The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-25 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING,

they not Conservatives in the highest degree? How
were Batthyani and his illustrious coadjutors different
from the friends of the Prince of Orange? All they
wanted was that the young Emperor should swear the
same oath as his predecessors, and that Hungary should
not be treated as a dependency of Austria.
But why take into confidence, it will be asked, a
newspaper man like Kossuth—a liberal—a man from the
ranks? We are yet to learn that the duties of newspaper
editors are incompatible with those of statesmen. Many
of the London writers, who keep their names concealesl,
have as much political power as Girardin of the Prese.
We know ourselves one or two hacks whom Ministers
carefully conciliate; but we can think of no single man
who bad more influence in Hungary among high and
low, rich and poor, than Kossuth the journalist, whose
abilities, and whose disinterestedness Count Batthyani
was obliged to bring to bear in the then dangerous state
of the kingdom. Liberal and Free-trader as he was,
Kossuth was glad to join with Conservative magnates to
rescue his fatherland from aggression, and it is because
he dropped his liberalism, and defended the good old
conservative and decentralizing cause of Hungary
against tha grasping and centralizing conduct of Austria,
we give Kossuth our heart sympathy. Unhappily, Bat-
thyani and Kossuth failed, but Francis Joseph has yet to
find that he has politically cut off his right hand in de-
grading the Magyar, We can imagine the advent of a
time when the Emperor will be glad of the aid of a
Kossuth to support his Imperial crown against Russia;
but when Kossuth, forced by Imperial shortsightedness
to become a citizen of another land, will remain deaf to
the solicitations of his former King.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 24.
(Sittings in Banco.—Micbaelmas Term.)
M'DOUGALL V. PATERSON.
_ _

Mr. Baddeley had obtained a rule in this case,
which was an action in the Sheriffs' Court, calling
upon the defendant to show cause why the Master
should not tax and allow to the plaintiff his costs of
the action. The affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney
alleged, that having on the 23d of July, 1851, ob-
tained a verdict against the defendant for the sum of
91. 9s. 6d. before the Sheriffs of London, o❑ a writ of
trial to them directed, in the cause, the plaintiff applied
on the 7th of August to Mr. Justice Patteson for an
order to tax the costs, on the ground that the plaintiff
dwelt more than twenty miles from the defendant, and
consequently the case was not one in which the county
courts had jurisdiction; but the Learned Judge dis •
missed the application, and endorsed on the back of
the summons, " I think there was concurrent juris-
, diction ; but no sufficient reason given why the plain-
tiff sued in a superior court." The plaintiff's
affidavit alleged that he does now, and did at the time
of the commencement of the action and the suing
out of the writ of summons therein, dwell and carry
on his business as a woollen draper more than 30
miles from the defendant—namely, at Inverness, and
not elsewhere, and that the defendant dwelt in the
county of Surrey, and carried on his business in the
county of Middlesex ; that the plaintiff never had any
permanent dwelling or place of business in London,
but came there every summer before the shooting
season, and took lodgings and a show-room for pat-
terns while he remained in London, and that this year
he had, i❑ addition, a stand at the Exhibition in Hyde
Park. The action was for woollen goods sold in 1843
and 1844, and sent to the defendant from Inverness;
that in May, 1850, the defendant gave a promissory
note for the amount of the debt-91. 14s. 6d. ; and
that in default of payment the plaintiff commenced the
present action. On the other hand, affidavits on behalf
of the defendant alleged that the plaintiff dwelt and
carried on his trade or business at Golden-square, in
the county of Middlesex, yearly and every year, and
that he had continued to do so i❑ the present year
from before, and at and during the progress, and at the
conclusion of the action ; that the goods for which the
action was brought were ordered at that place ; that
the promissory note given for them was never pre-
sented for payment ; that the case was of the plainest
and simplest character, and peculiarly fitted for the
adjudication of a county court; and that the de-
fendant prayed he might not be deprived of the
economy and advantages afforded by that tribunal.
Mr. Luse showed cause against the rule. It was
moved for under the County Court Extension Act,
13th and 14th Tict., c. 61, s. 11, 12, and 13, which
provide that if any plaintiff in any action within the
jurisdiction of the county courts recovers in a superior
court a less sum than 201, the plaintiff shall have
judgment to recover such SUM only and no costs, ex-
cept the judge certify that it appeared to him at the
trial that there was a sufficient reason for bringing
the action into that court; but that if the plaintiff
shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the Court
or of a judge at chambers that the action was for a
cause in which concurrent jurisdiction is given to the
superior courts by the County Courts Act, 9th and
10th Viet., c. 95 sec. 128, the courts or the judge at
chambers may thereupon direct that the plaintiff shall
recover his costs. The Court of Exchequer, in Jones
v. Harrison, and in Palmer v. Richards, 20 Law
Journal Reports, decided that this power was discre-
tionary in the judge; and the Court of Queen's
Bench, in Latham v. Spedding, 20 Law Journal
Reports, decided that the onus of proving that he was
entitled to costs was cast on the plaintiff. In the
present case, the Learned Judge having an option, had
exercised it, and he submitted that the Court would
not interfere.

Mr. BADDELEY, in support of the rule, argued that
the decisions of the Court of Exchequer on this sub-
ject were wrong. The County Courts Act, 9th and
10th Vict., c. 95, s. 128, provided that, notwithstand-
ing that Act, certain specified actions might be
brought in the superior courts; and s. 129 express')
excepted such action from the rule as to costs. The
County Courts Extension Act, 13th and 14th Vict.,
c. 61, expressly incorporated the previous statute, and
if so the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs under
the Statute of Gloucester. It had been decided that
in Acts of Parliament the word " may" frequently
means " shall," and so he submitted it should be held
that the permissive word in this section was, in point
of law, directory on the judge, and that where it wa,
made out to his satisfaction that the superior court
had concurrent jurisdiction he was bound to award the
plaintiff his costs.
After some deliberation the Lord Chief Justice
said : We entertain some doubt whether it is suffici-
ently established by the affidavits that the plaintiff
dwelt and carried on his business in Golden-square at
the time the action was brought; and also whether,
if he did, and also dwelt in Scotland, he was not,
within the meaning of the Act, dwelling more than
twenty miles from the defendant. We will, therefore,
consider that point. With respect to the other point,
the Court see very cogent reasons for arriving at a
conclusion different from that of the Court of Exche-
quer; but as the matter has been twice argued and
decided in that Court this Court will take further
time to consider the question. As, however, the
matter is of importance, and may frequently arise
during vacation, we will sit on Friday week for the
purpose of delivering our judgment.—Judgment post-
poned.

the prisoner)—A special note will be made of this, and
if you ever come here again you will most certainly
be transported.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

D. W. Hunter, a man employed in the warehouse
of Messrs. Hyam and C0.,0f 59 and 60, Houndsditcb,
was brought up in the custody of Funnell, of the City
detective police, for final examination before Alder-
man Wire upon the charge of having robbed his em-
ployers. Mr. Hobler appeared for the prosecutor.
. _

Funnell having received information from those
who suspected the prosecutor of dishonesty, watched
him on the evening of the 6th of November, and fol-
lowed him from place to place until a proper oppor-
tunity of apprehending him occurred. A young man
of respectable character, who knew the prisoner, and
was in his company on the night of the apprehension,
was also taken into custody, and having had dealings
with the prisoner, was very near being seriously im-
plicated in the charge; but it appeared, upon strict
investigation of the case, that there was no ground for
the accusation.

The prisoner was committed for trial.
Walter Hodges was charged with having robbed
his employers, Messrs. Rogers and Co., of thirty-four
yards and a half of merino, value 6/ 183.
Inspector Mitchell took the prisener into custody
at the warehouse of his employers in Watling-street,
and upon telling him with what he was charged, re-
ceived from him a full acknowledgment of the offence,
with the addition that he had committed otner rob-
beries upon his masters, and sold the articles he had
stolen to his mother.

Other evidence of the guilt of the prisoner was
produced, and the prisoner was committed.
William Rastall was charged with having broken
into the warehouse of Edgecombe and Sturgeon, of
Bread-street, trimming manufacturers, his employers,
and stolen 21.25. 4d.

Inspector Mitchell—l was informed that the pri-
soner was suspected of having broken open the desk
in the counting-house of the prosecutors, and I took
him into custody. At the Bow-lane station-house
he told me that he had oae shilling about him, but I
found a sovereign in one of his boots. I asked him
what he had done with the other sovereign, and he
replied that he had lost it in the Blackfriars-road.
It was proved by witnesses in the employment of
the prosecutors that the prisoner, who performed the
duty of messenger, had gone to the warehouse at an
earlier hour than usual, and had gone down through
a trap-door in the passage into the cellar, from which
there is another trap-door leading to the warehouse,
which latter trap-door it is supposed he had left un-
locked the night before, in order to take advantage of
that mode of entrance at a seasonable opportunity ;
that he had been seen returning from below by a ser-
vant girl; and that he had gone away contrary to
custom immediately afterwards without permission of
the clerks.
The prisoner was committed.
David Barnard was brought up for final examina-
tion upon the charge of having stolen several watches,
the property of his employer, Mr. Vend Gorr.
The prosecutor said that while he was in a deplor-
able state of sickness, which at one time it was sup-
posed would have been fatal, the prisoner, who had
the complete command of the valuable property in the
shop, robbed him in one night of thirteen watches,
and that since that robbery bad been detected twelve
more watches had been missed from the premises.

The officer who apprehended the prisoner said he
confessed that he had committed the plunder of the
thirteen watches, and that he had been urged to rob
the unfortunate invalid by a man named Friedeburg,
who contrived to rob the original thief, and never
gave him a share of the proceeds.
The prisoner was committed.
William Rewe was committed for embezzling 101.,
which he had received for his master, Mr. E. M.
Williams.

The ALDERMAN regretted that he seldom or never
sat on the bench without being obliged to send for
trial parties charged, and in many instances under
circumstances proving the deep ingratitude of the
accused, with having committed robberies upon their
employers.