The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-03 00:00:00

y, and
orders

U.
ls de-
-Ihould
rule
,ut be

Mr.
'gust,
He

.r 22,
;haw,
sel Oti
Mr.
I sol
Vag
Fleet

read•
three

ding
!ars.
per-

for
lan,
The
was

In,
)1e
In
lat

letter from plaintiff to Lord 13rotip,Lam, setting forth
,thvgrievances and cee p..ioci,on, was here put in and
It', dated 21st January, I 532 ; also one of the 3d
4reh• to Ihe same effect.
I'hat rioted the case for the plaintiff.
The
1 SOLICITOR GENERAL then rose and submitted to
a Lordship, that the plaintiff must he nonsuited. He
*oula not say one word about the character of Mr. Dicas,
b°b' would he throw any blame upon the Lord Chancellor.
T, tt was an action against the highest legal authority
4 'he kingdom against the chief magistrate, and by the
'r of England no such action could be maintained.
There
was nothing for Mr. Dices to coMplain of. lie
Iqa that he has twice been imprisoned, once in March,
t !:d another tithe in tueust or September, and that upon
0
deta granted by the Chancellor, acting as Chancellor in
!Jorisdiction as Keeper of the Great Seal. There was
.711 no irregularity complained of in the second order ;
asst forth every thing it should have done—the rule, the
'sand, and the refusal—it was in every way regular.
holes the plaintiff could make out the case that the
`4lancellor had no power sitting in bankruptcy to I
t'!he such orders, there was ne cause of action at
tithe
) and be must be put out of Court. Now, as
~j.'
'9arded the first order, the plaintiff had merely
PA it in, and there his base remained—he gave no further
'ridenee. How stood the case? the plaintiff is arrested in
t
°e Common Pleas—he goes before the Chancellor and
please his privilege, and he, in his anxiety for the liberty of
ht subject, orders him to be released without that which
4"ingular, an oath of either party. The tipstaff was the
"Non who was in the error, for he took the plaintiff into
t4ttody after being made acquainted with the question
°,l privilege—but was the Chancellor to be answer-
"e for that ? Lord Eldon, than whom, he might
it'? without offence, no greater lawyer ever sat on the
,dchs even now in the possession of all his faculties,
doubt 'Whether there ought to be any second de-
ig'r,d—in fact, up till the time of Dicas's case, it was
lih'"aYe a matter of doubt. Lord Brougham now held
Suppose
it was necessary, and had so settled the matter.
an attachment was issued from the King's Bench,
not paying money according to the Master's allocator,
Ilflecime irregularity was found out in the affi lavits, would
11a held that an action would lie against the four or five
fudges of that Court. The same applied to the ruling of
t 'heriff to bring in the body of that Court, and an at-
llehment issuing, but still nothing could be done as against
'le Judges who ordered that attachment.
Lord LYNDHURST—Why did you allow the evidence to
On, with regard to the practice of the Court ?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL—It was not for him to stop
,°4 Learned Friend, or he would have called it a denial of
lattice—he wanted that be should have his full swing.
t Lord LYNDHURST—The Chancellor is placed at the
'ad of Bankruptcy in order that he may bring in aid his
illthority of Chancellor.
lie The Sou CITO.R.;GENERA L
is
—Yee ; and ot) can
against any judge who acting in his jurisdiction.
That
was clearly laid down by Lord Hale in Bushel's case.
' 'here a jury would not find Penn, the Quaker
tailty, according to the directions of the Court,
144 they were fined and imprisoned. For that an
letion was brought against the judges, and it was said then
'het the bringing of the action was a greater offence than i
t,l'a
elared, fining, &These c. Agcasesain, in
w e Hre to be found iammond's case, then
same
let and
was
44d
Modern. There were two decisions by Lord
cEldon reported in 14 Vesey, 449, and let Rose,
in which, to his view, the question was set at rest.
Pon all these grounds, as all the principles of law, as
Hell as all adjudged cases, were in his favour, he trusted
'het the plaintiff would he nonsuited.
Mr. WrosiTatare followed shortly on the same side.
Me. PLATT said the question really was, whether Mr.
„ "leas was to be debarred from the right of every man,
the laying his case before a Jury, in order to re-
'`'eer damages for an injury which he has sustained.
The cases cited by the Solicitor-General all applied to a
~,'-'ourt of Record, and in this case it was not so ; for the
\'haneellor, while sitting in bankruptcy, did not constitute
tles He apprehended the Chancellor only bad jurisdiction
where the common law did not apply.
Lord LYNDHURST—No ; the Chancellor has a concur-
rent jurisdiction, in m ,ny cases, with other Courts.
Mr. PLATT—If a person receive a sum of money the
miry
of another, he apprehended that a Court of
j Zguity had no power to order its restoration while the
`"Nrnon law was open, for it was then evident that it
Itoold be allowing the defendant to take advantage of his
oAa wrong, unless it were proved that he had jurisdic-
:,'oll in the case. The Learned Counsel contended that
d.e defendant took his jurisdiction to commit by virtue
'A his office of Lord Chancellor and not by any of the
statutes, and in consequence be was bound to plead
specially, viz., that being Lord Chancellor, and as such
Judge of the Bankruptcy Court, he did so and so. All
the cases that had been cited, showed that under
the plea of general issue, it was only competent for Judges
aot of Courts of Record to make defence to an action of
tjeepass. Upon the authority of former cases therefore,
be submitted that the plaintiff should to- he nonsuited,
btlt that the case should go to the Jury, for them to award
damages.
Mr. KELLY and Mr. FoLeerr followed on the same
aide.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose to reply, and to contend
%at the plea was good, and the Lord Chancellor's juris-
diction was derived from statute law, and no other means,
and that his powers as a Judge of the B inkruptcy Court
were conferred particularly by the 6tb Geo. IV., which
repealed all former Bankrupt Acts, and established a new
triode.
Lord LYNDHURST stopped the Solicitor-General by says
nag that he bad no doubt upon the question ; he was
clearly of opinion that no action could lie against the Lord
Chancellor as Chancellor for any thing i'one in bankruptcy.
It was upon some judgments in the Ceancellor's Court
that this proceeding was founded, and it any one of those
Judgments happened to be erroneous it could not be called
into question by an action of trespass at the suit of the
Party aggrieved. Upon the other point also as to the spe-
cial plea his Lordship was of opinion it was not necessary
to plead it. The plaintiff must, therefore, be nonsuited,
With liberty to move the full Court to enter a verdict for
the plaintiff, if their opinion should prove to be wrong.
Mr. PLATT refused to be nonsuited, and preferred going
to a Jury.
Lord LyNniruasT said the plaintiff was not bound to
be nonsuited, and be might go to the Jury if he pleased.
The Jury would, therefore, find a verdict for the de-
fendant.
The Jury found a verdict accordingly, adding that they
had made up their minds to that course independent of the
Point of law.