The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-10 00:00:00

COSTS OF THE CROWN.

In the course of a discussion which took place in re-
ference to an arrangement for the trial of one of the
cases in the paper, some allusion was made to the rule
which prevails, that the Crown should neither pay nor
receive costs.
Lord Campbell observed, that he never understood the
principle on which the rule was said to rest, and he
hoped the rule would not long continue in our law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to that expression
of hope, and
Sir F. THESIGER said he entertained the same feeling,
and he believed the rule would not long continue.
Lord CAMPBELL said the rule was without justification
in principle. If the Crown was called upon to enforce a
right against a subject, there was no reason why the
Crown should not receive the costs, nor why a subject
in like manner, enforcing a right against the Crown,
should not be reimbursed his expenses. What was done
by the Crown was for the public benefit, and ought to
be paid for by the public. In former times the revenues
of the Crown were distinct from the public revenues,
and it was considered to be beneath the dignity of the
Crown either to pay or to receive costs. But now the
revenues of the Crown were derived from the public, and,
there being no longer anything of a private or personal
nature in cases like the present, there was no reason for
the rule which had prevailed hitherto.

THE RIGHT OF USAGE.—IMPORTANT CABS.—In the
Liverpool Court of Passage yesterday a case of very con-
siderable importance, and one which excited a great in-
terest in commercial circles, came on for trial. A custom
has obtained in Liverpool that on all ordinary bills of
lading, no matter what their wording is, even the words
"freight to be paid on delivery" being introduced, the
amount is paid less 3 months' discount, unless where a
specific clause is put in making the freight payable on
delivery less discount. This custom, although most
'universally submitted to, has been in sotrie instances dis-
puted, and in a few instances the lurk. freight has been
paid by consignees rather than incur the legal expense
of asserting the custom, where the amount in dis-
pute was in some cases a few pence, in others
a few shillings. A short time ago a vessel call
and
ed
the Zodiac, from Alexandria, arrived at this port, ,
her bills of lading being endorsed to Messrs. Wil-
liam Rathbone and Co., they obtained the portion
of the charge consigned to them, the freight upon which
was 4461. 6s. Messrs. 7.3,athbone tendered the captain
4411. Os. 11d., being I,'ne full amount of freight, I'e
discount, for three in, miths, which was refused, This
amount, however, wa ,s subsequently received without
prejudice, and it was Agreed that the decisic,n of a compe-
tent tribunal should bc, taken on the legality of the cus-
tom. The bill of bid'ing in the pr ..sent case stated the
freight was to be pale, at a certain rate, but no time for
payment was specific ,d, and on this a sum of 51. ss. was
sought to be moo' vered. For the plaintiff, Captain
Jarvis, of the Zoe liac, it was argued that no custom
could overrule a* vritten agreement, and that evidence
of custom was nc t admissible. The assessor ruled that
evidence was a, Imissible not to contradict, but in ex-
planation of t 1 ,e written document, and this evidence
having establa ned the existence of the custom, a verdict
was returned f Jr the defendants, Messrs. Rathbone and
Co. The lega- 1 point as to whether the custom can over-
rule a writt en agreement, was reserved for consideration
by the asst sse r, who intimated that if either parties were
dissatisfie,d with his judgment, every facility would be
given f.,,r carrying this important question before
higher tribtKal.