The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-April 28,

COURT OF QUEE'N'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn)
and Justices Blackburn, kit llor, and 3hee.
IN THE MATTER OF LEVI, AN ATTORNEY, &C.
This case, which was an application to strike an attorney
off the rolls, on account of alleged malpractice as to certain
subpoenas and items of a bill of costs in an at:don which had
been conducted by him, had been referred to OW Master,
who now reported that although grave suspicion
attached
to Mr. Levi, it was not brought home to him that he had
any knowledge of the matter of the subpoenas ; nor was it
made out that he had any share in the malpractice as to
conduct-money, which had been paid by a clerk.
The court confirmed the report, refusing the application
to strike Mr Levi off the rolls, but ordering the costs to be
borne equally by both parties.

THE QUEEN V. "THE PORCUPINE."
Mr Crompton Hatton moved for a rule for a criminal
information against the editor of this paper, which is
published in Liverpool, for an alleged libel contained in
it against Mr. Robertson Gladstone, a justice of the peac@
of that borough. The alleged libel was contained in two
articles and some doggerel verses, which imputed to Dlr
Gladstone his having acted with spite against a Mr
M'Gowan, an attorney, who appeared before the bezich•
The articles and verses were of a ludicrous nature (it being
alleged that "another gentleman was a mere joint in Mr.
Gladstone's tail"). The Court said that it was not a Win
for a criminal information, it being merely an exaggerated
comment on a public man on a matter of public interest.

The rule was therefore refused.
IN THE MATTES OF T. X. PATER., ESQ.

The Hon. George Denman, Q.C., moved for a rule for
a certiorari to remove an order made at the Quarter Ses-
sions of Middlesex, held in March last. The learned coun-
sel moved on behalf of Mr. Pater, a barrister, who, it may
be remembered, was fined £2O for alleged contempt of court.
Mr. Pater being engaged in the defence of a prisoner
before Mr. Payne, the deputy lodge, objected to the cowls
taken by the prosecutor's counsel, upon which the fore-
man of the jury interposed, and said—" We know what
the object of that is." Mr. Pater made another objection
to the mode of examination adopted by the prosecutor's
counsel, when the foreman again interposed, saying that
counsel had no right to impute falsehood to a witness; to
which Mr. Pater replied that it would be better for the
foreman not to come into collision with him. This
interference was unchecked by the Court. In his
address to the jury Mr. Pater made use of the following
words : "I thank God that there is more than one juryman,
for if there were only one, and he the foreman, I know
what the verdict would be." Mr. Payne immediately re-
buked the counsel, and called upon him to retract the ob-
servation. This he refused to do, and was accordingly
fined £2O for contempt of court. Mr, Pater alleged that he
had acied bone fide, and according to his discretion.
Mr. Denman said that the reason of the application being
made to this court was, that the fine had not yet been
entreated into the Court of Exchequer, which he wanted
not to be done until Michaelmas next.

Mr. Justice Blackburn—For a rule nisi, almost the only
point is, whether we have jurisdiction.
The Warned counsel said that he would address himself
to the question of jurisdiction. In the absence of any sta-
tutory enactment, the fines are generally estreated into the
Exchequer. In this case proceedings had been taken under
the 3d Gee, IV., cap. 46, sec. 2, according to which the
fine had been entered on the roll of quarter sessions, and
the roll delivered to the sheriff, whose duty it was to levy.
He submitted that the court had jurisdiction, where
fines had been imposed for contempt cf court, to take notice
of what the contemptuous words were, and he cited a care
in support.

The Lord Chief Justice—But in that case the alleged
contempt was refusing to do what the party refusing could
not legally be compelled to do.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—Do you draw any distinction
between a superior and inferior court in cases of fines ?
Mr. Denman—Yes.

A case was then cited in which a rule nisi had been
granted in, as it was alleged, an analogous. case ; and in
another case it was held that all the facts ought to bo set
out by the inferior court by which the fine had been im-
posed.
The Lord Chief Justice—ln this case the facts have not
been set out, but the court is in full possession of them, for
they are contained in the affidavits which have been read.
Their lordships ultimately, deeming the case to be one of
the gravest importance, as affecting the position of advo-
cacy, granted a rule nisi fot the more full discussion of the
question.