The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

uF gIEEN'S BENCH.
:{ m Ilthen.— inpfore the Lonl and

.1 te.t ace. ltl.i..kborn, Mellor, and Lush.)
%V. the Lonl I 'hief .1 'Dolce of the l'ourt of
.11 !'1..1.1, took the mit Fe• t 000rning. in copse, luence
• to the bench.

Mr. H. T. Cole were this morning called
Ow 1.. - as tt•teett's counsel, and tt•uk their seats
• ~

1 ••\ RTC .WARI I AMORE.

lir. tt.l toov..d fora rule ...for rairol.o.nie
opon iI, orpor.i• ion of Towko.t.my to ntlinit him

mhi rof town r mini' of that borough. 1.110 term
of t on-il and a 1.0 warrant.). c. ling upon Mr.
...I 1., what authority he exrruisial
•- foun councillor for the above borough. Mr.
0,1 at the 1,4 eleotion was mayor of the borough
I .I—i late for re-election. Mr. Moore KW a
opis.itioe: to him, and notio- was given to
1:11“anl that his bi-in 4 the returning officer would
!inn: he, however, went to the poll, bad the
number of cote.. and returned himself. After the
;rt granted the rule Mr. Moore attended the nest meet.
of the council, having given previous notice to the
wu deli And C!;littlett to 1.10 admitted, but the council,
by re...lotion. ileilined to do until he had obtained a de-
.. in the Court of kilieetes Bench in his favour.

Rule giant, .1.

A I %lUANI T. THE THitoNE.

A decently-dressed itt.tit, speaking with a northern
..tent. stood up in the body of the court, and holding up
I ight kiwi, in which he held a scree of paper, ad-
s...t the I.endt, tying My lords, my name is
•'.uses Derbyshire, and I am authorised to come
her,• to prove myself to be the heir of England, des-
cendellfroto King .famea the Second.

The Lon! 11.a./ustiee—ffare you anything further to
ay or Any further application to make ?
tiph, o.t No . .

T( Lool ton f Justice - Very well. That will do.
.ti phcant then ,it down and remained in court,
criiirtitly taking much interest in the proceedings.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Kano.—(Before Lord Chief Justice
and Justices Willes, Keating, and Smith.)
is Till: NATTER OP AN ATIONNET.

Mr. Mellor moved fur a rule calling upon an attorney of
court to show cause why be should not answer the
matters stated in some affidavits. The learned counsel said
at the end of Nil an action was brought
.‘gaiti•t thy, applicant to recover a sum claimed in
r,ierruce to setting up a newspaper, and the attorney was
attorney for the plaintiff in that action. Judgment was
signed for lOW. too much, and the proceedings were con-
sequently set aside, with coats ; but it was not until
1.4i3 that the I WY. which hail been paid was refunded. The
attorney then commenced au action aginst the applicant 011
the ground that he had been forced to pay the money under
an illegal order. In there two actions considerably more than
2.10 summonscs had been served upon the applicant, many
of these at most inconvenient times, and in the second
action notice of trial had been given for every assizes since
early iu 1,04, to the present time, and countermanded. In
ised, the applicant sued the attorney for slander,
but ilelieered a none proaequi in May, ISO.
The attorney, notwithstanding, attempted to proceed, but
Mr. Justice Willes set aside the proceedinge with costs.
Nothing more was heard of the matter until November,
1.4, when the attorney succeeded in getting some
coats, and signed judgment without first giving proper
notice. Upon this judgment he issued a ca. sa.
and also a ti. fa.; the sheriff refused to execute the ca U.
but he ehtered under the fi. fa. on New Year's-day, and
he remained in possession until he was ordered to with-
draw by Mr. Justice Ryles. The learned counsel sub-
mitted that the circunintanees showing that the attorney
hol used the pmcess of the court for the purpose of vexa-
tion, and added that the present motion was made because
it was feared that the system of persecution which had for
some time been carried on was not likely to cease.
The court granted the rule, and suggested that it should
be drawn up in the alternative, to show cause why the at-
torney should not answer the matters in the affidavit or
why lie should not be struck off the rolls.