The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

had placed the Court in a conspicuous position
before the public ; and that the proceedings against
Mr. Daukes were scarcely warranted. The case
did not even go to the jury; and this report ought
to be a lesson to any one engaging an architect.
Mr. N. LAURIE said the question was a very
narrow one. Did the committee act rightly on the
evidence of professional men placed before them?
They had no personal motive against Mr. Dankes ;
they acted, as he thought, to protect the interests
of the county in an important institution, and to
ensure the safety of the patients it contained; they
acted upon competent legal and professional advice,
and had done what the interests of the county
required, and no more.
Mr. C. IL COTTRELL, the chairman of the coin •
mittee, entered into an elaborate defence of the
course the committee had taken upon the authority
of a resolution of the Court. The justices were de-
feated, he said, through a cabal among architects
to prevent the question being decided in the
Queen's Bench. The committee had performed
their duty to the county in bringing the action to
see whether Mr. Daukes was or was not responsible
for the defects in their asylum, of which he was the
architect, and they proceeded upon what they
deemed competent evidence, but there was a con-
flict of opinion. (The hon. magistrate's speech was
of considerable length, and he was much applauded
at its conclusion.)
Upon the motion of Mr. Burslem, it was referred
to the Committee of Accounts, &e., to consider
whether it would not be for the benefit of the
county to appoint an architect at a salary, with
liberty to practise for himself.
The prison and other reports having been dis-
posed of, the Court adjourned.

MRS. SWINFEN'S ACTION AGAINST
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.

Some months ago we announced that Mrs. Swin-
fen, the successful litigant in the celebrated cause
of "Swinfen v. Swinfen," had brought an actiou
against the Lord High Chancellor of England under
circumstances which will raise a question materially
affecting the privileges of counsel, and which will
render the cause one of great legal and public
interest. A brief recapitulation of the facts will
render the case intelligible. An issue had been
directed by the Court of Chancery to try the vali-
dity of the will of Samuel Swinfen, by which he
bequeathed a large estate to his widow. The will
was impeached by the defendant as the heir at law.
The case was tried before Sir Cresswell Cresswell,
then a puisne judge of the Court of Common Pleas,
in the spring of 1856, when a compromise vas
entered into between the learned counsel on both
sides, Lord Chelmsford, the present Lord Chancellor,
who was then Sir Frederic Thesiger, being counsel
for the lady, and Sir Alex. Cockburn, now Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, representing the heir
at law. By this arrangement the defendant was to
secure to Mrs. Swinfen an annuity of £3,000 a year.
Mrs. Swinfen, on hearing that this compromise had
been entered into, was exceedingly dissatisfied, and
refused to give her consent to carry it out. The
matter gave rise to fresh legal proceedings, both in
the Common Pleas and the Equity Courts. Even-
tually the Master of the Rolls directed a new trial
for the purpose of establishing the validity of the
will. The case was accordingly tried in Stafford-
shire, and Mrs. Swinfen succeeded in establishing
her claim to the property bequeathed by her late
husband.

Mrs. Swinfen now brings her action against Lord
Chelmsford for having, as her counsel in • the first
cause, prejudiced her rights by the compromise into
which lie had entered on her behalf. There are
several counts in the declaration, which charge the
noble delndant generally with having entered
into the compromise in violation of his duty as
counsel, and in defiance of her expressed will and
instructions, Another count alleges that the de-
fendant was in collusion with Sir C. Cresswell, the
learned judge who tried the cause. The Lord
Chancellor has put several pleas on the record. He
denies his knowledge of any want of authority, and
that he had entered into any collusion with the
judge. It is further pleaded that the defendant
had every reason to believe that Mrs. Swinfen's
interest would be benefited by the compromise.
This cause, as originally fixed, was to have been
tried at Stafford in March, but in consequence of
the issition of the noble defendant requiring his
presence in London, and the great impediment
which would accrue to public business from the
circumstance that lie and other distinguished pe--
sons were compelled to attend a trial in the country,
the venue has been changed to London. Under
present arrangements the action will be tried in the
Court of Exchequer, at the sittings after next term
at Guildhall, as a special jury cause. As, however,
special jury causes arc not taken at these sittings,
the consent of the parties must be obtained. The
noble defendant has, we understand, intimated that
he will afford every facility for the immediate trial
of the case.
Mr. Kennedy, who was counsel for Mrs. Swinfen
on the last trial as to the validity of her husband's
will, has been retained for her in her action against
the Lord Chancellor, whose interests have been in-
trusted to the advocacy of the Attorney-General.