The Express.
London, England, 1850-01-15 00:00:00

Rain intelligence,

EQUITY COURTB.—YasTERDAT.
heroes ens Loan Ousesuaa.
Tan Arrosuarr.GennetaL e. Tun Coaroaartom or LOW
D 024.—001711 or via ATTORNZI 01,24ZR/Li..
When the Lord Chancellor gave his judgment in this op.
md, some tines ago, affirming the order of the blaster of the
Rolls for the production of documents in the poscasiot. of
the corporation, relating ts their claim to the sod and bar ks
of the river Thames, the question of coats claimed by the
costasel for the Attorney-Geaeral, was reserved for inquuy
and consideration.
The Lord Chancellor now gave his judgment on the quo.
doe reserved • There appeared, he said, to Oa a general opin-
ion that the Attorney-General paid or received coats.
Ho had looked into a great number of cases on the point, and
from them it appeared that the rule, if it existed at all, was
subject to various exception'. It was urged by the counsel
for the appellants in this case, that then were two oars in
the House of Lords in which the supposed rule was toed,
upon. If that were so these cases would, of course, be binding
on this and every other court. Upon examining theme cues,
however, he was of opinion that they did not establish any
such rule. oie of the cases was this: The Attorney-
General v. the Corporation of London," in another shape,
on an a. b the corporation against the order of the
Master of theppeal Rolle, which overruled their demurrer (see
I House of Lords Cues, p. 440). The other was an
appeal from Southend in the lot session, at the decisios of
which lee was nos present (see 6 Bell's Appeal Cases,
p. 487. In this latter case—" Smith v. Officers of State in
s.Scotland"—Mie order was simply that there should be no
ots to the trown—though the crown or its officers succeeded
in maintaining in the House of Lords the judgment they Lad
obtained in the courtbelow. There were no reasons given fur
that order. There was, however, another case in the House
of Lords, in which the Attorney-General was a party re-
spohdeat, that was, " The Skinners' Company v. the Irish
&i6sty," (12 Clark and Fondly, p. 425), and there costs
were given to the Attoeney• Galant. In the appeal between
the present parties on the order on demurrer, his lordship
was himself present, and moved the judgment of the Howe
of Lords, and advised tinier lordships that no oats shoWel
be gives to the Attureey•Geweral on that occasion.
He had so advised, without hearing the point ar-
gued, and without considering it sufficiently, and
he was now of opinion that he was wrong, and
was not ashamed to acknowledge that he was in error.
It was quire true as to the present case that if it had be. n
shown tram the cases that were referred to in the argument,
that the rule that the Attorney-General neither pays nor
receives cos s had been generally acted upon, such former
decisions should have great weight in the determination of
this case ; hut, is be before ohs. eyed, that rule was subject
to many exceptions. It was perfectly just that when the
Attorney-Gooiest coal f not be called en to pay costs, te
should no: receive any, but where one party was in resea-
-1 stun of a judgment in his favour, and the other party
brought hi. appeal to this or another court, then although
the court might sass thought the judgment wrong, and
might bays therefore reversed it, the party who crime up to
defend the judgment, whether it was right or wrong, was not
to be made to pay coats. The rule therefore as to whether
the A.t...e5., General should pay costs or not did not, as a
genera mi.., apply. If be or env other party came up to
sustain a •udgmene in his favour, and succeeded in doing so,
there appe.red no reason why he should not have the costa
he was to put to by the other party. This opinion, to which
he Game to the present case, was certainly inconsistent with
that which he gave in the House of Lords on the
appeal th. r. on the order in the demurrer. In the present
new the !tester of the Rolls gave the Attirney•General his
eats. H. lordship alter reviewing the cases, and after, in
aoasrquee.a of the importance ofthe
eosiestielnu'sionvintlit teon-
, O to the
Attorney General was entitled to his costs in this case. The
general Literature, that the Attorney-General never
pays to r reolves costs must Do qualified to this effect, that
he (the A torte,-Getoral) satinet be called on to pay costs
esimpt when., it he sueeeeded, he could receive costs, nor
cane he be entitled to receive them, except where, upon
Wiley, he could be made topay coats. The rulequidiW in
that way would have the effect of putting a stop to some
litierstion 'open the role, as generally understood, bad a ten.
, dimly o, e• a wage He was, for thee* rearms, of opinion,
that the lit .st.r of the Roils was right in giving the Atrorney-
J o,neral his costs, and the appeal mast be dismissed with oste.
i

rt. lb.

6 3
6 0
0
5 7
6 7

COUR!' OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YESTERDAT.
Tms Qusss o Basmi.—Tas Algona. Rooms.
Mr. tl. it sou ,es.brrs moved for • rale to shoo cave
why a pr. et .e..do should nut hew in au indictment which
had been rem ved tato this court by a certiorari. A bill
bad bees wood at the Illutill.sen B:resions against the de-
...Aso,* foe k • ping a disrsderly house (the Argyll Rooms),
for mask and dancisg, Ctililtary to the provisions ot
the am. Tn. indictment had ben removed from the
Middlesex B'e low to the Cratral Criminal Conn, after
widen the do's Not went belore Mr. Juries Pattsemi et
chambers, ud obtained an tad. r is remove it into thisconet
by mir•iti.ari. Ti.e question area whether that, was amp
WHIM but, ult. into thi court. and whether it had say
Jarisdieti . . w.. conceded that theprovisions of the
Cea,relertaii...l Court Act (4 it 5 Will. IV . r. 38) were to
be leaterrien.ed oath Use entree of the 25 Geo. 11. which
related to. the power of this court to groat a certiorari. The
Ceatral Crum al Court A,:t U. aced a sew add kraal juris-
diction lot lhe'lroal of eartsia aeons; sod the 13 h wean
previded that ao Obeli...taunt ler mlobtaisaaearibeald be pre-
1. trod at the Ceo • rot Crim 0.1 Court Indere he parties pressat-
log it were p.avioosly boaad over to promeute. therefore tier.
was bOjurisitic ion noise this was done. The 14th secure
provided tea. semiess should be held 11 throes a year, the
object of Intel wan that the trial a) silences should be
speedy. The 1841 omits gave • power to no justices el
Middleton, without ais niorari, t truant t airy indiormssat
fur ssodess..eueur to the Central Criminal Court and the

prossosaw Yd oshodama mom to sooty so a:
Qom's Beset for a antiwar' to remove ea loilmossat tato
OMR Opium Criminal Conn, sad it was wader tits clams
that tho primal imlistmeat was diet roam& Month wt.
gmeriimi too thommtlanatisa Otis tsammionsos entarod iede
• the towel kb the Omani

Criminal Court, and they were equally Mediae, and there
was therefore reason to conclude that it was intended to sub-
stitute that court fey the sessions, and the indictment re-
mained in the risme position as it was .1 t the sessions, and the
10th section ol 25 Geo. c. 38, prohibited the removal of
such eases by eerti.wari into this court. The object of ob..
tainirg the centered in this court was to lx:eip the
rooms open as long as possible. It would probab"y be
urged for the defence that the rooms maid not be
considered such music and dancing-moms as were consti-
tuted a disorderly house by 25 Gee. II c. 86; inasmuch
as they professed to be rooms fur iestruction in dancing and
practising, and the subscriptions were payable either yearly,
monthly, or by the night. But the intuits stated that
any one who went to the door and pail a might so
in jest as at any place of public entertainment, and this was
the whole question of law which was to he raised, so that
there was no • pretext for bringing the eau into this court.
A %mese bad been moved for and refused.
Mr. Juice Patteson inquired if there was say authority
to show that where the court ietertered, and granted a cer-
tiorari, it was granted on affidavits. lie was of opinion that
the court could not incorporate the Central Criminal Court
Act with the 10th section of 25th (leo. IL., c. 86. The in-
dictment here was removed into the Central Criminal Court
at the instance of the prosecutor, and having got it there,
he (Mr Justice Patterson), when the application was made to
him at chambers by the defendant, thought he
had a right to deal with it as if it had been
originally toned in the Central Criminal Court.
It seemed to him that this court had jurisdiction, end that
the writ of certiorari must stand. The indictment was, in
fact, in the Central Criminal Court, and the 10th section
of 2 Cho. II ' e. 36, applied only to sessions or wises, such
as that in which the bill had been first found, and the jerk-
dictien of this court to grant • certiorari existed unless
was expressly taken awes.—Rule refused.
Ex
Tan LOAD ChaIiCELLOTL.
S:r F. Thesiger moved for a writ of habeas scopes directed
to the keeper of Ahe Queen's Prison, commanding him to
bring into this court the body of William Dimes,
mid also to state the cause of his detention,
ne having been committed on the 11th instant.
The affidavits on which the writ was moved
stated that Mr Dimes brought an action of ejectment against
the Grand Junction Canal Company, obtained *judgment in
lids favour, and was pa* in possession of a portion of the canal
uuder that judamt at Ater that a negotiation was entered
into hetwere non and the solicitor to the Grand Junction
Canal Company, and they came ~ra an understanding that
ear sin sum should be paid to him for his interest. The
company, however, refused to be hound by thie
Arrangement, end in 1838 they exhibited • bill in the High 1
Court of Chase r), eddrested to Lord Cottenhaa, who was
then Lord Chancellor, play lag fur an injunction to restreial
/Ir Dimes from stopping or impeding the pump of boats
or baps on the canal, or impeding the navigation. On this
hill, which was applied for ex parte to the Vice-Cheacellor,l
an order was made, sad it was subsequent) y costumed until
further order* ITJM the Vicr-Ctai cellar. Mr. Dimes, bailie
in utter ignorenue that the Lord Chancellor bad any interest
•n tie matter between hint end the Grand Jenction Com.
puny, appealed to him to set aside the order ; but his lord-
ship confirmed the order, with some slight earls ion in
the terms, and in pursuance of that order a writ of jujus&
-ion issued, by which Mr. Dimes was restrained under a
, penalty of 5,0001. firm stepping or impeding the navigstkm
lel the cies: er tujuriog it in any way. When the bill wee
exhibited beture the Lord Chancellor, and when the in
nu greeted, his serdahip was a proprietor and share-
\elder, and member of the company to the extent of 17
shares of what, he vu sole proprietor, and 25 shares whleis
be held jointly with tau other parsons, the abates being et
the value of 1.01., aunt -t a premium of cent. per cent. llt '
Dimes was quotient of tnis interest being held by his lad-
Alp till the n...t :1. cf 1:118, after which, by the courtesy 1.1
the Lord Cosuceller, he was informed of it. Mr. Dimes
endeavoured to obtain a disintetested tribunal to hear
his disputed cue in Chancery, said he believed the.
the only way to obtain it was to violate the
iujoaction, se being void, without meal log any
disrespect to the Court of Chancery, and he consequently
die violate it, opus which an t ppiscstion was made to the
Vice-Chancellor by .notion to commit tuns for contempt, and
he was coian.i.ied a. Lite 11th instant by a warrant sigred
by the Lore (.. an....,rt." The learned counsel, having
gouts through the affidavit at length, proceed. d to urge that,
if toe view t. heu oy Mr. Dion a was correct, the Lord Casa.
calor was interested in the suit, the injunction was void,
aud Mr Dian.. Am dot bound to pry obedience to it ; ass,
coosequeutly, hm commitment was in viol.tion of the law.
In 2nd baanee'e Ryp,rts, 1,173, it was laid down
as a funestnestal tale in toe administration of
jus.ice that a y :non could not be judge in •
cam • in +bier. he was in:, toilet In gull's
ALridgmeat, labs " Judge" it was hied down, " that it the
Chaucedur in-de a deer, . beta eau two etraug. re in •meter
which concerned housed it was void, basun he could ant
be j.tlge in dis rove cede." TVs ui.cmm was laid doe's it.
Abridgement, us the authority of the Earl of Ij-eh'',
ue c (12Cuke ► &v
ets, 114), where it wee held that " the
Chancellor co Cueeter, sole judge of equity, could not
mass a decree where be Mauer wee a party, for be could
not be judge propr..l ....hi, but the suit must be heard
'scram den.muff. ' " Ice Lt Salkeld, Chic
Justice Hol. raid, "the mayor of Hereford was laid
by the heed. for givms pmemeut in a cue in
which he wee • piaty to an ejectment where
he was sole judge of the court. In liardress, 503, it was
laid d. wu t..e. . ;deg: had an interest in a cause,
neither he nor his deputy should determine it, and if be
did a piehibeuon principle was laid down in a
van, ty b,oks. In Cole. Linleton, section 212, p.ge lila,
it was held that when • lord of ule,or established • pre-
scription to distraiu midis .wing damage on his manor, the
prescription was void, b he could nut be judge in his
own case; end Lord Coin says, '• alequis non debut ease
judos in moil causie." It had been decided in modern
cases, that when inegiurs'...: Lad an interest in a matter for
the decision of the ..out a quarter a. olives it was void,
and there were cases in which oue magistrate who was
interested was on the ber.ch, tho.igh the majority
were disinterested in tho case, and it was held that
court was badly constituted, and the Court of Queen's
Bench quashed the order. " The Queen v. Commissioner,
for Paving end Lichting Coeltanham " (12 Queen's Bench
Reports, 467); " The Queen v. the Justices of Hertford
shire ", (6 Queen's Bench Reports). In the case of Carus
Wilson, who was communed for • contempt of the itoyal
Coat of Jersey, Lord Denman :premed his opinion strongly
on this puha, when it was • matter of necessity to decide the
question, laying, " it becomes the unfortunete duty of this
court to become party and judge, and to decide whether it
has been Vested with contempt." It was laid down
is Mitfurd on Feeding in Chancery, that a suit
' was an eppesl to the extraordinary jurisdiction of
the Coanc.lior, and commenced by a petition to the
Leal Chancellor, or to the kirg himself, if the Chan-
leellor was a party to the suit, and the course was that where
the Ceaheellor was interested the matter was decided by
sem other judge, and the decree was under the sign ma-
mud. It was the duty of the Lord Chancellor when this
MN was before him to have stated that he was a proprietor
M the company. When this very case of Mr. Dimes was
before the Exchequer Chamber. Mr. Baron Alderson stated
that he had an interest in the company, declined to sit as a
judge, and retired, saying that the court would not be pro-
perly constituted if he stayed. By law, such an order as
that made by the Lord Chancellor was void, and the impri-
sonment therefore was illegal, and the prisoner was entitled
to have a writ of habeas corpus.
Mr. Justice Wightmen-1 think this is the proper time for
me to may that I myself am in the same situation.
Sir Frederick Thesiger—l would have no objection to your
lordship's being a party to • writ of habeas corpus to release
Mr. Dimes. The motion for committal was made in open
court and discussed.
Mr. Ju.tke Pattesoa—l suppose you must take the writ,
and we will hear what the return says. This is the decision
only of my brother Coleridge and myself, and not of my bro-
ther Wight:nen, because he is an interested party.
Mr. Justice Wightman—l shell not be in court on Thurs-
day, therefore you had bettor bring up the return then.
Applicatioa granted.
Ex FAJITA RITOEIS.—COMPSICIATION TO • CORONita.
Mr. Washy moved for a rate to show roue why a manda-
mus should not issue to the tressarer of the county of Wor-
cester, commanding him to pay a sum of 931.6 e. Bd. to Mr.
Hughes, one of the coroners for the county, as compensation
for the loss of emoluments in that office, consequent on the
alteration of the divisions of the county under the County
Contemn Act. In 1847 the Privy Counsel directed the
Lords of the Treasury to anon Mr. Hughes's compensation
and they ecesordingly fixed it at 651. a year. This had
been paid for tour quarters; bat sine* the justices had de-
clined to pay any more, acting under advies, end the question
of the right was to be aimed by this rale.—Rule granted.
COURT OF ERCII yrs"

&num ui-Basco.
BOSAMQVIT, P.O. o. BROUTAID
VOMPANIIII.

IXITTAIL 13T

•YISTERDAY.

Sir F. Thesiger moved, pursuant to leave reserved, for a
rase calling on the plainuff to show tense why the verdict
tented far him should not he set adds, and a verdict entered
for the defendant, or a new trial had. It was an action
brought by the public officer of the London and Westminster
Bank upon a judgment recovered against the Newcastle,
Shields, and Sutherland Joint Stock Banking Company, ol
which, it was alleged, the defendant was a member. The
stirs facies upon which the action proceeded was issued on
the 24th of January, 1848, and the defendant pleaded that
at the time the writ was issued he was not
a member of the banking company spinet which
the plaintiff obtained judgment. At the trial,
tiehta the Lord Clod Baron, at the let sittings
at Goidball, it &opera' that the defendant bed transferred
ha sharer In the company before the writ of sake ferias was
issued. In support or the platatifFs case the general return
of the ahareholdeis of the Newcastle Bank, pursuant to the
provisions ef the 7th flee IV., c. 46, was produced, and it
µpared item that inurement that the defurdect was a
shareholder on the Ist of March, 1847. A similar !Aunt,
snack is Men* of the following year was produced by the
inaintifl. And objected to on the around that it was made
after the writ of more teaks wee issued, and without the de-
fondant's authority. Ms document was however admitted as
evidence on the Issas that Mr. Saortridge was a member in
January, 1844, when the writ d ecru feriae was hared.
It was now contended that that evidence was im-
properly admire d as altogether irrelevant, there being
no coanezion between the two returns. In 'tippet 01
that branch of the motion to eater the verdict for the defen-
dant, the karn-li annul sebaritted that the feet of the
transfer of 100 gene in the Newcastle Bank, to a person
eased Frew, was admitted to have been made by the delta•
dant in the month of July, 1847, and that notice of that
tralllllll WWI OM tO the bank by Mr. Shortridgens broker.
rho question at the trial was, whether the transfer was is
aocordames b
with
it h the terms of the deed of settlesent and
empieted, as ad ees iiined say by the issaaging
*ow, ail bpi Ea lir minds. s tbe board oldinsion.