceedings in the elee-
ties of this gentleman which was not in accordance with
the provisions of the 51st section of the 5 & 6 Will. IV.,
e. 76, under which such elections should be conducted.
Rale granted.
COURT OF Exruv•--

-YESTERDAY.
Immo It BANoo.—laws rot Loss CAIU Raiox. Wt. Law
Pam. RA. Samoa Aubsaiss, uo Ma. Balm MARTIX.

v. THE .'

NAlll4llVg.'

The decision of the Court of Exchequer is ibis aro ,
which was announced to be given yesterßay; hes been
postponed until Monday next. The Chief Baron intimated,
as the reason for this further postponement, that one of the
. _

learned judges is desirous of neon;idering MIN of the peiate
which have bees raised. This subject is referred to la
mother column.

HORNIDOR 7. IIAWEINS.—ACTION VEON AN AT-
TORNEY'S BlLL.—CommtrrAL Or THE DEFENDANT FOR

This was an action which was tried before Mr. Baron
Martin on Thursday and Friday last, in the Exchequer
Chamber, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff—dam-
ages 1891. This case has acquired great interest from the
fact of its being one of the earliest of those in which a judge
has used the power given him by the New Evidence Act,
of committing a plaintiff or a defendant whose evidence is
clearly untrue.
Mr. Watson, Q.C., now moved for a rule for
a new trial, on the ground that the verdict
was against the weight of evidence. The action
was brought to recover she amount of an attorney's
bill of costs in four suits in which he acted as attorney for
the defendant. The defence made to the action was that
an agreement had been made between the defendant and
one Jordan, the plaintiff's clerk, with the concurrence of
the plaintiff himself, by which Jordan undertook to act for
Mr. Hawkins in the capacity of an attorney. The plain-
tiff was to be paid by the fees which would become due to
him by using his name. In order to prose that the contract
was with Jordon and not with the plaintiff, the defendant
produced a memorandum of an agreement which he had
drawn up, and which he alleged Jordan had signed some
days after an interview had taken place between them, but
how long after he could not swear. lie, however, dis-
tinctly stated that the memorandum was signed by Jor-
dan. This Jordan denied, and also denied having ever
seen the memorandum. Several witnesses also con-
tradicted the defendant's evidence in this particular. The
learned judge then ordered the defendant to he prosecuted
for perjury, taking his recogniaances to appear at the en-
suing sessions cf the Central Criminal C nrt, and binding
the plaintiff over to prosecute. To corroborate the state-
ment of the plaintiff it was shown that a Mr. Manning had
been the defendant's solicitor before the plaintiff was em-
ployed, and that Jordan had been Mr. Manning's clerk,
ann that it was at the request of the defendant that tho
plaintiff took Jordan into his employ, he being acquainted
with Mr. Ilawkins's legal affairs. Mr. Watson now con-
tended that the evidence at the trial did not go so much to
overwhelm the defendant as the weight of prejudice cast
upon him in the reply made by the plaintiff's counsel, and
by the severe cross•examination administered to him.
He had been asked many questions about his
affairs, such as t' How much money have you in the
world? Are you not acquainted with two old ladies?
Do you not expect a legacy from them ?" All these ques-
tions, and the remark, of the plaintiff's counsel, tended to
damage the defendant's evidence, and against that he had
no means .of contending. It was all very well for the
plaintiffs counsel to appeal to the jury nut to impute per-
jury to the plaintiff, the same canton should have been
given in respect of the defendant.
Mr. Baron Alderson—But you did not expect the plain-
tiff's counsel to be so chivalrous, dad you ? (A laugh.) A
jury, howevuse„ might to be very cautious how they charge a
party with perjury. it was a very different thing to say
that A is guilty of perjury or that It is guilty of perjury,
from saying we cannot make up our minds whether A or B
is guilty of perjury. if the jury had been in any doubt
upon this point they ought to have said so.
Mr. Baron Martiu—They said expressly that they be-
lieved the defendant to have been guilty of perjury.
The Lord Chief Baron—l do not ate how we can interfere
in this case. The matters with which the jury have dealt
are clearly within their province, and there is no suggestion
that they have been misled or that they have found a ver-
dict se clearly contrary to the facts as to warrant a new
trial.

Mr. Watson—My lord, I feel that wo arc taking the first
• step in a new mode in the administration of justice, in
which every defendant must prepare Minim If for what has
befallen the defendant here, and will befall every plaintiff
also should it be the business of the defendant to begin.
Mr. Baron Alderson—Why, yes. In this ease one Flirty
has been committed for perjury, a second charged with it,
and a third rendered liable to pumshtuent. AU this has
arisen because the defendant has had the gross imprudence
to deal with an attorney's clerk instead of an attorney.
You have talked of cheap taw, but in seeking for it you
get neither law nor cheapness. (Laughter.)
Mr. Watson—l feel so strongly that the jury have acted
upon prejudiced impresiions produced by the reply, and
the insinuations of the cross-eszu ll ill Aim], that I think my
client is entitled to a rule.

The Lord Chief Baron—l think if a rule were granted,
that we should rather be usurping the functions of a jury,
than correcting any errors which they may hava made.
Mr. Baron Alderiou—lt may lead to the hearing of the
defendant's counsel, after the plaintiffs have been heard in
reply. It is certainly very hard that an innocent defendant
should be tripped up by a new prejudice, created by a
speech in reply. You will find a great deal about the un-
fair operation of the reply of the plaintiff's counsel in the
old report of the law commissioners. It was recommended
20 years ago that an alteration should take place. How-
ever, it is absurd to think that we can interfere in this

The Lord Chief Baron said he thought that the court
would be substituting the court fur the jury if they inter-
fered in this case. '1 he jury were the constitutional judges
of matters of fact. They had heard all the witnesses, and
they had come to a conclusion, and Mr. Baron Martin had
committed the defendant for perjury. The detendant did
not complain of any surprise, ur that the evidence was all
one way, or that the jury had been misled. lie did not
think that the passing of the New Evidence Act should in-
terfere with the ordinary practice of the court. Plaintiffs
and defendants were now to be examined, and would be
open to have the same observations made upon their testi-
, moav as other witnesses had been. Ile thought the court
should not interfere in this case.
Rule refused.