The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-09 00:00:00

_..~1~

BAIL COURT.
Mr. Justice LiTTLEDALE sat this morning to bear mo-
tions.

Mr. HOGGINS applied for a rule to show cause why an
award should not be set aside, on the ground, that the
matters in dispute between the parties wife referred to
the arbitration of three persons, with power for two of
them to hear and determine on the case. The evidence
on both sides was heard by all three arbitrators, and af-
terwards two of them made an award, from which the
other dissented. He contended, that as all three had
heard the case, they ought all to join in making an award.
Mr. Justice LiTTLEDALF—Take a rule,
GUEST V. ELWES.
Mr. mored for a rule directing the Master to re-
view his taxation in this cause. Ile made the application
under the 3d and 4th William IV., c. 42, which gave
the Court the power to order judgment to be entered up
according to the justice of the case. The present action
was brovht against the Sheriff for an escape, and the de-
fendant pleaded not guilty. Thetury found for the de-
fendant on two of the issues, and for the plaintiff on the
third, and that the defendant had been guilty of a ne-
gligent omission to arrest, and on that ground gave plain- '
tiff damages, 301. The Master on taxation had allowed
the full costs of the cause, although on two of the issues
a verdict was found for the defendant.—Rule granted
GOMI'ERTZ V. BURFORD.
Mr. HUMPHREY applied fora rule ef:ing upon the plain-
tiff to show cause why the rule
r a special jury in the cause
should not be discharged. It. was admitted that the rule
was obtained for the rr:apose of delay in consequence of
plaintiff not being-Milo to procure the attendance of a
witness. 'r defendant's affidavit stated that he himself
had submeaod the witness that plaintiff alleged he could
not find, and informed plaintiff where he might find him if
ho wished, but notwithstanding, which he had not thought
proper to subpoena him.—Rule granted.

COMMON PLEAS.--(THIS DAY.)

DAVIS V. CURTIS.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the judgment o,
the Court in this case. It was an application to make a
rule absolute for the discharge of the defendant from cus-
tody, under the 48th of Gee. 111., c. 17, he having snffered
an imprisonment of twelve months for a debt not exceeding
201. The application when first made was not consistent
with the rules of the Court, which required that ten days
notice should be given to the plaintiff, and therefore it was
in fact no application at all. He would, in the first place,
ask the prisoner whether he would give in a schedule, in
doing which he might use his own discretion, and imme-
diately after the Court would make the rule absolute for
his discharge.
The prisoner, who was brought up in custody, said he
was not prepared to give in a schedule.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE--.DO you wish for time to do so,
or do you refuse to give in a schedule ?---The prisoner sig-
nified that he would not give in a schedule.
Mr. MAuNetta. said that the 'ld of the 32d Geo. 111.,
c. 42, regekireci the Court to Q; der the prisoner to make an
assessment.

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The Court can make an order
to that effect, bat they must now make the rule absolute
for the discharge of the prisoner, and he might if he pleased
make an assignment.
The rule was accordingly made absolute.
BEER V. MOORE.
Mr. THESSIGER said, that in this case an action had been
brought upon a bill of exchange for 300/., to which the de-
fendant pleaded that he had received no notice of the dis-
honour of the bill. In order to obtain a speedy trial the
action was set down to be tried at Guildford ; the defen-
dant did not appear to support his plea, and the plaintiff
obtained judgment, with execution for 1004, being part of
the sum and damages. When the parties went before the
Prothonotary he refused to allow the extra costs of the
ease being tried at 'Guildford instead of London. He
said that the parties ought to have taken the trial in Lon-
don, and that they had no right to take the case to Surrey.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that it would be a very
hard thing upon parties to increase their expenses by driv-
ing them to a distant county.
I !Mr. THESSIGER said, that there certainly might be case
where it would be a great hardship to take a case from the
place where the witnesses resided, but there were exceptions
to this general rule. In the present case it would have
been impossible for the parties to have proceeded in Lon-
don before the present term, and the object of trying the
cause at Guildford, was to obtain a speedy judgment.
It was the fault of the defendant that they had been driven
to trial at all—it was in consequence of his putting a false
plea upon the record, by which he forced the plaintiff to
trial. He never appeared to support his plea, and under
these circumstances, it was very hard to say that the
plaintiff should not be at liberty to take advantage of the
opportunity offered him to obtain judgment.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE appeared for the defendant. He
said that in one sense it was always the fault of the defen-
dant that the plaintiff went to trial. His motion was
against the inveterate general rule that when the Protho-
notary disallowed an entire entry the Court might be called
upon to interfere, but when it was a question of amount it
was universally left to the discretion of the officer. There
might be cases of vexation, but if the present application
were allowed they would have a motion in every case to
discuss, whether this or that particular proceeding was
correct, and conducted with due economy ?
The CHIEF JUSTICE understood that the Prothonotary
laid down a principle on which he acted.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said that the Prothonotary did as
he would do in all cases. He allowed the attorney in this
case the same costs which he would have allowed, had the
case been tried at Guildhall. If a party, for the advance-
ment of his own interest, either for speed or security, takes
an expensive and unnecessary proceeding, it was very hard
to call upon the other side to sustain the expense. The
Prothonotary exercised a sound judgment, fbr had he allowed
these costs, there would be no ground for refusing the extra
costs of cases tried at Newcastle, or at Lancaster, or at Laun-
ceston. The plaintiff had no right to speculate upon a speedy
judgment. If the plaintiff were in a situation to get it in
the ordinary practice of the Court, he might get it in town.
Supposing the case had not been taken to Guildford, it
would have been tried at the first sittings in London, and
he would ask if there was here such delay as justified a de-
parture from the ordinary course ? The plaintiff was not
entitled to take proceedings at the expense of the defend-
ant, for the purpose of getting the chance of the earliest
possible trial and judgment. The question was, whether
the Prothonotary had allowed a sufficient sum for the ex-
penses of the attorney's attendances? This was a matter
strictly in the discretion of the Prothonotary, and he sub-
mitted to the Court that that officer, in the present instance,
had exercised a sound discretion.
The PROTHONOTARY said that of course it was for the
Court to decide upon the principle on which he had acted.
It was the uniform practice of the officer, in cases of this
sort, to disallow these extra costs ; and it was only yester-
day, before Mr. Prothonotary Wray, that a similar case oc-
curred, when the case had been taken to a very distant
county, and the costs thus multiplied beyond idea ; but Mr.
Wray had reduced the costs as they had been reduced in
the present case, to what they would have been if the trial
had taken place where the cause of action arose.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Is the practice in the King's
Bench the same as in the Exchequer ?
The PROTHONOTARY could not undertake to say wha
the practice was in the other Courts.

Tile LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the question was
of the first importance, as forming a precedent in future
cases of this kind. Looking at it as a question of law, he
felt a difficulty in laying down such a principle as that
adopted by the Prothonotary, as the plaintiff had a right
to lay the venue where he pleased. Before giving any
opinion, he would inquire what the practice was in the
other Courts, as it was of the highest importance that
the practice should be assimilated as much as possible.

CORNISH V. KEENE.
This case, which was part-heard on Monday, was then
proceeded with, Mr. Scrjeant Wilde following on the same
side as the Attorney-General.