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

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 o ath as his predecessors, and that Hungary should
not be iretAted as a dependency of Austria.
But w'ny take into confidence, it will be asked, a
newspap, r 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 concealei,
haver is much political power as Girardin of the Presse.
We 1 mow ourselves one or two hacks whom Ministers
carefully conciliate; but we can think of no single man
who had more influence in Hungary among high and
low, rich and poor, than Kossuth the journalist, whose
abili ties, and whose disinterestedness Count Batthyani
was ob:iged to bring to bear in the then dangerous state
of the kingdom. Liberal and Free-trader as he was,
Ko.tsuth was glad to join with Conservative magnates to
reverie his fatherland from aggression, and it is because
he dropped big 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 sympsthy. Unhappily, Bat-
tbyani 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 Imprial .iiiortsightedness
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.—Michaelmas Term.)
M'DOUOALL 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. 61 before the Sheriffs of London, on 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, in 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 in 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. LUSH showed cause against the rule. It was
moved for under the County Court Extension Act,
13th and 14th Vict., 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 Vict., 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 expressh
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 was
made out to his satisfaction that the superior court
hsd concurrent jurisdiction he was bound to award the
plaintiff his costs.
After some deliberation the Lord Chief Justice
said : We entertain sorae 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.