The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-08 00:00:00

OX•s OUGEt nor 1YX.84t13:

Our market continues very inactive, but we have no
change to notice in prices. The supply ()tiering is small.

WEXTECTIAPEX...
133ef moved off steadily at an advance in the quota-
tion a2d per 81133. In other kinds of meat very title
doing. Beef from 2s to 3s, 2d; Mutton, 23 6d to 3s 6d;
Lamb, 4s 4d to 5s 4d; Veal, 3s to 3s 4d; Pork, 3s to
4s per 81bs, by the carcise.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
Befor• the Lord Chief Justice CAMPBELL, and Justices

PATTESON, WIGHTMAN, aud ERLE.)
DOE ON THE DEMISE OF BENNET V. HAILES.

This case arose out of an action tried at the assizes
before one of the judges of the superior courts. It ap-
peared that the defendant had given Mr. New ton, the
barrister, a brief without the intervention of an attorney,
and in the course of the trial the judge asked Mr. New-
ton whether he had been regularly instructed by an
attorney, and on informing him that he had not, and
that the brief had been handed to him by the de-
fendant personally, the Learned Judge reused
to hear biro, and the onus of conducting the case was
thrown on the defendant, who, being an ignorant man,
was unable to examine the witnesses effectively or to ad-
dress the jury; and the consequence was that a verdict
was found for the plaintiff.
Mr. NEWTON moved during the present term for a
new trial, to raise the question as to his right to receive
a brief under those circumstances. I❑ the course of his
arguments he referred to a case in which the present
Attorney-General had taken a brief from a party in a
suite against the Treasury without the intervention of an
attorney. He also referred to the case of the King v.
Burdett, and to another car., in which the late Lord
Abinger and Lord Brougham, and Mr. Hurnfrey, Q,C.,
took briefs from the party himself, and contended on
those authorities that he was entitled to a rule.

Lord CAMPBELL now delivered the judgment of the
Court. He said in this care they were called upon to
con,ider whether in any of the superior courts there was
a rule ef law which prevented the defendant in a civil
suit, who appeared in persor, . from having, in
the stages of a suit in which counsel was not regularly
instructed by attorney. the assistance of a counsel in-
structed by himself without the intervention of an at-
torney. There certainly bad been an understanding
that a barrister ought not to accept a brief in a civil
suit except from an attorney, and he believed it was for
th benefit of suitors and the satisfactory administration
of justice that that understanding should be generally
acted upon; but the Court were of opinion that there
was no rule of law by which it could be enforced.
The only statntable provision on the subject was the
recent County Courts Act, the 91st section of which
enacted that a barrister should not be entitled to appear
in any county court unless instructed by an attorney.
The statute of Westminster the First, allowing the ap-
pearance of an attorney; the statute of William 111.,
c. 3, allowing in cases of treason a full defence by coun-
sel; and the statute of 6 and 7 William IV., c. 114,
allowing a full eerence by counsel in all cases of felony;
decidedly mention cases in which counsel were to be in-
structed. This, however, being a matter of procedure,
the judges might, on their own authority, and
according to their view of what was right,
have laid down a general rule to determine
under what conditions and restrictions barristers
should be permitted to plead, and have pre-audience,
but no such rule. wee found. The alleged restriction,
therefore, must depend on usage, from which it might be
inferred that such rule had been promulgated, though
not now extant in writing. In Crown courts it was con-
sidered that the practise of a barrister not pleading un-
less instructed by an attorney did net prevail, and they
all knew that in certain instances a barrister was allowed

by the judge to defend a prisoner, V without the
intervention of an attorney. There would be a
great difficulty in drawing a distinction for the purpose
in question between civil and criminal proceedings, and
a man might, raiwne commune, be tried on an indictment
or be charged with an offence in the shape of an action to
recover a penalty. On the circuit they talked fami-
liarly of the Crown and the civil side, but questions re-
specting insolvent debtors used to he determined in a
Crown court end at nisi prius by means
of a quo warrant° or it mandamus ; but a
criminal information, or even an indictment for the
crime of murder might be removed to this court by cer-
tiorari, and tried at nisi prius. In civil suits the usage
bad not been invariably uniform, as they must presume
it to have been, if it had been regulated by law; and
which as propounded admitted of no exception. In-
stances had been mentioned in which counsel of great
eminence and high honour had thought they were, under
peculiar circumstances, justified in holding a brief from
a party with or without fee, without any attorney
being employed. There was, however, no de-
the question was not whether a barrister could receive a
cided case which could assist the Court, for in those of
the King v. Sir Francis Burdett, and Mocatto v. Lawson,
brief without the intervention of an attorney, but
whether a party who conducted his own case might have
the assistance of counsel to argue questions of law, end
to examine witnesses. It immemorial usage was to be
relied upon, they must remember that sergeants-at-law
xisted in England long before the time of Edward the
First, and it teemed there was every reason to believe
that they communicated directly with the par-
ties. Chaucer spoke of "sergeants-a'-law who
were wary and wise," and it appeared that at St. Paul's-
change, where men of all ranks used to assemble, each
sergeant had a pillar assigned to him, where he stood
and communicated with his clients who came to consult
with him. The Court believed, however, that the inter-
vention of an attorney between counsel and the party
greatly contributed, not only to the dignity of the
bar, but to the improvement of English jurispru-
dence. He adverted to the practice of former ages,
not for the purpose of showing that the onus
lay in this instance on the defendant, to make out by
Aets of. Parliament or the rules of court, a position in
support of the privilege which he claimed. Tna Court
were by no means insensible to the inconvenience which
might arise from this privilege being judicially recog-
nised, but they earnestly trusted that the almost uniform
usage which had prevailed on the subject for more than
a century would continue to be followed, and that no
abuse of the privilege would take place. They hoped that
what was called the etiquette of the bar would still be
adhered to, and that that very useful and highly honour-
able branch of the profession—the attorneys—would
remain unimpaired. At any rate, it was the duty of
the Court to look to the present state of the law, and
they would leave any inconvenience which might be
produced by their decision to bo remedied by the Judges
or the Legislature. They, therefore, were of opinion
that the rule for a new trial ought to be made absolute.
Rule accordingly made absolute.

EXCHEQUER.—('PHIS DAY.)
(Before the Lord CHIEF BARON, and Barons PARRE,
ROUT, and PLATT.)
WHATELEY V. HEWITT.
_

I❑ this case, whichwas—brOuitittOiecover damages
for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of
the defendant's omnibus coming in contact with one in
which he was riding, and thereby throwing him violently
on the ground, and in which a verdict was found for the
plaintiff for 501. at the last Liverpool essizee,
The CoURT refused to grant a rule for a new trial,
being of opinion that the direction of Mr. Baron
Rolfe, who tried the case, was perfectly correct.