The Express.
London, England, 1857-01-14 00:00:00

LONDON,

.74NU.dRY 14.

Tin judgment pronsanced by Mr. lutioe Caow
ans, in the Court of Common Pleas, on Monday
but, in the ease of " Bwvirrns e. SWINFEC," and
the consequent discharge of the rule for an attach-
ment ageing the plaintiff in the Imo, will, no doubt,
waste very general satisfaction. To ourselves it
is, of cower, Muir d mires:elation to And our
vim upon the subject supported by so weighty
an authority, while to the public and the legal
profession it is of the utmost importance to have a
Judicial opinion pronounced on the limits of the die-
aetion poseered by counsel in the companies of
eme which they as retained to conduct or to
cisilead. We have so recently and m fully commented

on the ens In its earlier siagesthat are need do

nem nay than recall to the reader's recollection ite
login bats. The vane of the preparty in dispute was
. .

rationalist 'boat 040001. Tie ;awn, which win in
the shaps odau raw rat st Chameary to try the vali-
Myst the will atilre. ilemosala kte husband, came
a lar trial at Stafford on Saturday, the 13th of
Mireh last. Mrs. Swum", who claimed under the
wall, was plaintiff and the heir-at-law was defendant.
. _

The leading ocausselwere, for the plaintiff, Sir FRED'.
Ric Tantrum; for the &Indent, Sir A. COCKBURN,
then Attorney-General, now Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas. On the Saturday evening, at
the clam of the first day's trial, Sir FRIDZILIC
THF.SIGIR sent for Mrs. Bwrtvvaie, and oar
gested that she should compromise the cause, ea the
terms of getting the costs paid and 1,0001. a year Orr
her life. She declined this offer, as she had previously
declined a more advantageous one. It was pressed
open her. She finally left Sir Faxnzaic, with the
umbestanding that she would send a definitive answer
before the cause was remised as the Monday morning.
On the Sunday evening Sir FREDERIC received a tele-
graphic message to the effect that the offer was 1.11.
hied ; and, as be himself admits, he then considered
that there was no alternative bat to go on with the
cause. On the Monday morning, however, before
gelag into court, Mr. thersoe, the plaintiff's atter-
insy, communicated some information which made it
additionally desirable, in the judgment of Sir
FRIDIRIC, that the cue should not proceed ; and he
thereupon at once went, with Mr. Sienoe's know-
ledge, and wo may take it with Mr. 8111/10/I's
IMISIa, to Sir ALEIANDSII COCKBURN to Sagged •
eampsoniise. This was just before the sitting of the
smart. When the parties assembled in court, the
terms of the compromise were arranged between the
two leading counsel, in Mr. SIMPSON'S presence, but,
as it appears, against his expressed wish. The lady
was to have 1,0001. a year for life, and a fixed nu
was to be paid down for oasts. Sousely was the
arrangement concluded when Mrs. Symms
arrived. She had come to hear her cause tried oat;
was execnively indignant when she heard of the
compromise; and from that time to the present has
never, in the judgment of the Court, done any set, or
employed any expression, to show a subsequent rad-
Ikeda& of what she originally so strongly disap-
proved. On her Anal refusal to emery est the terms
of the arrangement, a writ of attachment (in other
words, of imprisonment for ointempt et court) was
moved for, and it is this writ which, ea Monday lest,
in accordance with Mr. Justice Caownea'sj against,
win refused.

The judgment proceeds on three grounds: let.
That Mn. flirter/2c never gave, either by her-
self or by her attorney, any special authority to
Air Funrite Tnr.storn to mats the arrangement
le did. 2. That nothing in her subsequent pro
seeding; amounted to a rati&ation of what bad
original, been dose without her cossent. 1. That
Sir Femme Tnutnea, apart from any ripens,
authority, or subsequent ratification, bad no renal
authority, arising front the am n relation at namel
and client, to compromise a man spirit the chant's
wish, or without the client's newt.

Of these grounds. the third involves an important
Sol question, the two kaiser proceed on the
particular circumstances Cl the case. As to any
epeeist authority, it is abundantly clear thee now
was seer given by Mrs. SWTIREN hermit. With
regard to say such authority supposed to be given
by bee attorney, there is surely great weight in the
opinion exposed by Mr. Instil.* Caownint, that
"after moue' Asa had a promo: internist, with hie
client for the express porpoo• of (Maiming authority
to a cemproinwe we • Firm &Geis, which the sliest