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

LAW INTELLIGENCE-April 28,

-

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Blackburn, Mellor, and Shee.
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 action which had
been conducted by him, hal been referred to the 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 subpconas; 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 le
published in Liverpool, for an alleged libel contained in
it against Mr. Robertson Gladstone, a justice of the Pee"
of that borough. The alleged libel was contained in two
articles and some doggerel verses, which imputed to Nir
Gladstone his having acted with spite against a I‘ll.
M'Gowan, an attorney, who appeared before the bench.
The articles and verses were of a ludicrous nature (it being
alleged that "another gentleman was a mere joint in bir•
Gladstone's tail"), The Court said that it was not a case
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 MATTER OF T, K. PATER, ESQ.
The Hon. George Denman, Q.C., moved for a rule for a
a certiorari to remove an order made at the Quarter See'
skins 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 judge, objected to the course
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 thane God that there is more than one juryman,
for if there were only one, and he the foremen, 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 acted bona 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
estreated 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 learned counsel said that he would address himself
to the question of jurisdiction. In the absence of any sta-
tutory enactment. the fines are generally entreated into the
Exchequer. In this case proceedings had been taken under
the 3d Geo, IV., cap. 46, sec. 2, according to which the
fine had bean 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 case
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 be 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 diacusssion of the
question.