The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-10 00:00:00

...--•—•—•-•—''''''""------s----
tinements Elisabeth Hopkins bad employed a private me-
dical man. Oa Dr. Burncastle wing, on the 27th of De-
cember, he asked whether the necessary order for the attend-
ance of the union surgeon bad been obtained, when he was
intormod that it bad not ; upon which be said that it was In
dispensable, but continued his attention to the deceased, sup-
posing that the order would be granted. Dr. Burneastle
waited on E. Hopkins twice on the 27th of December, at
eight o'clock jut the evening and twelve o'clock at night ; he
also saw her several times on the 28th ; and on the morning
of that day it was discovered the child a
sh s deanowd, but th
ted at
circumstance Dr. Burneastle in his sta
would facilitate delivery. On the 28th Dr. B
tiuronticastlfor
e
was informed by his partner that applica
an order bat been made to the relieving officer,
and by that individual the 'tenon who applied was referred to
the guardians, who refused to give it. I.lpon this state of
things, Dr. Burncastle felt it to be his duty to cease to at-
tend E. Hopkins. and his partner so informed the parties
attending on the deceased. On the ev.ning of tlie 28th
Burneastle himself called eguin, and after saying that Dr. he
could no longer continue to be the woman's medical at-
tendant ntmentioned several names of who were
practising in Croydon, and recommended thatentlemen one of them
should be sent fur. Upon this a Mr. Ihile was called in.
At this time there was no danger in the case. Mr. Dille at-
tended late that night, and the child was born dead on the
morning of the 29th of December, about half-past three
o'clock. The woman died on the '29th, but so little was any
danger expected that Mr. Dale himself did not see the de-
ceased directly after the birth, but sent his partner, Mr.
Nivett. Rumours ss to the cause of the death began to
get abroad in Croydon, the result of which was
that an inquest was held on the 2lth of Ja-
nuary, 1848, which lasted three clays. At that
investigation, Dr. Burncastle was desirous of calling medical
evidence, but that woo not allowed. The VI edict tound by
the jury was that Elizabeth Hopkins, alias Howard, had
died in consequence of reheusttou produced by protracted
labour, and that Dr. Burncastle had shown the greatest in-
humanity by leasing her when in labour, and they (the
jury) considered bun an unfit pewit) to act as the medical
officer of the union. With regard to death resulting from
exhaustion, the learned counsel slated that be had the alli.
davits of Dr. Blundell, Dr. Lever of liuy's Hospital, and
another medical gentleman connected with that institution,
from which it appeared that according to the evidence pro-
duced at the inquest, the death could out have been the re-
sult of exhaustion. After the inquest, a meeting of the
guardians was held, and Dr. Burncastle di=charged from his
office as the union doctor. Ile, how.ver, had not been
guilty of any breach of duty. for as soon as
he he found out
ended
that
the guardians bad ionised to give an ordet, recomm
that another gentleman should be called in, which wa, dune.
—Mr. Justice Coleridge: All the nonsense which coroner's
furies are in the habit of apending to their verdicts ought not
tube attended to.—Mr. ISp ,vill replied, that the case ot "Ex
parte Scratch" had decided that any dthinot ng appaffect theended to the
e
verdict of a coroner's jury, which di pa
complaining, ought not to be taken notice of ; but, in tliepre-
sent case, the verdict informally charged Dr. Burimastle
with having contributed to cause the deuth of the deemed.
In a case like this the court would interfere, and that was
shown in "Ex pa
rt
Cullen " (3 Barn. & Adol.). Ile
hoped hi: lortlehip would grant the application, as the ver-
dict had been most injurious to Dr.llurucastle ;and it was the
only mode by which he could vindicate his character.—Mr.
Justice Coleridge said he would consider the matter, but at
present he was disposed to refuse the rule.
THE 141:13EN V. WWI/MR.—Mr. liumfrey, Q C., moved
for a rule to show cause why the rule which had been made
absolute in this case to quash the writ of error and estreat
the recognisanees should not be discharged as regarded the
defendan, Henry B The ground en which he moved
was, that the defendantroome. had never appeared, neither had the
rule been served ou him or his bail. fhe court granted the
app:ication.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
sittings in Banco.
,Totes C. BRONCEE.—I'ittEILZOR.—AN ACTOR:CET 81:11,10
1% Tile SCPERIOR Cot RCS Volt A DEBT RECoVIRABLE IN A
COENTY COVUE sTILL ENTITEBD TO Mc CULL COSTS.—
This was a rule fur liberty to enter a suggestion to deprive
the plaintiff of costs, the action having been brought in this
court for a debt that might have been recovered in ••
county
court—Mr. O. Pollock showed cause yesterday against the
rule, and relied, amongst a variety of other authorities, upon
the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench last week, in the
case of " Lewi. r. Hance," the fact.* of which were identical
with the present case. It appeared the question was, whether
an attorney-Plaintiff was within the provisions of the 9 st 10
Vic., e. 95, establishing County Courts, and giving a juris.
diction in all personal actions where the debt or damagn,
es
cl.iimed did not exceed 201. It enacted, by the G7th sectio
that " no privilege shall be allowed to any person to exempt
him from the jurisdiction of any court holden under that
I act," except as thereinafter mentioned ; and the eleeptions
were the universities and 'tanneries, by secs. 110 & 111. By
the 129th see. it was enacted, that in any action commenced
in a superior court, after the passing of the act, (or any cause
"for which a plaint nil have been entered in any ceout
holden under this
fart,
ads a verdict
than hound
foe be found
foe the plaintiff
the said action is founded upon contract, er per than 51.,
if it be founded on tort, the said plaintiff shall have judg-
ment for suca sum only, and no costs." The present action
was on a hill of exchange, and the verdict was under 201. It
was contended that the language used in the 129th section
was not stronger than that used in various other acts of par.
!lament ,—the 23rd Geo. 11. c. 33, s. 12, establishing the
Middlesex County Courts ;" thelo Cleo. '29 a. 3, and
39 &40 O.tii. 111. c. 104, by which the Court of Bequest was
i
created ; and it had been decided n " Board e. Parker "
(7 East, 47), in " Dyer r. Ley " (4th Dowling), and several
other c ises, that a plaiutiff.attorney, did not bee his right,
and was not bound to sue in the court of requests. In
" Lewis v. Hance," reported in the Law
es of
oatSaurday
last, Lord giving judgment, said, that il cams
(now relied on by Mr. Pollock) " the debt was recoverable
in a court created he the set, and in which the plaintiff
might have Meal if he pleased. Yet by reason of his privi-
lege as an attorney, he was held not to be bound to do so.
Unless they overruled all those vises, it could not be held
that the 129th section of the County Courts Act, per se, sub-
jected the plaintiff to be deprived of the coats of his suit."
Mr. Baror. Parke obsi reed that " Lewis r.
the rule, and
Hance " was
decidedly in point. —Mr. Pearson supported
contended that the legislature had clearly shown an inten-
tion to do away with all privileges, except those specified.
There was no excr ption made in the favour of attorne)a, and
it was manifest the legislature inta ndid that they should
have no more privilege than ordinary individuals. The
facts of the case referred to by Mr. Baron Parke were very
similar to those in this cue, but the court ought to give an
independent decision, as the question at issue was of general
importance.—The Court were of opinion that attorneys were
not deprived of their privilege to sue in superior courts ex-
cept by the express wards of an act of parliament. The
legislature had not said so in the County Courts Act. The
several authorities which had been cit. d showed that even
where stronger words had been used in acts of parliament
than those in the 9 & 10 Viet., c. 95, attorneys were not
deprived of their privilege except the legislature had, by
express words, said they should be. Why should the court
suppose now, that the legislature intended to do more by the
act in que-tion than had ben done under similar statutes ?
—The rule discharged with costs.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
Before sir Herbert tenner Fiat
LUnIIINGTONe. ONAILOW.—VALIDITY 0E A LEGACY.—
Thu was a question upon the validity of a legacy bequeathed
by the testator, Mrs. Ouslow, to her niece, Miss Emma On.
slow, but which had afterwards been erased from the will
without any attestation to the e l
rasure, which was not en-
tirely obliterated. It appeared by the aleption of her
brother, Sir llcnry Lushington, that the testetv had given
some explanation relative to this erasure of the bequest to
Miss Emma Onelow, hit niece, and that she had mid:, two
codicils to hie sill, in one of which elle bequeathed a legacy
of I,ooof. to her nephew, Captain Lushington he eon ot Sir
Henry Lushington. It was argued for 'Mint Orieluw,
the legatee, that the case of " Cooper r. Bockst " was
one in point, and that the court would pronounce
in favour of the validity of the bequest —The Court
took an elaborate view of the queation, and held
that the case above quoted was in point ; that the conversa-
tion between the testator and her brother, Sir Henry
Lushington, in reference to time bad not been clearly stated,
from a want of distinct remembrance on the part of Sir It,
Lushington ; at the same time stating that there was no
doubt but the testator left ample funds to di,charge both
legacies ; and concluded by remarking that, under these
circumstances, it was of opinion that it was not a valid obli-
teration, and that the nrubate must pass. Justice must be
dune as the law demands, as the obliteration had not been
proved have been made be fora the execution of either o
the codicil, and the costs must be allowed out of the estate. f

COURT OF BANKRUTCY.
Wore Mr. C ommissioner P Pane.
A 000 n Esrare.—The certificate of Jonathan Bill-
chambers, bookseller, of the Strand, was oppcsed by Mr.
Unity, on behalf of Mr. W. Tegg,hookseller,the petitioning
creditor, on the ground of reckless trading. The balance-
sheet extended from the lot January, 1849, to the 22nd
February, 1848, the date of the fiat. The bankrupt's debts
and liabilities were 2,1951.; his assets, 630/. He estimated
his profits at 7671. and his losses at 1,0171. His trade ex•
prises had been 5841., and his personal expenses 7981. It
WAS contendd that the bankrupt, having beed en traing at a
loss all along,e ought much sooner to have call togedther his
creditors. Su lately as December lost the bankrupt had pur-
chased to the amount of 1041. from Messrs. Tegg; and in
three weeks after he convened a meeting of his creditors.—
Mr. Fry. on the part of the bankrupt, allegesd that he had
ed Futter severely from the general depresion in trade,
the book trade lacing one peculiarly subject to the
influence of bad times. Ile had also been pat to
considerable expense on account of the murder ot
his fattier, Mr. W. Bellchambers (which, it will be recol-
lected, was perpetrated in Westminster a few months ago).
His shop had also been broken into, and hence a further
loss. He had offered a composition of 10s. in the pound,
with security, but this VMS defeated by Mr. Tegg's opposi-
tion.—The Commissioner regretted that the law did not
enable a majority of creditors to bind the minority, in CAM
of conumsitions offered. Here was a case in which the ere-
ditore might with safety have come to an arransrment with
the bankrupt benefl to all parties, after looking into his
affairs. The law, however, assumed all bankrupts to be
knaves; but this case was certainly an exception, and per-
haps the exceptions would be mat ore nume
the cirorcumstance sus if creditors
acted more leniently. Looking all ,it
was probable the bankrupt had made the rchase of Mr.
Tegg in the expectation of being able to pay; and his man-
ner of dealing with the books so purchased had been ex-
plained. It had been recently Bahl at a public meeting that
the state of the law of debtor and creditor was de-
moralising to the debtors, sad he (the commissioner)
really thought it was demoralising him. Ile was so much
accustomed to hear people coma to this court, and say, I
owe so mach money, and have not a farthing to pay it with,