The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-11 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN v. THE CORPORATION OF SWANSEA.
In this case a :rule had been obtained, calling upon
the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough
of Swansea to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue directed to them, and commanding them
to execute a bond or obligation, under the common seal
of the borough, conditioned for the payment of the sum
of 9731. to J. Davis, as compensation for having been
removed from the office of treasurer, collector, and com-
mon attorney to the Corporation of said borough.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now appeared to show
cause against the rule, which he said had been applied
for under very peculiar circumstances, for no adjudica-
tion had been made in his favour by the Town-Conned,
nor had any recompense been awarded by the Lords of
the Treasury. The applicant proceeded upon the
ground that he had made a claim, and that within six
months of making it no adjudication had been made
by the Town• Council, and therefore the claim he
made must be supposed to be admitted. That
he afterwards applied to the Lords of the
Treasury, who said they had no jurisdiction ; and the
Lords of the Treasury having entertained his appeal,
that he was now entitled to apply for a mandamus to
compel the execution of a bond for the amount claimed
by him. The answer made by the Corporation to the
demand was, first, that if the office held by Mr. Davis
was one which entitled him to compensation (which they
denied), he held it jointly with another person ( Mr.
Thomas) who did not join with him in the application
for compensation, and therefore they were unable to
make a valuation of the office, so that compensation
might be awarded to them jointly. Another objection
was that Mr. Davis had not complied with the condi-
tion precedent required by the Statute, which provided
that the person making the claim should, under his
hand, furnish a statement, setting forth the amount re-
ceived by him or his predecessors in every year during
a period of five years next before the passing of the Act.
Now the Act had received the Royal Assent on the
9th of September, 1835, and the statement sent
in by Mr. Davis was for five years prior to the
31st of December, 1834, which clearly was not
five years immediately before the passing of the
Act. Another objection urged was, that Mr. Davis was
not appointed to the office by the Corporation. It ap-
peared that the Dukes of Beaufort were Lords of the
borough of Swansea, and that from time immemorial
they exercised the right of appointing the corporate
officers of the borough, and that Mr. Davis was so ap-
pointed by the then Lord of the Borough. There was
also the affidavit of Mr. Thomas, who held the office
jointly with Mr. Davis, and who claimed to be entitled
to half the emoluments. He (the Attorney-General)
submitted, under those circumstances, that Mr. Davis
had not made out a case which entitled him to the rule
prayed fqr. The case was similar to that of the Sheriff of
Middlesex, an office which was held jointly by the two
Sheriffs of London ; and it was clear that under such
circumstances one party could not put in a claim for
compensation without being joined by the other. There
would be no hardship or injustice in dismissing the pre-
sent application, inasmuch as the party was not barred
from applying in the legitimate form thereafter ; and if
his claim was well founded, there was no doubt it would
be entertained by the Corporation.
Mr. HENDERSON followed on the same side.
Sir W. FOLLETT was about to reply in support of
the rule, when

The COURT said they did not think it necessary to
hear him, because they saw nothing in the case which
took it out of the proviso in the Act, that where a
claim was made, if the Town Council did not determine
the claim within six calendar months, then the claim
must be considered as admitted. It was alleged, and
not denied on the other side, that the claim had been
duly made, and within six calendar months that no de-
termination had been come to, and therefore it must be
taken as prima facie evidence that the claim was ad-
mitted. Certain grounds were alleged as taking it out
of the proviso—these might be good grounds for reject-
ing the claim, but they appeared to the Court insuffi-
cient to take it out of the proviso, the words of which
was extremely plain and distinct ; the rule, therefore,
must be made absolute.

BAIL COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)

STOCKDALE V. HANSARD-PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT,

At the slain.. of the Court this morning, Mr. KEN-
. NICDY resumed °his arguments in this important case,
trusting that if his Lordship should deem it necessary
to take time to consider the question, that he would in
the mean time grant a stay/of proceedings. When the
. Court rose on Saturday, he was endeavouring to bring
• before the attention of his Lordship some of the prece•
dents in which the Court had exercised an equitable
jurisdiction, and the last case to which he alluded was
that of setting aside regular judgments. In support of
this point of his argument he referred to the cases of
Delafield v. Tanner, 5 Taunton, and Evans v Gill, 1
Bosanquet and Pulleyn 52. The next class of cases to
which he referred was that of new trials, citing the case
of llodson v. Barvis, 1 Chitty, 268. The Learned
Gentleman then alluded to the interference of the Court
in cases where Sheriffs were particularly interested—
cases in which regular attachments had been set aside,
rules to return writs had been enlarged, &c., citing Raines
v. Nelson, 2 Wm., Blackstone 1181 ; Shaw v. Tun-
bridge, p. 1064, same vol. ; M'George v. Birch, 4
Taunton, 585 ; the King v. 3:3ridges, 7 Taunton, 294 ;
Ledbury v. smith, 1 Chitty, 294 ; Bevan v. Dawson,
6 Bingham 566 ; Hurston v. Thurston, 1 Taunton,
120, the! Queen v. the Sheriff of Middlesex, 1 Dow-
hug 454. The Learned Gentleman then went
on to say that the only difficulty which he
now felt was as to the time during which
the proceedings ought to be stayed. His Lord-
ship, if disposed to grant the application, would probably
stay the proceedings until next tern), or until Parlia-
ment should assemble. He was aware that this would
be an unprecedented rule, but the case also was unpre-
cedented. There was good reason to suppose that in
this case the process of the Court had been abused, for
he held in his hand a supplemental affidavit, filed only
this morning, stating that notice of the action was not
given until the 26th August, and it was not until after
Parliament was prorogued that it was ascertained that
this was a third action for the same libel. The plaintiff
had watched his opportunity, and unnecessarily brought
the Sheriff into this predicament, with no legitimate ob-
ject. He ought to have devised means to try the action
without putting other persons into jeopardy, for if the
Sheriff should be committed to the Tower, it would be
no consolation to him that Mr. Stockdale should be
committed also. Suppose Mr. Stockdale to obtain a
verdict, he might then levy the damages, pocket the
money, go off to America, and leave his Lordship and
all others who had any thing to do with the
matter, completely in the lurch. (Laughter.)
There
,he might remain smiling at the storm
which was bursting over this country, for the
House of Commons would have then met, reso-
lutions would then have been entered into, and the At-
, torney -General would call down the vengeance of the
House on the heads of the parties ; and the Solicitor-
General, if he should be appointed by that time—
(Laughter)—would:follow him in that course. But Mr.
Stockdale would be safe. Would his Lordship persist
in enforcing the execution of this writ, and not interpose
the equitable jurisdiction of the Court on behalf of those
who had been guilty of no misconduct. The case pre-
sented nothing but a series of difficulties. There was
one course of proceeding which he would suggest, and
that was, that this Court might execute the writ of in-
quiry itself, and not put it on the Sheriff ; and this was
a case in which it ought to be done. In support of this
opinion the Learned Gentleman cited the case of Hewitt
v. Mantell, 2 Wilson, 372. If the Sheriff should be
called on to carry the writ into execution, the most se-
rious results might follow, in proof of which he cited the
comments of Lord Coke, in the second Institute, 45, c,

on the duty of Steriffs. But by granting t.'e time for
which he now asked, the matter might be settled by a
conference between the two Houses, and all the diffi-
culties which were now so apparent might be
avoided. But what was to be done in the.
mean time. Who were the persons who had
declared that the Court had .usurped its privi-
leges ? The representatives of the realm, who were
now in direct collision with the Courts of Law. They
were the tribunal who had on so many occasions exer-
cised their:power of committal, and had even extended
it to the Judges of the land, for alleged contempt.
The House had now taken a position from which it
could not recede, and no one could tell what they would
not do in the assertion of their rights. It, was a fear-
ful crisis, which might—endanger the tranquillity of
the metropolis, the authority of the Courts of Justice,
and even the Majesty of the. Crown.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALR-4 think in this case there
is not sufficient ground for the Court to interfere, and
you must have no rule.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

THE NEW JUDGE.

This morning an unwonted excitement prevailed in the
usually particularly quiet and solemn Common Pleas,
and a great crowd of persons rushed into the Court,
anxious to witness the ancient and singular ceremony of
admitting a Sergeant, it being imperatively necessary
that a Judge should have attained the degree of the
coil. Immediately upon the Judges taking their seats
Sir Robert Rolfe, the late Solicitor-General, appeared
at the bar, and the Sergeants and the other members of
of the bar remained, standing, while the following
forms were gone through :—The Master gave a paper
to Sir Robert, and another to Sergeant Wilde ; Sir
Robert proceeded to read some. exceedingly inexplicable
(at least to unenlighted ears) rigmarole, about a cer-
tain Henry Stocks, who had been defrauded of a
piece of land, value " half a mark," by some
other person—" whose name we were unable to catch"
(as the reporters say in the House of Commons)
and the said Henry Stocks claiming the judgment of
the Court to reinstate him in this valuable estate.
Then Sergeant Wilde from his paper read some-
thing we did not hear, and Sergeant Spankie said
something we did not understand ; the upshot, how-
ever, of the whole was, that the Lord Chief Justice
addressed Sir Robert as " Brother Rolfe"—(front
which it was clear that Sir Robert was a Sergeant)—
and asked him if be would move anything ? to which
Brother Rolfe responded by a respectfully negative
bow, and forthwith proceeded to " back out," after
shaking hands with as many Sergeants as he could get
at, and with as many stuff gown pinions as could get
at him.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY

(Sittings in Banco.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning, Sir R. M.
Rolfe, the late Solicitor-General, was sworn in and
took his seat as one of the Barons of the Court, in ti,e
room of Mr. Baron Mule, whose services have betn
transferred to the Court of Common Pleas.