The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-24 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

Mr. BAINES, referring to the case respecting an attorney
whom he the preceding day moved should be committed to
prison for having acted as an officer of the Court without
proper authority,—he had now an affidavit which more
fully stated the particulars of the transaction. Mr. Joseph
Hodgson, of Gisborne, in Yorkshire, the attorney (the de-
fendant, Walker, had sworn he employed no other), was
residing in that place, having his name engraved on
a brass plate as an attorney. He bad regularly taken
out his certificate from November preceding down to
July, 1832. In May last Walker retained him to de-
fend an action brought against him. In July, it having
come to the knowledge of the opposite parties that Hodgson
was not duly qualified, notice was served on Mr. Ross, his
agent in London, that if he continued to act for Hodgson he
would be rendered answerable for all the penalties imposed by
the act of the 22d of G. 11., which was recited in the notice ;
such as being liable to be struck off the rolls and committed
to prison for one year. He was, therefore, advised by the
plaintiff's agent to ascertain whether Hodgson was duly
qualified. On the 27th of October an order was obtained
from Mr. Justice Williams to change the attorney, and the
name of Ross was substituted for that of Joseph Hodgson,
and yet in December last Mr. Hodgson had delivered a bill
of costs, charging for business done as attorney for Walker
in the Michaelmas Term preceding. The question, there-
fore, was, how to fix Mr. Ross with a guilty knowledge of
the disqualification of Hodgson ; but the way in which he
proposed to do it was this—that in November notice was
given by these parties that the cause would be tried in the
Sheriff's Court for Yorkshire, and a subpoena had been
issued by Ross to summon witnesses, he being the attorney
on that record, and in fact had charged for business done
by himself. The defendant in his affidavit denied all know-
ledge of Ross, and that he bad ever employed him in the
action. This he thought was sufficient evidence to raise
suspicion against Ross of having connived with Hodgson,
and therefore he would move to commit Hodgson.
Mr. Justice PATTISON said enough had been disclosed to
induce him to grant the motion, but he did not see why the
agent should be permitted to escape.
Mr. Baines—Then, if your Lordship pleases, I will
move that a rule to show cause be granted why they both
should not answer the matter of the affidavits, and be com-
mitted to prison under the terms of the Act of the 9.2 d
Geo. ll.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

BOWER P. HILL AND ANOTHER.

This action was brought to recover damages for the ob-
struction of a right of way. It appeared at the trial, which
took place at the Northampton Assizes, that the defendant
owned certain ground lying upon the banks of the river
Nen, near Peterborough, through which a creek pene-
trated from the river to certain closes belonging to the plain-
tiff. There was evidence to show that formerly this creek
was navigable up to the plaintiff's land ; but there was no
evidence of any boat having been up it for twenty years.
Since then it had, by the accumulation of sand, degenerated
into a ditch, and had latterly become incapable of floating
anything, espcially at the upper end. Under these circum-
stances the defendants connected the fields they had on
each side of the ditch by a bridge or tunnel, and cleared
out the sand between the bridge and the river sufficiently
to allow the water to come up to the bridge. The Jury
found that the plaintiff had a private right of way to the
river, that the defendants had erected the obstruction com-
plained of in it, but that the plaintiff could not enjoy his
right in consequence of the mud. In the course of the
last term the rule was obtained calling upon the defendant
to show cause why a verdict should not be entered for the
plaintiff, or a new trial had.
Mr. HILL showed cause against the rule yesterday.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS occupied the greater part of the
day in reply, and the Court took time to consider its judg-
ment.

Mr. Cooke moved for a rule in this case on the part of
the assignees.
The insolvent was entitled in right of his wife to some
property which was connected with a Chancery suit. The
assignees were interested in the matter, but the Master of
the Rolls had refused to recognise the assignees until this
Court had made an order, the property having been acquired
subsequently to the discharge of the insolvent. The appli-
cation was to obtain a rule on certain parties to retain the
money.
The Court granted the prayer.

SHERIFF'S COURT.