The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-09 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Baron Channell, and
Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
SWEsTFIN V. LORD CHELMSFORD.

This was a motion for a new trial en the ground of mis-
direction of the jury by the judge who tried the cause.

Mr. Kennedy tnd Mr. M‘Mahon appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Montague Smith, Mr.
Bovill, and Mr. Ellis for the defendant.

The facts of the case have been already frequently and
fully reported, and may be briefly stated as follows :
Plaintiff sued the defendant (then Sir F. Thesiger) to re-
cover damages sustained by reason of his having as counsel
for the present plaintiff in another action compromised the
matter without her sanction as she alleged, whereby she had
been put to certain costs. The jury found for the defen-
dant under the direction of the judge, thereby declaring
him (as a barrister acting honestly as he believed for the
best interest of his client) not liable. In Michaelmas term
a new trial rule was applied for on several grounds, but
granted on one, •nly that` of 'misdirection. The querstion
was argued at very great length, and judgment was given
this morninK.
The Lord Chief Baron having stated the pleadings and
the facts of the case, said the court was of opinion that
the rule ought to be discharged. This was a case of great
general importance, raising as it did the question of the
responsibility of members of the bar. These gentlemen
had no legal claim to remuneration, they simply received
some honorarium and entered into no express contract.
The authorities were free upon the subject, and he did not
propose to go into them at any length ; they were for the
most part the dicta of judges in other cases used as illus-
trations and not judgments in analogous cases. It might,
however, be very safely asserted that there was no instance
of an action being successfully brought against a barrister
for neglect of duty, but there were instances where such
action had been successfully resisted. On an express agree-
ment a barrister would be liable, no doubt, as any other
party to a contract ; but if he acted in the usual way and did
a wrong unintentionally, acting without malice, fraud, or
collusion, he would not be amenable as a wrong doer.
Although they (the judges) were unanimous as to the way
in which the rule should be dealt with, they had not
agreed on all the points relative to it, but into these he
should not now enter. They thought that a barrister
taking a brief in the usual way undertook a duty, but did
not enter into a contract expressed or implied. The
barrister should not be regarded as making a contract
with his client, but taking on himself an office or duty,
one which not only affected his client but one in which
the public at large was interested. If it were other-
wise, the members of the bar would be liable to an action
from every disappointed suitor. If the compromise was
a nullity, the plaintiff remained unimpaired ; but it was
said she had been put to costs in enforcing those rights ;
and it was a principle of law that to put persons to
Goats by bringing an action against them if there was
no malice, was not a ground of action. He went fur-
ther than his brother judges; he was of opinion that
a barrister was not liable for his want of ability, if
he acted with perfect good faith, and, as he believed, for
the best interest of his client, he was not responsible for
any error of judgment or mistake whatever. If in this case
the defendant had made the compromise, believing it was
serving his client's interest (and the jury had decided that
such was the case) he was not liable. The rule must there-
fore be discharged.
Mr. Kennedy applied for leave to appeal.
Leave was granted on the understanding that th s
on which the appeal was made should be submitted to the
Court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-sTREET.

-Arr- Charles Pakenham,
11, Hertford-street, Mayfair, and Mr. John Althidge, 8, St.
Alban's-place, Haymarket, were charged as follows :

Police-constable Murrell, SO C, said that at a quarter to
four that morning, while on duty in Panton-street, Hay-
market, he saw the defendants go up to an hotel and violently
ring the bell, and afterwards ring the bell at a silversmith's.
They then made their way to Arundel-court, where they
tried to fo, ce their way into a public-house, and created a
great disturbance ; and as they were both much intoxicated
he took them into custody. On the way to the station they
became very violent, and it took three constables to take one
of them to the station.

The defendants having denied that they were drunk,
Sergeant Rogers, actin; inspector, was called, and said they
certainly were very drunk.

Mr.Beadon said the defendants' conduct, at such a place,
where was continu Illy disturbances, was likely to cause the
greatest confusion, and fined them 20s. or seven days.

THAMES.
AN UNFEELING GRANDFATHER.—IMPORTANT DELI.
siox.—William Thomas, a tall and vigorous old man
about 67 years of age, and dwelling at No. 34, Park-street,
Poplar, appeared before Mr. Selfe to answer a summons
which charged him with refusing to maintain Elizabeth,
aged 11 years, Joseph, aged 9, awl Mary Ann, aged
grandchildren, severally not able to work, and now charge-
able to the Poplar Union, the defendant being ofus/ 'I (dent
ability to maintain them.
Mr. Jeffreys, relieving officer of the Poplar k:,.iiorc, said
the defendant had been lodged and maintained r the work-
house, at the expense of the ratepayers, for 15 -years'. A
few months since the defendant came into the possessio
of freehold and leasehold property, and had received a good
deal of money from Mr. Prendergast, a respectable solicitor,
which he had squandered in sensual gratifications, going
from one public-house to another and getting drunk. He
had been applied to and asked to repay the parish some por-
tion of the cost of his maintenance for 15 years, and he re.
fused to contribute a farthing. He was then asked to pay
for the maintenance of his son's children, who were also in
the workhouse, and he declined doing so.
Mr. Selfe—ls the father of the children dead ?
Mr. J effreys—He is, sir ; and the widow is unable to
maintain them.
Defendant, who is very deaf, said he was only a rope
maker by trade, and could not work.
Mr. Selfe—l don't suppose you can, but you must sup-
port your grandchildren.
Defendant—How can I ; why, I have no money ?
Mr. Selfe—Yes, you have, and property too.
Defendant—My affairs have not been arranged.
Mr. jeffreys—He has received money from Mr.Prender-
gast, his lawyer, to the extent of 15s. per week at least for
some time past, and he has got money in his possession.
Mr. Selfe told the defendant he must contribute some-
thing towards the maintenance of his grandchildren.
Defendant—I can't ; I won't do it.
Mr. Selfe—The law says you must.
Defendant—Oh 1 that is a horse of another colour ;if
the law says so, I must do it.
Mr. Jeffreys said the parish would be satisfied with ss.
per week.
Mr. Selfe—You must pay 55. per Week.
Defendant--I can't until my business is settled.
Taplin, an officer of the oourt, here shouted in the de.
fend ant's ear—The magistrate says yon must go to prison
if you won't pay.
Defendant—To begin now ?
ss. per week from this very
Taplin—Yes, you must pay
day.
Defendant—Oh dear !oh lord ! (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Selfe—The defendant has made a very good bargain.
He must also pay 2s. costs.
The defendant took from his pocket a well filled purse,
'd the costs, and left the court.

POPULAR PREACHING.—The—;;
C. H. Spur-
geon has, it is understood, secured the Rev. H. H. North-
rop to preach for him to-morrow and next Sunday, in the
morning at Exeter Hall, and New Park-street chapel in the
evening.
PROGRESS OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC.—Among
the most interesting problems connected with the progress
of commercial traffic at the present time are the facilities
to be afforded by tramways for passenger conveyance, and
by traction engines for the carriage of heavy goods on
turnpike and other roads. In accordance with precedent,
however, the first effort of meddling legislation is, of course,
to obstruct the possibility of their introduction. The traction
engines of one company have already been frequently em-
ployed by manufacturers in the neighbourhood of London
for upwards of 12 months, and have worked in all parts of
the metropolis, including the most crowded thoroughfares,
drawing heavy loads, sometimes exceeding 30 tons, with-
out a single instance of accident, and at a cost alleged to be
not more than half of that which would have been incurred
for horse-power. No sooner are these results obtained than
Parliament is asked to interfere to deprive the public of the
new advantages which promise to b© opened up. A bill
entitled the " Locomotive Act, 1860," proposes to prohibit
the use of locomotives within four miles of Charing-cross at
all hours except during the darkness from midnight to 8 in
tin morning, and this, it may be presumed, would virtually
exclude the traction engines from all possibility of being
worked at a profit, or so as to suit the requirements of
trade,