The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-23 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The LOAD Claim JUSTICE, this morning, gave judg-
ment in several cases of ejectment, in none of which was
there anything of public interest.

THE KING V. 111.00 K.

The defendant had been convicted upon an indictment
at the instance of the Society for the Suppression of Vice,
and was to have been brought up for judgment this term.
Mr. TUESSIGER, this morning, stated that the defendant
was dangerously ill in Newgate, where he had been con-
fined for five months, and it would be impossible for himto be brought up this term. He, therefore, with the
consent of the Counsel for the prosecution, wished the
Court to pass judgment in the defendant's absence.
The COURT refused to take the case now, as other
business pressed, and directed it to stand over.
nEntinscom v. FRREBROTHER.
This case came on again to-day, on an application for
a new trial, and is likely to occupy the Court a consider.
ble time.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

NEW POINT Or PRACTICE.

In our yesterday's impression we omitted, in conse-
quence of being:unable to catch the title, to notice a ease,

- ..k_.

the decision of which is of some importance to the pro-
•ession "and to the public at large; and, being the first
decision of the kind under the New Uniformity of Process
Act, is not generally known.
An action had lately been brouelt against an attorney
and an unprivileged person jointly, and they both had
been arrested upon a writ of capias. Before the above-
mentioned Act passed, an attorney subjecting himself to
be sued jointly with an unprivileged person, lost his pri-
vilege, and might have been arrested upon a vailable cause
of action ; and the reason thereof was, that the two de.
fendants could only be brought into court upon the same
process, it being irregular to issue a writ against the
layman, and to file a bill against the attorney; but the
Court, in the present instance, decided that an attorney
did not now (under similar circumstances) lose his privi-
lege, inasmuch as under the above-mentioned Act a capias
may issue against both parties, upon which the unpri-
vileged person may be arrested, and a copy of the writ
only served on the attorney; which would have the effect
of bringing both parties into court, and is now, therefora,
the proper course of proceeding.

RAMAGE V. AGSHEAD.-20WEN V RAMARE.

Mr. IlmilAßDs, on behalf of the plaintiff in the last
suit, had obtained a rule to show c 'use why the defendant
should not pay over to him a sum of ill., being the sum
in Court paid in by the Sheriff, the sum levied by him in
the former action, the costs of that action, the costs of the
subsequent action, and the costs of that application.
Mr. Sergeant TALTOURD appeared for the defendant,
and said he did not mean to oppose any part of the rule
except that of it which called upon him to pay the costs
of that application. It appeared th it the Sheriff of ,
Staffordshire levied in the former action on the 25th a
February ; the levy was disputed at 11 o'clock, on the
ground that Bowen had got an assignment of the goods
before the levy. The Sheriff paid the money into Court
under the Interpleader Act, and made the plaintiff in the
former action the defendant in place of himself. It now
appeared that the plaintiffwas right and the other partywrong
but in conseruence of the working of the Interpleader
Act, the costs were now enormous, and he trusted that
under all the circumstances, his client would be relieved
from the costs of the application, for he would not have
appeared had not the rule called him before the Court, by
asking for these costs.
Mr. RICHARD* was about to support the Rule, but
the Court decided that the rule should be made absolute,
except as to the costs of the application. The Rule had
been too largely drawn, upon the ground that though the
party was entitled to all the other costs he had no right
to force the other party now to appear, by calling for the
costs of that application.