The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

111 r. Justice WILLIAMS did not consider this to be
a case for a mandamus ; the auditor had the remedy in
his own hands by refusing to pass any items for which
vouchers were not produced.—Application refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, F.eß. 1:
(Sittings in Banco.)
HARRISON V. WARNEFORD.,
This was an action brought against the defendant
as the Managing Director of the %Vest Cork Mining
Company, which was tried so long ago as November
1839, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. In
the present term a rule nisi to set aside the ver-
dict on the ground of collusion w-as obtained,
and on a former day Mr. Kelly and. Mr. Hum-
frey were heard against the rule, and Sir F. Pol-
lock in its support. To-day, Mr. Henderson was fur-
ther heard in support of the rule, and argued that the
delay which had taken place did not put the defendant
out of Court, as they had been seeking redress in
another way, they havitv, applied to a Court
of Equity—so that in fact they had been only guilty of
an error. He would not detain the Court on the ques-
tion of collusion, if they were against him .on the point
of time.
The COURT said the application came, too late, and
the rule must therefore be discharged.
Rule discharged with costs.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WDVD.
Mr. JOHN Jitavis appeared on the part of the Crown
to show cause why a Commission should not issue to
examine witnesses abroad in this case. He, in the first
place, would wish his Learned Friend, kir. Wight-
man, to produce any authority, showing t.h at the re-
venue side of the Court had any jurisdiction in
such a case to grant the application. He had
made diligent search, and could not find any. It
would be a most dangerous precedent, for, if once al-
lowed, there would never be an Excise or Customs
cause in which there would not he some material wit-
ness abroad.

Mr. WIGIMIAN relied upon the Ist of William IV.,
chap. 22; but
The COURT said they clearly got no jurisdiction
from that Act : they could not grant the app lice-
tion, but they had the power of putting off the trial
upon q proper application.—Rule refused.

FISHER. V. PRYME AND OTHERS.
Mr. KELLY appeared to show cause against a rule
obtained by Sir F. Pollock, for the purpose of having
the Master's taxation reviewed. The Learned Gentle-
man said this was an action for libel in which the
plaintiff, a most respectable banker in Cambridge, had
had perjury imputed to him—it was altogether a gross
case, and the plaintiff would undoubtedly have ob-
tained large damages. But upon the cause being
called on, the Learned Judge, Mr. Baron Alder-
son, suggested a compromise, and it coming from
such a quarter was acted upon, upon an understanding
that the plaintiff was to be paid his full costs. That
understanding was now denied"; but could any of their
Lordships doubt, for one moment, that a plaintiff stand-
ing in such an advantageous position would have consented
to withdraw his case from the consideration of a Jury,
who no doubt would have given large damages
upon any other terms than a complete indem-
nification from all costs. He swore that those were
his instructions to his attorney, and the latter swore that
the understanding at the arrangement of the case was
that the costs should be as between attorney and client.
The Master had so taxed them, and he hoped the
Court would not interfere, and so fine the plaintiff, who
bad been the injured party, to the amount of 1501.
Sir F. PonLocx said that in the hearing of so many
of his brethren ho was happy to say that ever since
he had had the honour of filling a place in the part of
the Court he then occupied (before the Bar), he had
never signed a brief allowing a client of his to pay costs
as between attorney and client—he insisted upon having
a sum named which his opponent would be satis-
fied with, and let the costs be taxed in the
usual way. lie denied most positively that it was ever
a matter of course that the costs should be otherwise
taxed, unless the briefs were so endorsed. No arrange-
ment could be made:by the attorneys for such a purpose.
It was positively sworn that the arrangement was tht
usual one, and agreed to by the attorney for the plaintiff;
he had to answer that affidavit, and what did he say
in his most glib affidavit ? Why that if ho had ever
made such an agreement it must hare been by way
of a joke. There was no joke, however, in
his other proceedings. The manner in which
costs had been heaped up in this libel case was
a libel upon the administration of justice. He
knew not where the fault rested, but in this case
where all parties knew that there was no justifi•
cation, and that the only defence would be an
utter disclaimer, that the plaintiff was the party
attacked, the costs amounted to no less than 3.501. ;
the expence of the declaration alone was 401. ; and to
prove that the party attacked was the respectable
and well-known Conservative Mayor of Cambridge
and banker, which might have been done, if at all
possible, by five hundred persons in Cambridge,
witnesses were brought from the most remote parts of
the kingdom. But the fact of the briefs being signed
in the usual manner, and that his affidavits were not
in any way contradicted, would induce the Court to
make the rule absolute.

The COURT referred it to the Master to have laid
before him the indorsements on the briefs held by the
respective counsel at the trial, and to report the same
to the Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 1.
(Sittings in Banco.)
JOHNSON AND OTHERS V. FREEDMAN AND °TITERS.
The defendants were executors to a legator from
whom the plaintiffs held a bill of exchange, for which
this action was brought. In the meantime the de-
fendants filed a bill in equity, and this Court gave
leave to plaintiffs to proceed in Chancery under
that bill. Mr. Sergeant Manning subsequently
obtained a rule nisi to compel the plaintiffs
to pay the costs of the proceedings at common law, it
having been their intention to proceed in equity. The
Solicitor-General now showed cause against that rule,
contending that the defendants, by filing the bill in
Chancery, had prevented the plaintiffs from going on
in this Court, and had therefore no right to complain
that the latter did not continue the proceedings. The
Court, however, was of opinion that the plaintiffs hav-
ing made their election to go from this Court into
Chancery, should pay the costs here incurred.—Rule
made absolute.

RUSSELL V. BLAKE.

This wal an action upon a bill of exchange, in
which a verdict was given for the plaintiff upon the
evidence of one of the indorsers. An objection was
made at the trial to the admissibility of that witness,
and leave was given to move for a non-suit.
A rule nisi for a nonsuit was obtained last term, and
cause shown against it by Mr. Sergeant Channel!.
This day the Court gave judgment, ruling that the
evidence of the endorser was inadmissible, and that the
plaintiff must be nonsuited.

INDIAN ARCHIPELAGO.

BAIL COURT, FEB. 1.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
THE QUEEN v. THE OVERSEERS OF THE HALIFAX
UNION—MANDAMUS.
Mr. WIGHTMAN moved for a rule calling upon the
overseers of Halifax to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue, ordering them to produce an account
of certain items of expenditure in their account to the
auditor appointed by the Poor-law Commissioners.
This application was mado under the 67th section of
the Poor-law Act. The Overseers had produced their
accounts before the auditor, and among the
items therein contained was an article for constables' ex-
penses, 10,11. Os. 81d. The auditor had called for
the particulars of these expenses, which the overseers
had refused to give, and he now moved for a mandamus
to compel them to do so.