The Sun.
London, England, 1851-10-28 00:00:00

CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.

Mr. BROOKES then called the attention of the
Court to the fact that some members of the leet jury
had been summoned to attend the Westminster Ses-
sions, and wished to take the opinion of the Court on
the subject. _ _

The HIGH STEWARD—We think this court has
priority in the first instance. The question as to
whether you are bound to attend the Middlesex Ses-
sions at all is quite a new one, and we must take
time to consider it. As at present advised, lam in-
clined to think you must submit.

Mr. BROOKES—But does that court take prece-
dence of this?

The HIGH STEWARD—No ; I consider this court
takes precedence.
Mr. CLUNES (one of the jurors)—l attended the
Westminster Sessions this morning and took an ob-
jection to the summons, stating that, being under the
jurisdiction of the Duchy of Lancaster, I considered
myself in a kind of extra-parochial position, and that
if I served it must be under protest on the part of the
duchy and my neighbours, and it was for the judge
to decide whether he could enforce the law or not.
His Lordship said the case was rather novel to him
—that under the new Act the High Bailiff of West-
minster was entrusted with the duty usually per-
formed by the Sheriffs of Middlesex, so far as regarded
Westminster, and that it was not yet a decided point.
I pressed for a decision, on which his Lordship said
as the matter stood at present if I did not serve be
should fine me. I told him that I had received a
summons to attend a court leet, and that if I neg-
lected to do so I should be fined there. His Lordship
then said, " If you do not serve here I shall fine you,
but if the High Bailiff attempts to enforce the fine he
may get himself into a serious scrape. My duty is to
fine you. However, I will permit you to go to the court
leet, and state what I have said to the authorities of
the Duchy of Lancaster ; but you must be here to-
morrow, otherwise I shall impose the fine." The in-
habitants of the Savoy look to this court to place them
in a right position, for they cannot be expected to
argue the matter every day.
The HIGH STEWARD—The jurisdiction alluded to
is quite a new one. The Middlesex Sessions is not
confined to the city of Westminster, but takes in the
whole of the western part of the county. It seems to
me, if the jury is to be summoned for Middlesex, it
must be done by the sheriffs, and not by Mr. Smed-
ley (the High Bailiff).
Mr. CLurus—•My objection is, that we in the Savoy
are under the jurisdiction of the Duchy of Lancaster,
and not under the jurisdiction of the court at West-
minster. Doing service under the Duchy of Lan-
caster, we do not acknowledge the jurisdiction of
Westminster to affect the Savoy. The judge said
there was reason in the objection, and it might be
law, but repeated that if I did not serve he should
fine me. As an individual I cannot undertake the
responsibility of trying an action.
The HIGH STEWARD—The way to settle the
question is this. When you are called upon to-mor-
row to serve say that we have discussed the question
to-day, and are decidedly of opinion that the court-
leet summons has precedence over that of the Sessions
Court at Westminster, and we also think that the
court-leet summons exempts you altogether. If you
are compelled to serve you must serve under protest.
01 course the attention of the duchy, who are the
proper parties to entertain the question, will be called
to it, and a decision will be obtained. It would be
hard to throw the expense upon you, and if there is
sufficient ground to go upon, the duchy, I apprehend,
will try the question in the name of some of you
gentlemen.
Mr. CLUNES—I told the judge that if I did serve it
would be under protest, and that neither the duchy
nor my neighbours should be compromised in my
person.

The HIGH SHERIFF—The High Steward is of
opinion at present that you should pay attention to the
first summons you received.
This being the only business the Court broke up.

THE JUDGE OF THE LIVERPOOL
COUNTY COURT.
LIVERPOOL, MONDAY AFTERNOON.—Notwith-
' standing the approaching inquiry before the Earl of
Carlisle, at Preston, on the sth of next month, into
the conduct of Mr. Ramshay, the judge of the Liver-
pool County Court, and the memorial from the in-
habitants, praying that a substitute should be ap-
pointed, or that the judge should not resume his sit-
' tinge until the inquiry into the allegations against
him had been decided, Mr. Ramshay took his seat on
' the bench this morning, precisely at twenty-five
minutes to ten o'clock, and the ordinary business was
immediately proceeded with. As the morning ad-
vanced the court became exceedingly crowded, the
fact having become known that Mr. Ramshay was
presiding in person, although it is understood that
Lord Carlisle had enjoined that gentleman not to
preside.
In themselves the cases brought forward were of
little interest, but the judge laid down an important
rule for future guidance. In the case of Hopkinson
n. Loscan, for the recovery of a balance of 25., the
original debt being 4s. 6d., the judge said it was
necessary to have some rule with regard to small
debts. If tradesmen trusted poor people with such
small sums, they acted very improperly. The Act of Par-
liament under which these courts were constituted was
not intended to press poor people; on the contrary,
he considered that the poor were a class peculiarly
under the protection of his court. If some general
rule were adopted with regard to those small claims,
he thought it would not interfere with the business
of the court, but prove very useful and beneficial. It
occurred to him that this court was not to be turned
to the purpose of enforcing such very small debts,
because it seemed to him that the costs were vastly
disproportionate to the amount sought to be reco-
vered. He thought it was really oppressive to poor
men to have actions brought against them, and if
people gave credit for such small amounts they must
take the chance of getting them, if they came into
this court, without costs. He (the Judge) asked
what were the costs in this particular case ?
Mr. Statham, the clerk, said 4s. 11d.
The plaintiff said he should not have brought
the case into court, but—
The JUDGE said he was not making the slightest
reflection upon the plaintiff; on the contrary, he
thought he had acted very properly. The Act of
Parliament gave him (the Judge) a discretionary
power, which be should take care not to abuse. He
should take care that that discretion was exercised in
a manner which would be satisfactory, and not offen-
sive to the public. The rule which be should adopt
would be that in actions for sums under 103. no costs
should be given to the plaintiff, unless specifically
granted, or unless it should be an action by a poor
person to recover wages. lie should not allow per-
sons in a respectable sphere of life, like the plaintiff,
to take the costs out of the pocket of the poor man.
If there were dishonesty or fraud on the part of the
defendant he should grant the plaintiff costs.
Mr. Hopkins, the plaintiff in the case before the
court, said he had received gross insult from the de-
fendant, who had thrown an apple at him.
The JUDGE said then that was an exceptional case,
and he should give Mr. Hopkins costs. People must
be taught to act with civility ; and as long as he sat
there he should endeavour to enforce it towards
himself and everybody else. Insults of this kind
he should always mark by giving costs. Persons
must not be insulted when they asked for their just
debts.
In the next case the plaintiff sought to recover 4s. ld.
This was a small debt coming under the category al-
luded to, but the Judge decided to grant the plaintiff
costs in this case, because it appeared to him the debt
had been contracted by fraud and misrepresentation.
He considered it was a duty he owed to the people of
this town, a duty which he should fulfil notwithstand-
ing any strictures in certain quarters. He would
reprobate dishonesty from any quarter. He considered
it one of his most solemn duties to do so, and he had
always done so he hoped.
The next interruption to the ordinary business was
a complaint on the part of the Judge that the windows
of the court were not open.
" Whose duty," he asked, " is it to open these win-
dows ?" Mr. Statham—The duty of the keeper of
the court.
The JUDGE—I gave an order of a general nature,
that the windows were to be opened, and I am not to
waste my time and the time of the court by these in-
terruptions. Ido maintain that my orders shall be
punctually carried out. I shall mark by fine all im-
proper conduct, whatever it may be. I shall in every
instance inflict a fine, and a very severe one. I shall
teach those patio who do not comply with the ;ea!