The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-01 00:00:00

the name of the owner of the carriage. Mr. Wpyte then de-
clared if he could not get the name of the owner front the ser-
♦ants, he should apply to the ladies. The plaintiff' finally laid
hold of the carriage door, on which Mr. Pereeval exclaimed,
Sir, Sir! The plaintiff appeared very much agitated, but
after Mr. Perceval gave his name he went away. The repair
of the chaise coat 221. aid the apothecary's bill was 31. Itia.
After the above fasts had been proved, Mr. Scarlett address-
id the Jury for the defendant, and contended that the accident
was anavoidable—no blame could else!' to the defendant's
servants. The Learned Counsel called the coachman, the foot-
man And Mr. Perceval, who described the gig as emniog upon
the carriage unperceived, and that the very act of pulling op
the horses in the carriage, to avoid tho accident, occasioned
the pole to strike the chaise, and overturn it.
The Lord Chief Justice, in his charge to the Jury, said, if
they were of opinion that the accident happened without fault
on either side, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover.
The Jury retired. and on their retina to Court, pronounced
a verdict for the defendant. Their Foreman at thy same time
stated, that the Jury were of opinion the injury was occasionetl
by inert accident, without fault on either side.

COURT OF CO3IIION PLEAS.
MoSDAY, Nov. 2.k.
Ciotti', v. simiras.
Sergeant Lena moved for a rule to 'drew cause why an arbi-
tration made by Doctor Lushington should not he set aside, on
the wound of its being against the law. The learned Sergeant
elated, that the mutter referred to Dr. Lushingtou was, whether
the plaintiff, who was rector of a parish, was entitled to recover
back from the defendant, who was vicar of the same parish,
certain fees that had been paid fur the burial of a person in the
chancel of the church. The parties were entirely agreed as to
the facts of the case, that the burial had tuken place—that fees
had been paid to the vicar, 6:C.—and that they mutually agreed
to refer the whole matter to Doctor Lushingion, who had de-
cided that the vicar had a right to the fees, and that the rector
had no cause of action. With this decision the rector was dia..
sntislied ; and he wished to have a line drawn by a decision of
the court that wuuld prevent any future differences on the
subject.
The C Justice said, the parties had mutually agreed to
the cause oat of court, and to refer it to another decision ; and
when that decision is wade by a perfectly competent arbitrator
of their own appointment, one of them being diasatiaGed, calls
upon the court to set it aside ; and it was a case in which the
court could not interfere, unless it was manifest, on the face of
the award, that it was contrary to law, which was by no means
the case here. On the contrary, the court must suppose, from
the competence of the arbitrator, that it was conformable to law.
Mr. Justice Park and Mr. Justice Burroughs coucurred in
this opinion.—Rule refused.
TUESDAY, Nov. 26.
IN RE. ISAACSON, CLARKE, AND BROOKES.
This was an application to strike the two first named persons
off the rolls of the court, and to call upon the third to answer for
certain matters alleged in the affidavit. Sergeant Pell was
heard to-day against the rule. Sergeant Vaughan was iu part
heard in support of ita being made absolute.' The farther bow-
leg of the case was postponed till to-morrow. e forbear
noticing the ease further, until the argourems on both sides are
concluded, and the judgment given.
tt LONESDAY, Nov. 27.
IN THE MATTER OF - Is%AcsoN, THOMAS CLARK, AND J.
D. nitooka.
In the course of the last tern, Mr. Sergeant Vaughan otr•
twined a rule to chew cause why Isaacson and Clarke, attornies
of this court, should not be struck oir the rolls, for improper
conduct in having permitted a person named John Benjamin
Brooks to act as an attorney in their names ; and ally the said
Brooks should nut be committed to the Plea prison for having
se acted ; and further, why the said parties should not answer
certain other matters contained in the ellidavita on which the ap-
plication was made and also why they should not pay the
costs of this application. The motion arose out of the following
circumstances : —ln the course of the month of June last, a per-
son Named Witham Clarke instituted an action against Brooks,
for the recovery of a SUM of money, w Lich it was alleged he
(Brooks) had received un Clarke's account, from a person named
Seeger. The plaintilf in that case proved that he called on
Brooks, at his office, in Broad-ccurt, Drury-lane, and employed
him as his attorney, to proceed in an action against Seeger,
from whom lie (Brooks) subsequently received the money. The
defence set up by Brooks was, that lie received the money as
the chalk of Isaacson, in whose name the cause had proceeded,
and to whom be paid it over. The Jury by which the
cause was tried were of opinion, that there was evidence of
Brooks having in his own person acted as the attorney of
Clarke, and had, without any just preterisious, assessed that
character. They therefore found a verdict fur the plaietill; and
they added the worth, tt with all costs." It having appeared
on that trial that Brooks had practised as an attorney without
being duly qualified, the present error in was made, and affidavits
tiled from several persons to show that lie had acted for them as
an attorney, on varhma occasions, lasing at one time used the
name of Clarke, and at another that of Isaacson.
Orr Monday last, Mr. Sergeant Peel showed cause against
the rule, tad produced affidavits from Isaacson and Clarke, iii
which they positively swure that they had employed Brooks as
their clerk, at are ular salary. The affidavits added, that they
Dever, on any occasion; gave hint permission to nee their names,
or either of them on his own behalf, or ever divided the profits
of their business with him. An affidavit was then produced
front Brooks, corroborating the statement made by (atm.:sun and
Clarke, as to his has iog on all occasions acted as their clerk,
and in no other capacity whatsoever.
Sergeant k :ragtag° was proceeding to argue in support of the
rule, when the court rose.
This day the learned Sergeant resumed his arguments, and
commented on the manner in which the affidavits of the parties
were drawn up. lie contended that they by uu 'meatus gave an
answer to the matters charged.
Sergeant Onalow followed on the same side.
Lord Chief Justice Dallas, after consulting with the other
Judges for a short time observed, in the case now before the
court, I a ill not any that the statement made by Owe parties
is incredible; but it is not going too fir to say that it is impro-
bable. lam anxious, therefore, IL it the court should hate
farther information upon the subject, for it is quite clear that
Brooks acted as an attorney, and be should show to the satisfitc-
Ilan of the court, that he had so acted merely for the benefit of
Clarke mind Isaacson, and not for his oevn advantage. The
court in the present case will o,der an attachment to issue
against the parties, and that they give hail to answer certain
interrogatories which shall be forthwith hied ; and an early
day appointed in the nest term for receiving Ike 1111,41\ CT'S Si,
them, upon which answers the Prothonotary of the court shall
report.
The other Judges concurred with his Lordship, arid an at
tachment was ordered to he issued, on which the parties were

.1 THE NATIONAL REGISTER

required to give bail in the amount of 10,11. and two sureties for
501. for each respectively.
The court then ordered that they should atand committed,
unless the parties making the application would consent to their
undertaking to appear to give hail.
Mr. Sergeant Vaughan said lie would not presa their being
committed, but he should cupect duo nutlet of bail.