The Sun.
London, England, 1823-04-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, APRIL 29.
The LORD CHANCELLOR remained occupied in hlic private
room from 10 o'clock this morning till 1. Hie Lordship then
heard part of the case of " Farquarson v. Balfour,', and
rose at 2.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, APRIL 29.
( Sitting of the JUDGES after Term.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE brought into Court his Ma-
jesty's warrant, granted under the late statute, for disposing of
the arrears of tern! business, and directed that it should be read

by the officer.
The warrant commanded the Judges, or two of them, to sit
at We.stminster-hall, Sergeant's-inn, or some other convenient
plaie, from the 21st day of May next, to the commencement
of Easter term, for the dispatch of business which should re-
main in arrear at the conclusion of the present term.
- The LORD CrirEr JusTrcE notified that the Judges would
sit in some apartment adjoining the place.where the Court now
sits, and that he should endeavour to Make arrangements to
sit at Nisi Prius at Westminster during the same period.

NOVELLO v. Towooop.
The discussion of this case, adjourned on Friday, was now
resumed. It may be remembered, the question was, whether a
chorister in the chapel of the Portuguese Ambassador, residing
in a house separate from that of the embassy, letting part of his
house to lodgers, and engaged as prompter at the Opera-house,
and a teacher of languages, has a right of action if his goods

are disttained for rat-es, faxes, or rent.
Mr. E. Lewks resumed his arguMent in the negative of this
question. He urged that the privileges never extended to any
goods but those of the Embassy, and that the seizure of the
plaintiff's property could not deprive him of the ability to per-
form his accustomed duties. Their loss would not affect his
voice, nor injure his musical skill. It would be perfectly mon-
strous if a person in such a capacity could take houses apart
from the Antbassador, let them to lodgers, and then evade the
payment of rent and taxes, on the pretext that the rights of the
Ambassador rendered his property as well as person inviolate.
:Mr. CAMPBELL, in reply, contended that no distinction bad
yet been taken between_ the person and the, goods of a person at-
tached to the Ambassador's suit. .If the property of a person
in the confidence of the Ambassador were subject to process,
the dispatches from his Court, and the dresses appointed for his
suit, might be taken by the Sheriff of Middlesex, when imme.
diately requisite for the purposes of the embassy. This country
had always shown greet respect for the religion of Ambassadors;
and it was found by the case that Mr. Novellu'e assistance was
required in performing the most solemn rites df.' the Catholic
faith. What those rites were, he (Mr. Campbell) did not pro-
fess to know ; but he believed a chorister was employed in some
of those mysteries which excited the deepest veneration ; and
thus a poet of that faith had thought when' he described the
ceremonies of mass
" From the full choir when loud Hosannas rise,
" And fill flie.pinup of dreadful sacrifice."
The Cou ghve judgment for the defendant on this single
ground that the privilege claimed was not at all essential to the
performance of those services ,which the plaintiff was bound to
render. They would sustain the privileges of an embassador, as
far as they could, contribute to his convenience, construing that
convenience. in regard to his rank, his.offiee, and his religion :
but it was the privilege of ••an ttietbaseadoe, not of the servant;
and it was impossible that any ambassador could desire that a
person.engaged.• occasionally to afford him certain aisistance,
should protect himself freni liability to contribute to the sup-
port of the revenue, or to the burdens of the parish in which he
resided. Such a construction would he contrary to every prin-
ciple of the law. The ambassador could suffer nothing by the
seizure of these goods under process of law, and therefore a non-
suit must be entered, as the plaintiff had no ground of Bedell.
—A nonsuit was entered accordingly.
COURT OF ARCHES, APRIL 23.
Sir Jon NICHOLL this morning, had no sooner teleen his
seat, than he proceeded to express the sentiments he entertain-
ed with regard to the case of Mr.. Clarkson; the gentleman ac-
cused of irregular professional conduct-. The Court was un-
usually crowded, and, theehrong of auditors consisted tamest
the whole of the circumstances forming
entirely of individuals -who practise in' these Courts The
this caseeseioxlostrukaoldiri
beggar considered
iibtiveaaultni
brought
sbtjei niledrtlui4veleu
sitting
rlwethalultati;gic:ettet asatillliotfta nowt il
rO be
oe.
'lt had, in. the. first- instance, engaged the attention of the
Prerogative Court,- where a sentence of suspension for twelve
months had been pronounced, anti as Judge in a Court of co-
ordinate jurisdiction, he had now to review those same
irregularities which led already been the subject of :mimed-
version and censure. Since that period, indeed, an affidavit
had been submitted to hint. from Mr. Clarkson, couched in
very proper terms ; but though the sentiments which it pro.
teased were so far creditable to him, yet there was a duty to
the public that must not be eyaded, • and a respect due to the
profession that was utterly irreconcilable with conduct like diet
of the practitioner who now stood before the Court. Unfortu-
nately this was not the first • instance in the professional
' life of Mr. Clarkson, for it was only three years ago since a
similar deviation bad been brought under his (Sir J. .Nicholl's)
• notice, and overlooked. Whether lie had acted wisely in such
forbearance was now questionable . but even yet be was dis-
posed to ace with all the lenity that the nature of the ease anclitis
own judicielduty Would allow. Mr. Clarkson had claimed credit
for right intentions; he had stated hie ignoraneeof the amount
of •the specific charge that he was warranted in making; and he
had likewise declared that in the charge which lie did make he
was guided by . the instructions of en experienced person.—
' But the business done was little more than a matter of form,
and it was scarcely creditable that it was the first occasion of
Mr. Clarkson taking out an administration de War non, or
that he could have been .in the state of ignorance describ-
ed. If,' however extraordinary as it seemed, such was
the professional inexperience. of this Gentlemen, to whom
ought he to have had recourse for advice and inf'or'mation?
In whose knowledge ought he to have confided in order to
secure his own fair remuneration, on the one hand, and to avoid
the impropriety and injustice of an exorbitant demand upon the
other ? Surely to the Registrar or hie Deputy, whose acquaint-
ance with these matters was indisputable, and from whom a
correct statement might have been at once obtained; or he:
might have referred to some old Proctor, whose character arid
experience would have been equally good authorities for the
truth of what they communicated. But he did neither. On
the contrary, lie pursued a course ivitich to every Hone Member
of the profession must appear remarkable. He applied to a'
person employed as a bilLantiker by trade, and whose profits,
and whose employment, were probably in proportion teethe.
amount and exorbitancy of the charges, which, by his means.
were extorted from different clients. A worse authority could
not hbe been selected ; this individual was unknown, and.no.
thing preve.nted the Court from culling for a disclosure of his
nante.leit an unihrstanding that the charge in question was
not of' ordinary occurrence. He had a distinct recollection of
the former case, that of Prentice v. Prentice, having before him
notes „taken preseuti facto, and the impressions made at the
time being, therefore, fresh in his mind. In the instance now
before them, the amount of Mr. Clarkson's bill'was 191. 143.4 d.,
which, upon taxation, was redeced to 9/. Ws. (Id. or nearly one
half of the original charge. There were in it six items of ex.
cessive charge ; one of Which, anti the principal, was 111. 45.,
instead of 11. RN. 2d. or almost six times the just and legal
amount. It was in vain to allude to the confusion introduced
by recent alterations of the stamp-duties since they did not
apply to the present case, and because a slight attention to those
charges would show, that in proportion to the amount of pro-
:party to be administered,. and. the increased expellee of the
stamps, was the progressive increase in the amount of the Proc.:.
tor's lawful fees. Mr. Clarkson's conduct stood.therefore with-
out excuse or alteration. Ile had persisted in this demand to
the last, and bad delayed, as long as it was possible, his wear,
ance before the Court. With regard to his apologies for certain
expressions that had fallen front hint on a previous occasion, he
(Sir .1. Nicholl) could only say that they had escaped his no-
tice, and that he had heard nothing but what the agitation of
the moment might well account for and excuse. Still tme
happily the whole case did not rest here. It was in evidence
that two persona who had arrived in town from 'Clleshain, in
the county of Buckingham,. directed, in the usual course of
business, by their Attorney in the country to. his Procter in
town, came to Doctor's Commons, and there, not knowing their
way to Mr. Swabey's, inquired for the Administration Office.
They were picked up by a porter waiting in the purlieus, and
conducted to Mr. Clarkson's, who, without asking them, whe-
ther they were seeking for any other practitioner, readily un,
dertook their business. This porter had made an affidavit that
he was not employed to find persons and to bring them to any
particular office. He had also sworn that he received no gre-
enly or share of the remuneration for hie trouble. But it wits
difficult to imagine that the whole of thieporter's representation
Was correct, end though it were; still was Mr. Clarkson'► cop-
duct net flair or honourable to his professional brethren. Where
would such practices end if they were generally resorted to ?
Where. but in offering hribes for business, and outbiddingg, each
other for its proCurement ? Not only must they degrade the
profession, but they were, in point of fact, pro tibtted, both
by analogy with the 35. th and 133 d Canons, and by sPt-
cial orders agreed to by the College in the . year 1742, and
signed by the most eniment advocates of that day; It had'
been declared that hawking-and plying for business was:an
infamous practice, and was deserving of eleiriplary censure and
animativereeion. The Judge ldmself, as well as every otheriof.
fiver of tbe,Court, was rendered liable to auspension, and: that
too on a first offence, who should be convicted of taking intro-
per or exorbitant fees. A repetition of the offence sehjeceed

him to a removal from the profession. An attorney in the
Courts of Common Law, whose bill was taxed to the amount of
one-sixth, incurred punishment; here was a case in which the
whole excess was nearly double, and upon one particular item
almost 5-6ths. Undoubtedly justice to the public required that
the objects should not be overlooked, which the legislature had
in view in the several statutes on this subject, and more espe-
cially in that of 53d of George 111. He was not now proceed-
ing unadvisedly, for the demerits of the case were further, ag-
gravated by the attempt to colour them by the introduction of
falsehood. The affidavit of Mr. Swabey, who had vouched
his clerk, left no room for any doubt as to this attempt. lie
(Sir John Nicholl) had consulted other Judges upon the whole
subject, and-their unanimous opinion was, that justice ought
to take its course. To allow a party{ to practise in that
Court, who had been suspended in the Prerogative Court,
did seem to him an inadmissible proposal, and his judgment
was, that the same sentence of suspension for twelve months
from last coeval day, be registered in the Court of Arches. Some
appeals had been made to the compassion of the Court, and if
it was supposed' that he (the Judge) did not feel both for the
party himself, and still snore for those nearly and dearly_con-
nected with him, a very erroneous notion was formed respect-
ing him. But the honour of the profession, as well as the rights
of the public and the pure administration of law, were at stake.
Painful as the subject was, and he had labourd to compthat
ress
the whole question, he had still the gratification u) reflect
it was the brat example of a public suspension that had occur-
red during the fourteen years which he had sat in that chair,
and the forty during which he had attended in those Courts.
He believed that, in his predecessor's time, there was one in-
stance of misconduct, but it was followed only by aprivAte SUS'
pension, and it had no other object than to compel the indivi-
dual to, obey an order of the Court. His judgment now was,
that Wm. Gering Clarkson, Proctor, be suspended for twelv e
months. In the event of any future similar misconduct, in the,
same party, that Court would feel itself under the necessity et
removing lain from his profession.