The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-09 00:00:00

LITERATURE.

PRACTICE OF 711 E COUIVTY COURTS,
AND CITY OF LONDON SMALL DEBTS
CO Ult TS. By John Jagoe, Esq., Barrister-at- Law.
The fourth edition of the " Practice of the County
Courts," by Mr. Jagoe, has been just published. It
is an elaborate work, treating of every subject not
only connected with the practice in County Courts,
but with the practice of Mandamus, Prohibition,
Suggestion, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, which '
are now so essential to the practice of the inferior
jurisdictions, constituting in fact the only appeal
thereto. The author has entered into the many ques-
tions which have been the subject of discussion among
the Judges of the Courts. In speaking of the extent
of the jurisdiction in the recovery of tenements which
many of the judges assumed only included those deter-
mined by efflux of time, be says, " Ejectments on the
title are excluded, as the Act requires that there should
he the relation of landlord and tenant, and the person
claiming possession must establish, to the satisfaction
of the Court, that he. is the landlord before he has a
locus standi, which, if the tenant disproves, the juris-
diction is ousted The Irish Civil Bill ejectment,
statutes* enact, ' That in all cases where any tene-
ment shall have been held by any tenant at less rent than
fifty pounds per annum, and the tenant's interest in the
same shall have determined, and liner demand made
by the landlord or lessor, his bailiff or receiver, a
delivery or possession of the same shall be with-
held, it shall and may he lawful for the said
landlord or lessor to proceed by civil bill ;' and these
words are not so strong in extending the jurisdiction
of the Civil Bill easurt, as the words of section 122 are
to enlarge the powers of the County Court; yet they
have been held to give jurisdiction where a tenancy
has been determined by notice to quit—by death of
the cestui gue vie—by efflux of time, or otherwise,
which is sufficiently comprehensive. In the case of
i!elly v. Reilly two questions arose on the Irish Civil
Bill :pct, the first us to the identity of one of the
cilitelseciululi Reilly
who
vies, named Charles Reilly, in the
lease
)n() under. w waTsi
di
The landlord
d thew
was
ste
e n tenantcestui
e n ldi
qddu
teht
vah
ite w
e aprhe
Charlesst ehse,
en
tenant alleged that a person of the same name, who
was living was the cestui que vie, and that conse-
quently his interest had not determined. The second
question was as to the person entitled to the reversion
in the premises; it appeared that the original lessor of
the premises was dead, but that previous to his death
he had assigned his reversion to the plaintiff in the
..jectment. Front the report it would appear that as
to the second question. it was conceded that the
Court had juri-diction to try it, hut as to the first it
was contended that it was a case in which the title to
land was drawn in question, and that the jurisdiction
of the Civil Bill Court was thereby ousted. The then
Chief Baron Brady, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland,
overruled the objection, and held that, notwithstand-
ing both these questions were involved in this pro-
ceeding, the case was within the jurisdiction of the
Court. In delivering judgment, his Lordship said,
" I have read the 56th Geo. 111., c. 88, with
considerable attention, and I think that it be-
thatl
cannot
tonteies
be-
comes indispensable, in order to carry out
ns
iounl rafnadct wishen
lt ihkee th Pe
r ry ss
ieonT should of
bt tem t
entertained.ct
i‘ivlhuys
t. aa s' con-
troverted,en ee
the reversion, and
rr
tseahisonuuglwdg
he
oes tui
aos
rtne, t
entitled
tai
jtt
lueardips
t(aiori
et itc
who have interests in the premises (because the
latter must be served with the civil bill), it is marl-
lest that questions of title to a certain extent must be
decided. The second section of the 56th Geo. 111.,
c. 88, empowers the Assistant Barrister to decree
the landlord to be put in possession, upon proof of
the matters mentioned, these matters may be con-
troverted, or proved, by either party, and the
Court must ascertain w hether they i
are proved or
not. The Act contains no restriction against n•
vestigating questions of title, and although there
may be inconveniences attendant upon such in-
vestigations, yet such must be encountered, for I
cannot see how otherwise the provisions of the Act
are to be carried into effect. And lam clear, with all
respect for the opinions which have been referred to,
in
to
evidence in cases like the present the parties may go
evidence to show thut cestui gue vies in the lease are
either living or dead." This important question could
not have been settled upon higher authority, arid Alr.
Jagoe has clearly shown that the error into which
many of the judges have fallen has been from not draw-
ing a distinction. between questions of title generally
and questions of title between landlord and tenant,
rela.ting to the ending or continuance of the tenancy,
are within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Ilie vexata questio, as to whether the landlord
or judgment creditor shall have priority, so much
disputed by the judges of County Courts,
seems to be likewise set at rest, and it is singular
th,it in the arguments used pro and con. Mr.
Jagoe's view of this difficult queetion has been over-
looked.

It is in the recollection of our readers that in
the case of ex parte Green, Mr. Justice l'attison,' in
delivering the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, held that attorneys practising in County
Courts were not entitled to more lees and costs
than those mentioned in the 91st section of
the Act ; but Mr. Jagoe says, " that the
attorney is entitled to these costs when the Court
mm j
exercises a su
ary urisdiction, but if the case
require that the attorney who appears should be heard
to argue any question as counsel, or, in other word*, to
obtain leave to depart from his ord inaryduty as attorney,
by examining witnesses, and generally conducting the
ca,e, there is nothing in the Act to deprive him of
remuneration for such services, which are distinct
from those for which the 91st section fixes payment.
The 88th section contemplates that a necessity may
arise for extra services, it enacts that the costs of any

action or proceedings in the Court not otherwise pro-
vided for (which means costs not given by the
91st section), shall be paid by or apportior,ed be-
tween the parties in such mauner as the judge
shall think fit, and in default of any spe-
cial direction shall abide the event of the action."
We are glad Mr. Jagoe has placed this subject in its
true light before the public, for though not favourable
to solicitors making excessive charges, we cannot too
strongly condemn that a highly respectable profession
should be reduced to a scale of remuneration less than
that received by many tradesmen. The case of ex•parte
Green was so badly put before the Court for the plain-
tiff; that we are not surprised at the decision which has
been made. We shall again recur to this work, as
we are obliged to day to omit noticing many im-
portant subjects of which it treats—amongst others,
the law relating to physicians, surgeons, apothecaries,
chemists, and druggists, and the right of poor-law
guardians to sue in County Courts, together with the
preliminary steps that must be taken to enable them
to do so.