The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-07 00:00:00

ROLL.B-COURT.-FRIDAY.

Tltt KTTORNEY-GENERAI, V. THE FISHMONGER'S COMPANY.
• Mr. BICKERSTETH, who appeared for the relators, was
abe:dt opening the case, when
Mr. PEMBERTON, who appeared for the defendants, said
that he did not understand how the case now came before
the Court. When the matter was before the Court, on a
former occasion, the late Master of the Rolls, with great
warmth stopped the argument, and said that he would re-
fer the case to th 6 Attorney-General, to ascertain whether
he thought it proper to proceed with it. After the parties
had left the Court, his Honour said that he would cause
his Secretary to write to the Attorney-General that he
might examine the matter. The parties, after endeavour-
ing to come to a compromise, were summoned before the
late Attorney-General, Sir F. Pollock, who after hearing the
statement of one side, refused to interfere at all. He (Mr.
Pemberton) thought that the Attorney-General was bound
to obey the order of the Court, and that he ought not to
be suffered to depart from those duties which were imposed
upon him by the office which he held.
Mr.. ANDERTON and Mr. ROMILLY, who appeared be-
fore the Attorney-General as Counsel for the parties, con-
firmed the statement of Mr. Pemberton. It appeiaed to
them that the Attorney-Genhral had refused to exercise
his judgment in the matter.
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS said that all the
Court could do was to call the attention of the Attorney-
General to the case. He did not at all understand that
the Attorney-General was to be at liberty to say that, from
the circumstance of his being a party to the proceedings,
he would not exercise his judgment as to whether the case
should proceed or not. If the Attorney-General exercised
his judgment and adopted the suit as a proper one to pro-
ceed with, then he had done all the late Master of the Rolls
had required ; but if he had refused to interfere at all then
his (the Master of the Rolls') duty would be to follow the
course adopted by the late Master of the Rolls.
After some further discussion at the Bar,
His HONOUR said that he thought himself bound to give
to the public and to the suitors in this case the same pro-
tection which the late Master of the Rolls had thought ne-
cessary. The only objection he had to the course he was
about to pursue was, that he might appear to be expressing
an opinion as to the merits of a case about which he knew
nothing. He should, therefore, in the words of the former
order, direct the case to be laid before the Attorney-Ge-
neral, in order that he might form an opinion as to whether
it would be for the interests of the charity sought to be af-
fected by this information to proceed with the suit.
His HONOUR was engaged for the remainder of the day in
hearing causes, none of which contained any points of
interest.

KING'S BENCH-FRIDAY.

HODGXINSON V. MAYER.

This was an action to recover from the defendant penal-
ties incurred by practising in the County Court of Stafford
without being an admitted attorney. At the trial of' the
cause at the last Stafford Assizes, it appeared that the
plaintiff had been admitted as an attorney in 1828, and had
taken out his certificate until 1833, when he omitted to do
so, but had since continued to practise in the County Court.
The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.
Sir W. FOLLETT now moved to set that verdict aside,
and to enter it nonsuit on the ground that the action was
nut maintainable, because the statute, 2d Geo. 11.,.cap. 23,
and 12th Geo. 11., cap, 13, applied only to attornies prac-
tising in the superior Courts of Record. In the first the
words were, " the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas,
o. r Exchequer, or Duchy of Lancaster, or any of his Ma-
Jesty's Courts of Great Sessions in Wales, or in any of the
Courts of the Counties Palatine of Chester, Lancaster, and
Durham, or in any other Court of Record in England
wherein attornies have been aceustomably admitted and
sworn." The County Court clearly did not fall within any
one of these descriptions, and the latter Statute, which was
designed to prevent unqualified persons practising in County
Courts, forbade any person, after the 24th of June, 1739, so
to practise, " who is not, or shall not then be, legally ad-
mitted an attorney," according to the Statute of 2 Geo. 11.,
c. 23. Thu 23th and 37th Geo. 111., were merely Re-
vetitte Acts, and the omission to take out a certificate under
those Acts did not render a person unqualified under the
fattier Acts. The authority for this was the case Hodg-
son and Ros's, 1 Harrison and Wollaston's Reports, 265,
where this Court held that though under the 37th Geo.
111. the milis§lOn to take out a certificate made an attor-
ney's admission null and void, it did not render him an un-
qualified person within th,:- 22d Geo. 11., c. 46. The same
rule of construction must be applied in the present case.—
Rule Nisi granted.