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

plaintiff's commission for procuring a school for the de•
fendant. The plaintiff was a school agent, and
was employed by the defendant to obtain him a
boarding school, which, after some trouble, he
did by introducing the defendant to a Mr. Cook, of
Brompton, who wished to dispose of his school. The
plaintiff charged 5 per cent. on the purchase money,
which it was alleged was the usual commission, and in
this case would amount to 221. 10s.

The defence was that only a sum of five guineas was
due to the plaintiff, and that that sum had been tendered,
The tender of five guineas was proved on the part of
the defendant, and the only question remaining was, whe-
ther the plaintiff was entitled to more than that sum foi
his services.

The Jury returned a verdict for the full amount claimed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUEIt.-(THIS DAY,

This being the day appointed for the trial of" Dicas r.
Lord Brougham," which is an actio❑ for false imprison-
ment, the Court was crowded at an early hour. Among
those present we noticed Lord Eldon and many of the old
and present officers of the Court of Chancery. On the
Lord Chief Baron entering the Court Mr. Hutnfrey
appied to his Lordship to certify in the case of " Hunt v.
Ager and others," which his Lordship refused to do.
DICAS V. LORD BROUGHASI.--ACTION FOR. FALSE INIPRI•

SON3IENT AGAINST THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Mr. PLATT, with whom was Mr. KELLY, stated this
case to the Jury as follows :—Gentlemen, the plaintiff in
this case is Mr. Dicas, who seeks to recover at your hands
compensation in damages for a very serious grievance.
Although not moving in so high a sphere of
life as the Noble defendant, he is entitled in the
equal distribution of the law in this country to
appear before a British Jury to state his grievances, and
from them to ask satisfaction. Gentlemen, the complaint
that I have to make on behalf of my client against the
noble defendant is, that upon two occasions, without any
jurisdiction or authority, he restrained the liberty of the
plaintiff. It appears, Gentlemen, that in the month of
March, 1831, a commission of bankruptcy had been issued
against a person of the name of Nokes, and an order was
made by the Vice_Chancellor, desiring Mr. Dicas to pay
over certain sums of money to the assignees, and also to
deliver to them certain books and documents. Although
the order was made, neither the money nor books were
ever demanded before the first imprisonment of the plaintiff.
Mr. Dicas, while attending the Court of Common Pleas,
in his duties as a solicitor, was arrested by an officer
of the Court of Chancery. The plaintiff expostulated,
stating that he was attending his duties as an attorney;
the officer would not quit him, keeping him in custody
till the case in which Mr. Dicas was engaged closed, and
the Court rose. Mr. Dicas informed his counsel, Ser-
geant Bompas, of the situation in which he was placed,
and requested the assistance of that learned gentleman to
liberate him. The learned sergeant went with him from
the Court of Common Pleas to the Court of Chancery.
The Lord Chancellor had just risen, and application was
made to his Honour, the Vice Chancellor, who felt a de•
licacy in interfering, the warrant under which the plaintiff
was taken into custody proceeding from the Lord Chan-
cellor. Application was then made to the Lord Chancellor
in the House of Lords, who directed the plaintiff to be
discharged fur the time, at the same time requiring
Mr. Dicas to appear the next morning in the Court
of Chancery with an affidavit stating the facts. Mr.
Dicas attended the next and several following mornings,
but nothing was done. The arrest took place on the
sth day of E ester term, and during the whole of that
period Mr. Dicas attended before the Lord Cbancellcr
for the purpose of procuring his liberation from the
arrest. At last the Lord Chancellor, shortly before the
end of the term, pronounced judgment, discharging Mr.
Dicas, expressing at the same time that he had in the
interim consulted with the Chief Justices of the Courts of
King's Bench and Common Pleas. On the last day of
Easter term Sir William Horne appeared on behalf of Mr.
Dicas to discharge the order upon which Mr. Divas had
been taken into custody. His person, it is true, had been
liberated, but the order remained. That application was
successful, the order was discharged, the Lord Chancellor
stating that no contempt had been committed, as it
did not appear that any demand had been made
either for the money or the papers, or that any rt Waal to
pay or deliver up ever took place. Gentlemen, the Lord
Chancellor at that time not only discharged the order,
but discharged it with costs, and it was understood at
that time that it was discharged with such costs as Mr.
Dicas bad incurred in consequence of the restraint which
had been made upon his liberty. Time order was nut
drawn up in that form, and accordingly on the 2d of
June, Sir William Horne applied to the Lord Chancellor
to amend the order, enalannj him to bare tke
this to Lord Brougliam, he staters
toat that certainly was his intention, but upon
conferring with one of the officers of the Court, be stated
that he would take time to consider the subject. The
Lord Chancellor did take time; and although day atter
day Sir W. Horne applied fur the purpose of procuring
the di cision, to this hour his Lordship had never pro•
flounced his judgment. Sir W. Home, in the course of
his application to the Lord Chancellor, stated that the
parties on the other side would be going on ; upon
which the Lord Chancellor stated that all the proceed-
ings were stayed till his judgment was given. This
order which was made, directing the discharge of the
first of der, not only with respect to the libel ty of
Mr. Dicas, but he was also discharged from paying the
561. and a framion, which he had been ordered to pay to
the assignee, so that it is clear that sum never could be
demandable from him. On the 10th of August, 1831,
Mr. Dicas wrote to Mr. Vizard, the Lord Chancellor's
Secretary in Bankruptcy, for the purpose of reminding
him of the state of the proceedings, that the Lord Chan-
cellor had not yet given judgment, but that all proceedings
were stayed till he should do so. To this Mr. Vizard
wrote an answer, that the appeal did not stay proceedings
as an order pronounced, and that it did not find any order
of the Lord Chancellor's staying proceedings with respect
to costs. Oa that very day Mr. Dicas was taken from the
bosom of his family, placed in a prison, where he re-
mained for three months upon the order and warrant of
the Lord Chancellor, on the very day that all proceedings
were to be stayed till further order. Gentlemen, I really
am at a loss to imagine a cause for this, and I take leave
most respectfully to question the authority of the Lord
Chancellor in bankruptcy to issue such a warrant. By
the present Bankrupt Law all the former Acts have been
repealed. By the Act of 6 George IV. the power was
given to the Lord Chancellor to interfere in bankruptcy.
That, Gentlemen, like all other powers, must be con-
strued strictly from the beginning to the end, and
if it be so, I say there is no power in the Lord
Chancellor to commit for contempt like the present,
if contempt it can be called. What would be the con-
sequence, gentlemen, if such a power was given to the
Lord Chancellor ? A party might owe to the assignees of
a bankrupt a certain sum of money ; he might dispute
their right to claim it; and is the Lord Chancellor to
make an order, commanding payment, superseding the
right of every British subject to hare his case tried by a
jury ? No doubt if the money was due from Mr. Dicas,
the assignees would be able to maintain an action, and
would recover against him. But I contend that there is

no such power give❑ by the Act of Parlianieut-;
has been exercised here. Just after Mr. DIC39 bad
been placed in prison, where he remained from the 10th
of August to the 22d of December, it was natural for

him to suppose that the Lord Chancellor would have felt

some little compassion towards a man who was carrying
on a respectable profession, who had a family to maintain,
and who had been improperly immured in prison for three
long months. He accordingly wrote a letter, addressed
to the Lord Chancellor.—(The learned Counsel read a
letter, which recapitulated the facts he had already stated.)
—The Leatned Counsel then proceeded—Alr. Dicas

was not desirous of making the matter public, but wished,
if possible, that the recompense for the injuries which he
had suff,red should be made privately, and nothing more
would have been beard of the matter had his Lordship
condescended to reply. The Lord Chancellor not having
done so, Mr. Dicas wrote another letter on the 21st of
January, in which he aga;n stated the hardships under
which he was labouring, and begged for the interference.of
his Lordship. Gentlemen, that letter remains also unat-
tended to, and another letter was written on the 22d
of March, 1832, which remained also unanswered. Such
are the facts of this case, and you will allow me, for one tr?-
went, to review them fur the purpose of finding out, .T
possible in what could have originated the proceedings in
which the Lord Chancellor has been so prominent a
party. Is it possible, Gentlemen, to suppose that the
Lurd Chancellor could be ignorant of the cause ? Can it
be said, Gentlemen, that the Lord Chancellor, he who
has stated in another place that he would execute the law

80 dB to make it repected, and amend it so as to make it
be beloved, could be ignorant of the cause of this? I am at a
loss, Gentlemen, greatly at a loss, to account for the

- -
motives which actuated the Lord Chancellor to imprison
this unfortunate man. Could it be said to have arisen

from ignorance ? Ignorance, Gentlemen, in Lo;(1
Brougham, the great amender or the law, to whom we are
to look up for lumber great amendments ! Could it be the

want of caution ? Want of caution, gentlemen, in my
Lord Brougham, the advocate of civil liberty ! Assuredly