The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-25 00:00:00

COURT OF REQUESTS.

On Saturday a numerous meeting of the Conamis-
sionei s of the ‘Vhitechapel Court of Requests, was
held in their large room in Osborn-street, in consequence
of one of their body, Mr. Brushfield, being some time
ago served with notice of action for false imprisonment,
and to consider the best means of providing the neces-
sary funds for defending such action.
It appears that some six or seven weeks ago Mr.
Jeremiah John Kelly, landlord of the Black Horse
public-house, in Shadwell, had been summoned before
the Commissioners of the Court for a sum of money
alleged to be due to the members of a musical band,
who had been engaged to play for the members of
Mr. Hutchinson's Committee, during the last election
for the Tower Hamlets. On the hearing of the case,
the claimants swore they were hired by Mr. Kelly, who
was r.n active member of Mr. Hutchinson's Committee,
and, therefore, they looked to him for payment. Mr.
Kelly, in reply, denied the hiring of the band, but ad-
mitted at the same time they gave their services for two
days to the cause of Mr. Hutchinson, and he (Mr.
Hutchinson) should in justice pay them.
The applicants, however, repeated they had been en-
gaged by Mr. Kelly, and the Commissioners, in con-
sequence, made an order on him for the payment.
Mr. Kelly feeling annoyed at what he considered
an improper decision, got into a great passion, and ad-
dressing Mr. Brushfield, who had taken the most pro-
minent part in the hearing of the case, told him, with
some warmth, he was as good a man as he was, and
that they would meet somewhere else.
Mr. Brushfield considering this, from the tone and
manner in which it bad been expressed, not only an in-
sult to the dignity of the Court, but in the nature of a
personal threat towards himself, ordered Gregory, one
of the officers of the Court, to take him into custody.
Mr. Kelly was accordingly taken into custody, and
several of the Commissioners requested he would make
an apology, but he refused to offer any unless one of a
very qualified description, and Mr. Brushfield, feeling
dissatisfied with it, appealed to Mr. Lang, a solicitor,
who is one of the clerks of the Court. That gentle.
man recommended his (Mr. Kelly's) removal to Lam-
beth-street Police Court, and he was accordingly taken
there and charged by Mr. Brushfield with a want of
proper courtesy towards the Court, and the threat to-
wards himself. On referring to the authorities upon
the subject, Mr. Norton discovered he hal no jurisdic-
tion in the matter, and that the Commissioners had
by their own Act, the only power of punishing par-
ties under such circumstances, as it enacted, " that if
any person or persons shall contemptuously and wilfully
insult or abuse any of the said Commissioners or any of
the officers of the said Court during its proceedings, it shall
be lawful for the beadle of the Court to take such person or
persons, by orderof the said Commissioners, into custody ;
and the said Commissioners shall then examine into
such insult, &c., on oath, and upon such nsult, abuse,
or misbehaviour being duly proved, it shall and may be
lawful to and for the said Commissioners to impose a
fine not exceeding 5/. for each and every such offence."
The clause then empowers them to issue a warrant of
distress on the goods of such person, and if he has none,
to commit him to the House of Correction for two
months.

Mr. Lang, finding the dilemma he was placed in,
ordered his officer to take Mr. Kelly back to the Court-
house to be dealt with by the Commissioners, but Mr.
Kelly refused to comply with the request, and told the
beadle of the Court that if he attempted to take him
back, he must take the consequences, as he was not
legally in custody. The beadle took the hint, and Mr.
Kelly was allowed to go at large, and he has since
brought an action against Mr. Brushfield for false im-
prisonment.
After some discussion, it was moved and seconded
that the expense of defending the action be defrayed
out of the funds of the Court. Mr. Waite, one of the
Commissioners, strenuously opposed the proposition,
and urged that, as Mr. Lang had been allowed a very
liberal salary as one of the legal advisers of the Court,
and had led the Court into error, he should pay the
expenses out of his own pocket. Mr. Waite also urged
that the funds from which it was intended to defend the
action were barely suffieient to pay the officers ; and
that, therefore, it would be unjust to meddle with them
for this purpose. The proposition was, however, car-
ried, Mr. Waite's being the only hand held up against it.