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

LAW INTEL. LIGENCE-April 28,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banca before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Blackburn, Mellor, and Mee.
IN THE MATTI:g-
OF LEVI, AN ATTORNEY, &C.
This case, which wae' an application to strike an attorney
off the rolls, on account ,of alleged malpractice as to certain
L of costs in an action which had,
subpoenas and items of a
b
been' conducted by him, ha. been referred to the Master,
who no*'reported that althot.'gh grave suspicion attached
to Mr. Levi, hi 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 ir. the malpractice as to
conduct-money, which had been paid' by a clerk.
The court confirmed the report, refuOing the application
to strike Mr Levi off the rolls, but ordelini7 the costs to 1;f.
borne equally by both parties.
THE QUEEN V. "THE PORCUPIN E."
Mr Crompton Hatton moved for a rule for a criminal.
information against the editor of this 'Jape:, which is
published in Liverpool, for an alleged libel contained in
it against Mr. Robertson Gladstone, a justice of the peace
of that borough. The alleged libel was contained in two
articles and some doggerel verses, which imputed to Mr
Gladstone his having acted with spite against a Mr
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 Mr.
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. X. PATER, ESQ.

The lion. George Denman, Q.C., moved for a rule for a.
a certiorari to remove an order made at the Quarter Ses-
sions of Middlesex, held in March la st. The learned coun-
sel moved on behalf of Mr. Pater, a barrister, who, it may
be remembered, was fined X2O 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 botter 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 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 be
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 estreated 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 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 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 discusseion of the
question.

COUNTRY MARKETS.