The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-14 00:00:00

LA" INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF IRMO'S BENCH, Tiro USDA', MAT 13. 1
THE COUNTY COURT or REQUESTS.
THE. RING C. ii 50105 HEATH, usu. AND ANOTHER.
On &former day a rule was obtained by Mr. French, tailing upon
'George Heath, Esi. a banister at law, and County Clerk of AI iddle.
sex, and Mr. Dewed% his deputy, to show cause why a criminal
infOrnintion should not be filed against them fur certain abuses in
the practice of the County Court now held in King's:tut-street,
Holborn. The rule had been obtained at the instance of a person
named Huline, who had lately had a seat instituted against him in
the I :aunt y Court by a discarded servant, named Bruck, to recover
the sum of 391. ed. alleged to be due to the plaintiff for a month's
wages, he having been dismissed without warning. The grounds
on which the rule was obtained were, dint the County Court had
exceeded its jurisdiction in admitting Ileock's suit; that it had ex-
torted excessive fees from Mr. Helium ; that it had not heard him
fully in his defence, nor Allowed his witnesses to be examined ; deo
it had ordered him to be ejected by fume front the Court-house
while he was urging his objections to the proceedings; that it had
refused to give bins on account of the fax when demanded; that the
number of jurymen, by whom the causes were tried, was Issullicient,
and generally. that the proceedings of the Court were contrary he
the design with which it was imettuted, and the regulations pre.
scribed by Act of Parliament. It appeared. from the affidavits in
support of the rule, that the wages paid to Brock were at the rate
of 34t!. per annum, anti therefore that his claim, in lieu of a
month's warning, should have been for LOA : but as he could not
! have maintained his suit for that amount In the County Court, he
I had been allowed to reduce it below 405., in order that he might
obtain judgment in that Court, which, by Act of Parliament. has
no jurisdiction in hieetur pleas. A verdict was given for Brock,
and fees were exacted from Mr. Iltilme to the amount of Cs 101
as costs of Court. Mr. llttliee WAS desirous of t eamining a wit.
nese, named Perry, who could have proved, that when the wages
due to Brock, for the time lie hed been in Mr. Hultue's service,
I were paid to hen, he set up to claim for the month's wages extra,
but went away satisfied with what he had received. This witness,
it was stated, Mr. Hulme was prevented from examining, in con.
sequsuce of the disorderly state of the Court, from which he was
finally thrust out while arguing the merits of leis case. When he
demanded a statement of the fees, and the authority under which
they were claimed, the Registrar of the Court told him, that lie
was not obliged to give any acconnt, nor would he. It further ap-
; peered. that the cetows in the County Court are usually tried by
I only three Jurynten, though twelve are summoned.
Mr. :SCAR I.E T T this day shewcd cause against the rule. His
affidavits distinctly negatived cvcry allegation in the. in support
sof the role by which lir. llmees einduci could be affected. The
joint afiittri: of the three je.r) :nen by whom Mr. Ilulme's cause
watt tried, proved that it was Wiolly untrue that either he or Ilia
' witnesses were not heard its Ilia defence. Brock had been suddenly
dienessed without reason, and according to custom was therefore en.
titled to a month's wages, which he sought to recover. ,Mr. Hultne,
in defence, alleged his right to dismiss Brock without warning, be-
! cause he had been drunk ; and to mbstantiate that allegation, •
wi'ncss was actually examined, who peeved that Brock hail been
sick, hut, as it turned out on cross.exienieation, not from drunken.
nese, but from a bilious complaint to which he was subject. Mr.
Dubois, the Deputy County Clerk, left it to the jury on this tin-
drive. to my whether a sufficient defence hal been made out. The
lure found a verdict for the plaintif, and than Mr. Iluirne became
so turbulent, that Mr. Dubois, after several times admonishing
, hint to desist, and not to impede the proceedines of the Cour:, was at
; Pmt.rth compelled to order tam to he removed. With respectto the
1 jurisdiction of the Court, it WWI clear that if a pinintiff chose to for.
bear from suing for his whole claim, and thereby reduced
it within the limits fixed by law for entertaining pleas in that
Cart, it was not possible for the Ceurt to refuse to proceed
in .11(e suit without a grim breach of its duty, which was to
hear and determine all petty twit* below the sum of forty shillings.
If a yeaintiff chose to sue for less titan be was entitled to recover,
the Court could not refuse to give him the little with which he was
willing to be content. No second suit could be maintained, either in
the County Court or any other, for the recovery of what the plain-
tiff abandoned in the first. The practice, therefore, mild not be
oppressive to defendants, bur, on the contrary, beneficial As to
the excessiveness of the fees in this Court, Mr. Heath had two ex.
cellent rules to guide hint in regulating them. The first was, the
Act of Parliament by which the Court was instituted, and acCord-
ing to which the fees were on the strictest calculation ruefully ad-
justed ; the second was an opinion of the two Chief Justices, lewd
Ellenborough and Sir Vicary Gibbit, who, after patiently intend-
getine a complaint a few years ego against a former County Clerk,
Mr. Leach, had given their opinion that he was warranted in tak.
ing ti..me fees by a fair construction of the Act of Parliament. On
a diligent examination of the records of the Court. It appeared that
the same fees had always been charged. No pretence, therefore,
could exist for Imputing it to Mr. Heath as a criminal act, that he
had followed the practice of hie predecessors, sanctioned as it was
by the opinions of two Chief Justices so eminert for their learning
and distinguished talents. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
argue thpt the whole conduct of Mr. Heath and Mr. Dubois was
fully justified. and every shadow of criminality removed from it by
the contents of the affidavits which it had been his duty to bring
,under the ommitierefienet the Boort.
Mr. BRODIRICR followed on the same side.
The LORD CUIEF JUSTICE observed, that it appeared to him
that every arindaal imputation was completely removed ; but the
Court would hear what was to be urged on the other side.
Mr. Fa emelt, in support of the rule, contended that the mats.
rial parts of the charge had not been answered. The excessive fees
extorted by the County Court front the wretched suitors who wane
subject to its jurisdiction, were not warranted by the Act of Perlis.
ment. The practice of the Court was framed in accordance with
the interests of the County Clerk. In order to swell the amount of
'lts fees, contrary to the Act two orders for the attendance of the'
delendain were issued instead of one. The fees too on the pro-
ceedings in conformity with the Act, exceeded the amount Axed
by the Act A sum of as. 10d. was added to a debt perhaps. aelgi.
mdly not exceeding tid. Was not this a monstrous oppression of
the poor? and was it not highly criminal, when the design of these
exactions was solely to augment an immenee laconic thus exacted
from wretchedness and despair? The object in instituting this
Court was stated in the preamble of the Act to be to prevent untie.
cessary delays and expenses in the recovery of smell debts; yet in
the practice of this Court, the Stu !DTI Sart:fed both from unnecess
sary delay and unnecemary expense. The ennecessaery delay arose
from the issuing era second order, where one was sufficient, and the
unnecessary expeosefram the excessive fee* upon useless proceeding".
It was imposelbes for any man of common arose, whose nand was
not too much subtilised, and, as it were, turned away by constant
idiots to make the worse appear the better cause, to eoubt that this
Court was in prectice twos oupreesive, as hi is ceneructio it was
most clearly contrary to the letter atsw of the Act on which it
was founded. Tile Learned Gentlentaa-proceeded at consislerable
length, and with great earnestness and allergy in the some line of
argument. Ile was several times interrupted by the Court, who
atlinoniebed him to speak with less asperity of the gentlemen un
whose conduct lie was animadverting.
Mr. H. Coorsa followed on the same side.
The lAJAD LISIEI JuSTICE said, that the Court would not be
justified in filing a criminal information, unless some corrupt prac.
rice were_priara fork imputed to the parties against whom It was
moved. The Court would not grunt one for a mere mistake or error
of judgment. But how stood this case on the affidavits before the
Court ? Mr. Hulme stated that he was not allowed to examine the
witness Pears but on the other hand, it was sworn, that Mr.
Huline's defence was fully heard, and that his own witness had
proved that his defence was groundless. As to his removal from
the Court, it might have happened that when he found the Court
drtermieed to decide against him, he had urged his complaints in
such a manner r had induced Mr. Dubois to direct hint to with-
draw, that the buninessuf the Court might not be interrupted. As
to the free, even if on a strict calculation it appeared that a few I
more pence had been taken than the Act of Parliament warranted,
the Court mild not treat the parties as criminal. It appeared that
the wmic fees had been always charged, and that they were sane.
Honed br the opinion of two very learned persona, Lord Cllenbo.
nmgh and Sv Vicary Gibbs. At one time lie had doubted whether I
' the Court ought to discharge the rule with costs. It was stated on
the alrielavita, that when an application had been made for an ac-
CORM of the to charged in the County Court, the registrar had re. '
fused to give it. If this refusal had been made by either Mr. I
heath or Mr. Dubois., the rule would have been discharged without
costs; but as it was by another person, the Court could not apply
to Them the criminal cousemences flowing from his acts. The rule
therefore would be discharged with costs.
Mr. Justice Ilav LET said, that if the Court had been apprised
of the terms in which the rule would have been drawn up, it would
have been refused in the fleet instance. The criminal acts were!
climaxed lo have been done either by 31r. Heath or his deputy. This ;
he believed was the first example of a rule being served on a reason
foe a criminal ofEsoce committed either by hins.ef or some one else.
In griuning a criminal in fortuation,the el/Undischarged theseme dutya
as a Gland Jury, aad milers sonic prima fin* came could be
out, a (hand Jury ought not to liner a bill. (in the merits of the
case in the County Court, he was of opinion that them& should be
refused. It was the practice of those Courts to the plaintifon I s
his oath, and it the defendant did net contradict it, they were sc.:,
cestomed to pnieced to judgment on the plaintiff 's oath. The!,
Court weak! have stopped the arguinent of this rule sooner, if it
had not been against two gentlemen who were charged with sane.
doming practices by winch small mine were drawn oet of the pockets
of poor men. Lest any suspicion might have remained upon them I
Gentlemen, the Court owed it to them to sift the matter to the I
bottom. In ins (Mr. Justice Bayley's) opinion, it had appeared I
clearly that the fees were strictly warranted by the Act of Parka.
meat. The opinion given by Lord Ellenborough and Sir Vicary
Gibbs was alone sufficient to justify Mr. Heath and Mr. Duboisl
front the criminality imputed to them, because if men of such
great talents and deep learning, as Lord Ellenborough and Lord
Chief Justice Gibbs, were mistaken as in the construction of the
Act, it was easy for them to be misled. The rule must be dia.
charged with costs, because the Court would never have granted it
in the first instance, it' it had been known how it would have been
drawn 110.
Mr. Justice IfOLROYD agreed perfectly with die opinions of '1
his learned brethren.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE was of opinion that the wend: of the
Act clearly warranted the issuing of two orders for attendata.
Buie discharged with ousts.