The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-11-20 00:00:00

question is, has that been taken away by any Act of the
Legislature? C:early not. In plain terms, that is admitted.',
All that has been done is. that all persons shall sue in a
particular form, the decision on which has been, that as the
attorney can no longer exercise his option by sueing in a
particular way, but is compelled to sue in another and
general form, the privilege still remains, and is not taken
away from MM. if that-be a privilege, I certainly
have no answer to the question. My' lord put two or three
terms—how are you to limit it by consideration of circutin •
stances ? If we find it laid down that this was &privilege
only to be enjoyed under particular circumstances, 'and
admit ed that circnmstancss were to weigh, that, no 'lonbt
would very much limit the privilege, and, indeed, might be_.
said to take away the very essence of the privilege
But I cannot find, that anywhere in the term books. I
think, therefore, we should be now makicg law to suit this
particular case, if we were.not to discharge this rule, and say
that the attorney does not enjoy the privilege which, as
plarrtiff in this case, suing in person, he claims.
Mr. Justice Wightinan : the question is, whether, since
the passing of the Common Low Procedure Act, that privi-
lege is retained. Ia the case before my brother Patteson,
it was decided by him, that was retained, and that the
Uniformity of Process Act would not affect it in any way ;
and, in the case in the Exchequer, to which reference has
been made, and to which I have already referred.--.I thiuk
the name of it is Wright a.. Skinner, ls', Aloes m and -
Welsby, page 144, it was considered by the court, and held
by my brother Patteso in conformity wi h that decision
that since the unifermi:v of Process Act has passed, if the
attorney did not waive hie privilege of retaining the venue
in Middlesex, and the privilege which he would be entitled
to, to be sued by writ of privilege, by procee ling under the
Unifortnity Process Act, as he was obliged to do even though
be did not name himself an attorney, provided he did net
sue by another attorney. Those are decision' t ) show that
since the Common Law Procedure Act, the attorney has the
privilege'of retaining his venue in Middlesex. Then, if
there is anything to compete with that privilege, there is no
doubt a rule of the court which obtains, in all actions
generally, that under special circumstances the venue 'may
be retained. But was that rule intended to apply to cases
where the, e was a privilege, taking the c ;se of a particular
class of individuals with the ordinary rule of the court. It
seems to me there is no such rule that would include such a
case. It may be expedient that some altervion should be
male in this respect, but till it is altered I feel bound to
discharge this rnle in accordance with the law as it stands.
Mr. Justice E-Ie . Having been decided by more than
one Court that, though the bill of privilege is taken away,
still a privileged plaintiff, suing by writ of summons, is
entitled by his privilege. That having been decided by
more than one court, we are bound by it, and the law can-
not'now be altered, unless the judges choose to interfere by
a rule. I cannot help observing that the privilege of bar-
risters, attornies, and officers of the court., for it extends to
all of them, is founded entirely on an entire fiction, utterly
contrary to the fact. That they are always in attetelance
on the court, in Middlesex, and, though suing as plaintiffs,
they are doing an act utterly unconnected with their pro-
fessional duties, and so has been supposed from all time, or
at least from a veryaarly origin, .the privilege was este-
blishedlounded on no reason. In general, the place of
trial is fixed by reference to, the requirements of convenience
and jrstice,. and, as barristers and attornies, those consider-
ations cannot apply, unless the judges pass a rule that
those considerations may be applied to them as well as to
others.
Mr. Prentice : Yonr lordships will exp vas a direction as
to the costs, that the plainiff's costs should be the costs in
the cause.

Lord Chief Justice Campbell : It was formerly held that
the Serjeant could only be sued in the Court of Common
Pleas, because he was always suppose to be in that court.
I do not know how that would apply now, Brother Shee.
Mr. Prentice: Will yotir lordship give a direction as to
the costs of the rule, and mike them coats in the cause.
Lord Chief Justice Campbell . No, nothing will be said
about costs; but the rule is discharged.