The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-06 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE took his seat on the Bench at ten
o'clock, and after disposing of several motions of no public
importance, proceeded to hear Nisi Prius causes.

DENTHALL V. SIDNEY, KNT.

Sir F. Pore.ocT(with whom was Mr. Hocotes) in stating
the case, said this action had its origin in the Court of Chan-
cery, and was removed into the Court of King's Bench. It
arose in the office commonly known by the name of the Petty
Bag office, which is a branch of the Court of Chancery, al-
though usually connected with the Common Law Courts.
The plaintiff had served in that office several years as chief
clerk, and the action was brought to recover fees and expenses,
which had from time immemorial been paid to a public
officer when his presence was found requisite to give evidence
in a Court of Law. The. plaintiff, by reason of his office, had
possession of certain documents, which he could not produce
without the authority and concurrence of the Master of the
Rolls. The plaintiff enjoyed no salary, and had been paid by
fees of office alone. This circumstance had been the subject
of enquiry ten or fifteen years back, by the direction of Lord
Hardwicke, and has always had the sanction of Parliament.
The defendant in the present instance was an attorney, and
had considerable business as a parliamentary agent. He had
appointed as his agents Hill and Randall, and, on their re-
quiring him to pay certain fees, he refused on the grounds
that one of them had not been an admitted attorney and en-
rolled in the Court of Chancery, and accordingly called upon
them to produce the rolls of that Court to establish the fact.
The plaintiff attended in court to produce the rolls for
three days, but the cause had never been settled, and
on applying for the amount of fees for attendance,
together with the expenses incurred in conveying the neces-
sary documents to and from the Court, lie was told by the defen-
dant he should be pail when he had recovered feem toe other
party. The defendant put in two pleas ; that he was not
liable, and that he had lodged in Court the sum of 1/. 131., es
a reasonable and sufficient remuneration for the trouble and
expenses incurred.
Francis Crockard, clerk in the Petty Bag-office, produced
the order from the Master of the Rolls, dated 13th June,
1836, for the attendance of the plaintiff with the record, to
give evidence in the Court of King's Bench. It was the
official business of the plaintiff to attend the Courts on occa-
sions when the records were required, for which he was paid
in fees, which were usually divided among the three clerks.
'Francis Abbot was connected with the Petty Bag-office f)rty-
seven years, and had his appointment from the predecessors of
the present three principal clerks. It was the business of the
plaintiff to produce certain records in the courts of law for
which the fees were Half-a-guinea for each the first day; and
if attendance was requisite more days, a guinea fur the entire
of the documents produced. The fees had never been dis-
puted but on one occasion ; and after it was tried before Lord
Kenyon, they were recovered, and ultimately paid. This oc-
surred about forty-six years ago, and they never had been re-
sisted until the present action was brought.
Mr. KELLY, fur the defence, submitted that in point of law
the plaintiff was nut entitled to recover, inasmuch as the Mas-
ter of the Rolls might or might not order the production of the
records, and that the case was one entirely for the decision of'
his Lordship, and not for a Jury; and that a party was not en-
titled to remuneration, not being a professional witness, but it
being a public duty imposed upon him by law, an action could
not be sustained for loss of time and trouble. Besid,s, there
was no mention of fees in the order of the Master of the Rolls,
and the plaintiff was called ueen by subpoena to attend, and
he did so merely as a public officer.
Mr. JUSTICE said he was of opinion that an action was main-
tainable, but it would remain fur the defendant to move for a
nonsuit.

Sir F. POLLOCK observed that there was an order of Lord
Ilardwicke on record that certain fees should be paid, and in
case any application was made, he hoped it would be admitted
in evidence.

HIS LORDSHIP accordingly ordered a verdict for the plain-
tiff, 31. Ils.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BRYANT V. BEARDLEY.
In this case the plaintiff, formerly the proprietor of Bryant's
Hotel, in Conduit-street, Hanover square, obtained a verdict
for 1501., subject to a nonsuit, under the following circum-
stances :—ln July, 1336, the plaintiff sold his interest in the
hotel to the defendant ; but the house not being at the time
protected by a licence, in consequence of the proprietor's
neglect, be (Bryant) deposited in the hands of a Mr. Wright
1501., with an agreement that this sum should be forfeited to
the use of the defendant, in the event that the plaintiff should
fail to obtain a proper and sufficient licence for the house,
either in his own name or in that of the defendant, before the
31st of October next ensuing-. The licence however was not
obtained " on or before" that day, and accordingly Wright
handed over the Ma deposited with him as a guarantee, to
the defendant. Plaintiff obtained licence in the course of the
following November, and then brought his action against
Wright to recover the amount of the guarantee deposit.
Under the Interpleader Act, Beardley came in and made him-
self defendant in the place of Wright, and pleaded the terms
of the agreement as his justification for retaining the money.
In answer to this plea, the plaintiff produced evidence to show
that the failure of his application for renewed licence was
occasioned by the absence of the defendant from the Sessions
Court on the licensing day, he having had due notice to
attend. A verdict was given for the plaintiff, with leave to
the defendant to move that the verdict be set aside and a non-
suit entered.

Mr. Sergeant ACKERLF:Y this day moved accordingly, and
contended that the absence of the defendant could not preju-
dice the plaintiff's application for the renewal of the licence to
himself, his obtaining which would have been a fulfimcnt of
his engagement.—Rule Nisi granted.