The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-01 00:00:00

OMIVION_PLILi7S.—ciIIis DAY.)

COTTEN V. PARTRIDGE.
In_this action for debt a verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
subject to a nonsuit, upon a special case, by agreement. Sub-
sequently to the trial, the de:endant became bankrupt, and the
plaintiff declined to proceed.
Mr. WATSON, •for the defendant, now moved for a rule,
calling on the plaintiff to show cause why a verdict should not
he entered for the defendant. His object was to have the
special case argued, and put an end to the cause. 'I he argu-
ment would cot occupy twenty minutes.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—'That is an assumpsit without
consideration.—(Great laughter.) Take a rule.

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS DAY.)
THE QUEEN V. LSRD CHURCHILL.
At the sitting of the Court this morning, judgment in this
case was delivered by Mr. Baron Parke. It was a writ of
intrusion brought to recover certain lands possessed by the de-
fendant in Oxfordshire. In January last the Attorney-Gene-
ral obtained an order to change the venire into Hertimelshire,
on his mere suggestion, and without any affidavit upon an au-
thority in 2d Meesom and Weisby. Afterwards Sir W. Fol!ett. on
the part of the defendant, moved to discharge the crder.
He obtained a rule nisi, which was argued very
elaborately by the Attorney and solieitor-General and Sir W.
Follett last 'l erm. The point lay in a very narrow compass.
The. e was no doubt that a subject had no Such right, but the
Crown had many undoubted prerogatives in the conduct of
suits. The only question was whether this was one; of course,
like all other cases, this one must be determined by precedents
and the dictum of Judges. There was only one case of prece-
dent in a Writ of Intrusion—that was the King v. Parsons,
and it was well known that that case was decided exparte, and
under a mistake, occasioned by an inapplicable quotation of
a case in Saville from. Mr. Sergeant planning's Exchr quer
practice In Comyn's Digrst, D 83, it was laid down that
the King mar lay his action in any county he pleases in any
personal action," and that nictum had been held good by the
Court. 'lhe only point was in what sense the word personal'
was used. Now there seemed to be no doubt hut that a writ
of intrusion was a personal action—it was brought to recover
damages—not the land, for the Crown in the contemplation of the
law had never lost it. But the word personal' might
mean such actions as were for the recovery of debts or dama-
ges to the person or personal effee,s, and in that serve a Writ
of Intrusion was not a personal action. But it was said that
such a construction of the word personal would give the
Crown no prerogative at all. That was riot correct, for
there were statutes which obliged the subject to lay the
venue where the cause of action arose. There was, a very
old statute mentioned by Mr'. Tidd, as contained in the
laws of Henry the First, but it was not found in the
edition of the statutes published by the Commissioners of
public records; it provided that every one was to be " judged
by his peers, and of the same county." The 6th Richard 11.
was passed for the purpose of confining actions of debt, &c. to
their proper counties ; that statute was evaded, and the 4th
Henry V. was passed, which:directed attorneys to be sworn not
to bring actions in a foreign county. After that statute a prac-
tice grew up of pleading the impropriety of the venue in abate-
ment of the writ even before the plaint ill had declared, and then
the defendant was allowed to traverse the venue, and try the
traverse by the country. Tho practice of changing the venue
upon motion was introduced upon the equity of the statute of
Richard 11. But neither of these statutes bound the Crown,
and consequently with respect to all personal actions in the
sense of transitory actions, the Crown had a privilege which
the subject had not, and it was probable that was all the
Court intended in the case of the King v. Webb, for it
reported that that was a motion by the defendant to change
the venue from Aliddlesex to London, on the ground that if
there had been any conversion it was in London ; but the Court
refused it, and said the Crown had the prerogative to try his
personal action where he pleased. In the uncertainty attending
the principal cases reported, and in the absence of any precedent
whatever in an information of intrusion or other action termed
local, the Court were of opinion that the Crown officers had
failed to establish the right to the prerogative claimed. The
rule would, therefore, be made absolute, but the Attorney.
General, if he thought fit, might apply for a writ into another
county, upon a suggestion that the cause would not he in-
differently tried in Oxfordshire, as was the case in the only ap-
plication made to the Court in any writ of intrusion.
Rule to discharge the order was made absolute.
WILLIAMS V. LAWSON.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared to show cause against
a rule obtained by 'dr. Kelly, which called upon the defsnd-
ant to show cause why he shou'd not deliver over to the
plaintiff a copy of the issues; and also why an order for giving
security for costs should not be discharged. The plaintiff
,aid he had been a surgeon in the navy, and had been
improperly dismissed. He had made application to several
Boards of Admiralty bat unsuccessfully. In June, 1834,
he petitioned the House of Commons—the petition was
presented by Sir C. Codrington, and in doing so he made a
speech very laudatory of the plaintiff. He was replied to by
Sir Jas. Graham and Mr. Labouchere, two of the then Lords of
the Admiralty, and in the Times of next day;appeared a report
of the discussion. The plaintiff did not complain of any jaw:-
curacy in the report of the speeches of the two latter gentle-
men, but he alleged that the speech of Sir E. Codrington had
been cut short. Still the pla ntiff had slept upon his imagined
wrongs, for it was not until January, - 1830, that he
commenced his action for an alleged libel in the Par.
liameritary Report. The defendant pleaded three pleas—first,
not guilty ; secondly, that the Report was a fair and bona fide
account of what took place ; and, thirdly, a justification that
the charges imputed to the plaintiff were true. In 1836 the
defendant was ready to try, but the plaintiff did not go on, and
as he had no known residence in Eneland, the Court, on the
application of the defendant, .made an order for security of
costs. He took no steps, saying that at that time he entered
into the service of the Queen of Spain for two years. He re-
tired in 1837 ; but he, took no steps in the cause until 1840,
when it was found that the attorney had lost all the papers in
the cause. He did not suppose they imputed to the defendant
any knowledge of them, but they said they were lost, and they
wished the defendant to give them a stick to break his own
back, by giving him a copy of the issue. He also asked for
leave to go on without having complied with the order of the
Court. He had an affidavit from the solicitor of the &fend-
aut, from which it appeared that three of the witnesses who
would have proved their justification were now dead, and that
they had gone to an expense of 3501. in preparing their de-
fence ; and he trusted that after such a lapse of time the Court
would not grant such an extraordinary application.
Mr. II umerrey did not think it necessary to occupy their
Lordsbies' time.
Mr. KELLY and Mr. CROWDER, supported the rule. How-
ever extraordinary the application he trusted it. would be
granted fur the purposes of facilitating the administration of
jusiice; it was a case of misfortune, arid lie was informed that
of the three names of witnesses alleged to be dead, given in by
the defendant, one was in Court; and they had a letter from
another, saying he was not dead—(Laughter)—and was ready
to come forward. The defendant was now in England, and
had no intention of leaving it, so that the security icr costs was
not necessary.
The COURT discharged the rule with costs.

Her Majesty and Prince Albert, with the
Prince and Princess of Leiningen, attended by
the usual Suite, left
.Buckingliam Palace
at three o'clock this afternoon for Windsor
Castle,. The Court will remain at 'Windsor until
Thursday next.

A Cabinet Council was summoned yesterday
to meet at the Foreign-office to-day. The Mi-
nisters assembled at Fialf-past one o'clock. Most
of the Cabinet were present.
A numerous deputation, on the subject of Rail-
ways, bad an interview this morning with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells has issued
the filiowiug circular to the ( lerg;i of his diore e
T:ie Palace, W Apr,l 2i to, 1841.
" Rev. Sir,---I have heard, vd-t, F, Ll:Anise arid concern,
of tile pr)posed interference of some of the clergy of my
diocese with t e proceedings at Oxford with reference to
the (so called) Oxford Tracts.

"`Allow me to observe that, in my judgment, it %you'd
be more correct and judicious for my clergy to leave the
important queFtion now in discussion at Oxford to the de-
cision of the Heads of Houses, and to the Bishcp of that
diocese.

I am, Rev. Sir, your faithful brother,
GEO. H. BArti AND WELLS."
GARD^NS, PAic
th"
hauitation, riec,ly attired • in teariet dull:, with gold lace, over
which was placed an elegant cutler, with eight seats, occupied
by ladies and gentlemen, who were carried up and down the
walks.