The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-18 00:00:00

(This Day.)
''SECOND EDITIO

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

'Before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Blackburn

Crompton, and Mellor.)
iN THE MATTER OF AN ATTORNEY.

Mr. M. Chambers had obtained a rule calling upon an
attorney of this court to show cause why he should not be
struck off the rolls for malpractices, and the rule having
been set down in the preemptory paper for argument, it
was called on this morning. _ _

Mr, Griffiths, on the part of the attorney, applied for
postponement, as his client had been compelled to go to
Brussels, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., felt he could not safely
argue the case without the presence and assistance of the
said attorney. Mr. M. Chambers had been informed of the
application, and did not object.
The Lord Chief Justice said the case had been placed in
the peremptory papers and ought not to be postponed with-
out good cause.
Mr. Chambers said it struck him from the nature of the
case and the allegations made in the affidavits that it must
go before the Master, as it would be necessary in order to
prove the allegations, to produce the Subpoena Book and
Precipes of the Court of Exchequer.
Mr. Griffiths objected to that, as he was of opinion that
the matter could be argued before the court on the affi-
davits. The books could be produced by the officer.
The Lord Chief Justice said it was a most extraordinary
case. Application was made to strike an attorney off the
rolls. The case is put down in the peremptory paper, and
the attorney chooses to go away on other professional busi-
ness, leaving the rule to take its chance. If the case was
postponed a day must be fixed, as it could not be allowed to
stand over.
After some discussion, the Court ordered the case to be
postponed till Monday next peremptorily.
TN THE NATTER OF BRYANT AND FOOTE.
Mr. Prideaux appeared to show cause against a rule ob-
tained by Mr. Keene to remit back a special case to the
arbitrator on the ground that he had not sufficiently set
the matter forward to prove the usage. The action was
brought by a parishioner of Horton, Bucks, against the
rector, Mr. Foote, for the refusal to marry him, and the
question arose whether there was a custom that the rector
should receive lOs. and the clerk 3s. for every marriage, it
having been stated in some instances 13s. 6d. had been paid,
The difference of the sum received, it was contended,
invalidated the custom. The cause was tried, the jury
could not agree, and ultimately the matter was referred to
arbitration, and with the decision of the arbitrator fault was

found.
After some discussion the Court said the rule had better
be made absolute, to remit the case back to the arbitrator.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
SIX SPECIAL JURYMEN PINED £lO-IMPORTANT NOTICE.
Considerable dissatisfaction has been recently expressed
in consequence of the easy manner in which special jury-
men who have been fined at this court have obtained a
remission of the fine upon making subsequently general or
particular excuses. Those gentlemen who do serve com-
plain of this, and to-day when a special jury was called only
eight answered.
His Lordship ordered the others to be called seriatum,
and he fined each absentee £lO, notifying that the amount
would not be remitted, and the case was tried with only
eight special jurymen.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
'OOKING OFFICES AND RAILWAY COMPANIES-WOODROW
T. THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover for damage to a parcel.
Mr. Ashley, of Charles-square, Holton, objected to the
jurisdiction of this court, as the chief office of the Great
Eastern Railway Company was in Shoreditch.
Plaintiff stated that the parcel was delivered to a booking
office in Fleet-street, and he called the keeper of the office,
who produced a board headed " Great Eastern Railway
Company."
It was further stated that the company's carts called at
the office and collected all parcels, whereupon his Honour
said that as the company did business in the City he must
hold this court to have jurisdiction.
Mr. Ashley—lf that is your Honour's decision I must
submit, but I shall call upon the plaintiff to prove the
damage.
Plaintiff could do this, and the case was adjourned for
evidence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE PROSTITUTE NUISANCE IN HYDE PARK.—Several
wretched looking women, who nightly frequent Hyde Park
for the purposes of prostitution, and whose conduct is much
complained of by persons having to cross the park on an
evening, were charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt withdisorderly
conduct in the park.
Lloyd and Dauncey, two constables of the A division,
proved seeing the women molest and annoy gentlemen
crossing the park on Saturday and yesterday evening, and
they then took them into custody.
In answer to Mr. Tyrwhitt, the officers said they had
known some of the women as frequenters of the park for
two or three years.
One of the women said that what the constable had stated
was too true, and that she did go into the park to get a
living, but if she could get work she would net.
Mr. Tyrwhitt committed some of the prisonerslfor 14 days
and others for seven says.
One of the women seemed very happy at the result, as
she left the court singing.

SUN OFFICE, HALF-PAST 4 O'CLOCK.

SPAIN.

MADRID, Jan. 16.—The debate in the Senate on
constitutional reform has terminated. A demand
made by the Government that the vote should be
taken by articles, was rejected by a majority of 93
to 53. The definitive vote has been adjourned.