The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT or KING'S BENCH, MAT 13.
THE XING V. THE. COUNTY CLEW: OF MIDDLESEX•

This was a rule Oiiiaiied, last Term by Mr. French, calling
on George Heath, Esq. to shew cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be filed against him for supposed corrupt con-
duct in his office of County Clerk of Middlesex. •
Mr. ScAnLETT (with whom was Mr. BRODIIICI) sow
spewed cause. The rule was obtained on the joint affidavits of
James Hulme, a pawnbroker, of No. 55, Museum-street,
Bloomsbury, and Charles Perry, his servant. From this, it
appeared that a person named Joseph Brock, who had been in
the service of Mr. Huhne, at a, salary of Xi/. per annum, and
having been suddenly dismissed, in December last, summoned
his master in the County Court, Kingsgate-street (appointed
by the statute of 23 Geo. II.), for a month's wages, on the
ground that he was entitled to a month's warning. The sum
claimed was 11. 19s. Ild. On that occasion Mr. Hulnie and
Perry attended for the purpose' of disproving Brock's claim,
but George Heath, Esq. the County Clerk, or his deputy, who
then presided, prevented Mr. Hulme, as was alleged, from
entering into his defence, and upon persisting in his de-
sire to be keard, he and his servant were desired to hold
their tongues and quit the Court ; whereupon the County
Clerk or his deputy, or the Register or Clerk, made nut
an absolute order for the payment of IL 19s. Ild. debt, and
ss. 6d. costs; and on the 24th of January he (Hulme) was
arresed, and he then paid the debt and 63. 10d. cost, for which
he obtained a receipt from the officer. The affidavit then stated,
that in two other instances (dates not mentioned), Hulme
had been summoned twice in the sane Court, by two
persons, named Gent and Griffin, respectively, for debts, and
that, although in one instance, he had been summoned before
the Commissioners of Requests, in Castle-street, Leicester:
square, who determined that there was no pretence for the de.
mand, and in the other be had been summoned before the Ma-
gistrates' of Marlborough-street, who also determined, that the
claim in that case could not he supported, yet G. Heath, Esq.,
or his Deputy, then presiding on those occasions respectively,
refused to hear Hulme in his defence, telling him that the
County Court had nothing to do with any other Courts, and de-
siring him to hold his tongue. From this statement three headi
of complaint were to be collected. First, the supposed refusal
to hear Mr. Ilulme, in his defence, to the summonses taken out
by Brock ; second, the supposed refusal to hear him in his de-
fence to the summonses of Mr. Gent and Mr. Griffin, respec-
tively ; and third, a demand of more fees than were authorised
by the statute, by which the Court was constituted. The affi-
davit mentioned a fourth complaint, namely, that the cases in
question were determined by a Jury of only three persons, in.
stead of twelve, as required by the same statute. Now, in an-
swer to this case, there was a decisive objection in point of form,
which, as Mr. S. thought, would be alone sufficient to dispose
of the rule. The rule was obtained against Mr. Heath, where-
as the supposed misconduct was imputed to the Deputy County
Clerk, for whose supposed criminal acts his principal could not
be liable. It was curious that the affidavit imputed the sup=
posed misconduct to G. Heath, Esq. or his Deputy then pre-
siding ; the fact being that the Deputy alone had presided; and,
in conclusion, the affidavit alleged that Mr. Heath, in the con-
duct adopted by the Deputy, was actuated by corrupt motives
towards the complainant.
The CHIEr JUSTICY—Then there is no ground for calling
upon the Court to interfere against Mr. Heath. The affidavit
in support of the rule shews nothing which he can be called
upon to answer.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that although he was entitled to dis-
charge the rule upon Mr. Hulme's own affidavit, yet Mr.
Heath was anxious that the whole matter should be sifted to
the bottom. Several persons, it seemed, had been very indus-
trious in circulating reports that improper fees were taken in
the County Court, and therefore Mr. Heath was naturally