The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-17 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, June 15.

The following rules wero read at the last meeting of
the Court, but were not then in a state to be delivered
to the public. They are of the greatest important to be
known to all persons concerned in the administration of
justice in criminal courts : _

" Court for Crown Cases Reserved.
" Exchequer Chamber, Westminster.
" Trinity Term, 13th Vict )ria.

" Whereas by an Act mad; and passed in the 11th
and 12th years of the reign of her pre3ent Majesty, en-
titled. An Act for the Further Amendment of the Ad-
ministration of the Criminal Law,' it is amongst other
things enacted, than when any person shall have been
convicted of any treasonable felony, or misdemeanour,
before any court of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery,
or court of quarter sessions, the judge, or commissioner,
or justices of the peace, before whom the case shall have
been tried, may, in his or their discretion, reserve any
question of law which shall have arisen on the trial I,r
the consideration of the justices of either bench and
Barons of the Exchequer.
"That the judge, or commissioner, or court of quar-
ter sessions, shall thereupon state, in a case signed in
the manner now usual, the question or questions of
law which shall have been so reserved with the special
circumstances upon which the same shall have arisen,
and such case shall be transmitted to the said justices
and barons.

" And whereas it is expedient that regulations be
made fur the convenience of the Court established under
the said recited• Act,
" It is ordered, that when any case shall be trans-
mitted by a court of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery,
or court of quarter sessions, for the consideration of
this Court, the original case signed by the judge, or
commissioner, or chairman of sessions, reserving the
question of law, and seventeen copies of such case, one
tur
,each judge, and one for each party, shall be de-
livered to tae clerk of this Court, at the Exchequer
Chamber, Westminster, at least four days before the day
appointed for the sitting of the said Court.
" That every case transmitted for the consideration
of this Court briefly state the question or questions of
law reserved, and such facts only as raise the, question
or questions submitted; if the question turn upon the
indictment, or upon any count thereof, then the case
must set forth the indictment or the particular count.
" That no case be heard upon any demurrer to the
pleadings.

'• That every case state whether judgment on the con-
♦iction was passed, or postponed, or the execution of the
judgment respited, and whether the person convicted be
in prison, or has been discharged on recognizance on
bail to appear and receive judgment, or to render him-
self in execution.

" That when any case is intended to be argued by
counsel, or by the parties, notice thereof be given to the
clerk of this court, at least two days previously to the
sitting of the said Court.

" That with every case delivered to the judges of this
court (except such eases as shall be reserved by such
judges) the tee psyable to the clerks of the said judges
shall not exceed the tee payable on demurrer and other
paper books,' as contained in the table of f,:•es allowed and
&auctioned by the judges, pursuant to the statute Ist
Victoria, cap. 30.
" CAMPBELL. " R. M. R(.LFE.
" T. WILDE. " W. WIGHTMAN.
" F. POLLOCK. " C. CRESSWELL.
" J. PARKE. " W. ERLE.
" E. H. ALDERSDN. " T. J. PLATT.
, " J. PATTESON. " E. V. WILLIAMS.
"J. T. COLERIDGE. "T. N. TALFOURD."

LORD MAYOk'S COURT, June 15.
THE COMMON PLEADERS AND THE BAR.
When the first cause was called on, Mr. W. Payne
stated that he appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Mr.
Ryland (common pleader) hereupon objected, Mr.
Payne not being one of the common pleaders and coon-
se,' appointed as advocates in this court, as Mr. Randall,
one of the common pleaders, was not engaged in the

c 0.9,,

The RECORDER said that under the circumstances he
could not hear Mr. Payne, Mr. Randall ono of the coal-
men pleaders not being retained. If all the coramon
pleaders were retained and other counsel were required,
then he would hear other counsel.
Mr. PAYNE said be did not desire to intrench upon
the privilege of the common pleaders of the court, but
he understood from the observations made at the Court
of Common Council, that the court was open to all
counsel, by the fact that the Court of Common Council
hid not filled up the vacant office of common pleader,
which had been 13tely held by Mr. Laurie.
The RECORDER objected to anything be had said
elsewhere as advice being urged in this court while he
was judicially sitting, nor could he hold himse:f bound
by any report of what he had said elsewhere, though he
did not wish it to be understood that he had not ex•
pressed an opinion on the subject of filling up the vacancy.
• Mr. PAYNE then intimated that, as 0. Randall had in
the interim been retained, he should retire from the case.
Mr. PULLING here :aid he had to make a motion to
the court, and before the Recorder decided the question
he desired to be heard, although none of the common
Outlets were engaged in his case, and he craved that
right on behalf of himself and many barristers who
were not present.
The RECORDER thought it a very important matter, as
affecting tha customs of London and the rights of citi-
zens, aid he might deem it right to advise the Lord
Mayor to reconsider the decision on the subject of the
common pleaders.
Mr. PULLING submitted that the Recorder might, as
judge of the court, decide who should be heard as mat-
ter of practice.
The RECORDER said he was not the judge, except by
custom,
the Lord Mayor and Aldermn being really
the judges of the court.
At the rising of the court, Mr: P
to admit er PULLING
L NG again made
the motion, an:: alao a motion
James Josiah
Millard as an attorney of the court, a
lard might bo permitted to Big the t t Mr. Mil-
and
e roll of attorneys of
this court
Mr. RYLAND again objected.
The RECORDER said the matter must stand over, but
that it might be convenient to hear the line of argument
to be adopted.
then argued the point
• Mr. PULLING at some length.
The substance of the argument was as follows:—That
the custom was laid down as strongly as possible and
confimed, amongst the other customs of London, that
le •
that the custom was alluded there should not be less than four .common pleaders;
to by Sir William Follett
in the sergeants' case, as reported by Sergeant Manning
p. 64; that the reason there was a limited number, or
,
'what was termed a monopoly, was e of the reci-
becau
Trocity between the court and the public; that the pub-
lic should have four from to choose, and the four bound
themselves to attend; that this privilege remained as long
as the custom continued to be observed, but no longer, and
"at the present moment there were but three, and there-
fore the choice was shackled; that the Court of Corn-
-mon Council might reduce the number to three, but if
:the number were so reduced the custom would be held
unreasonable and void, for no less number than four
had ever been allowed, and no court could say there
should be a monopoly, unless there be four counsel, as
'bad been decided by the case of the Queen v. Derby-
shire and other. That there being but three common
,pleaders would lead to great inconvenience in the prac-
,tice of the court under foreign attachment; for if two
were retained by the plaintiff, as by the custom of the
court was necessary, and one for the garnishee, there
would be no counsel for the approver—a cir-
cumstance so ghring and palpable, that if the custom
were tried, thl Court of Queen's Bench would decide
it to be ,nd unreasonable. That be was objected
t ) on aecount of the custom ; but that custom was not in
• force, for not having been pursued it could not be relied
upon, as the dissuse of a custom destroyed, or at least
al,pended it—the custom therefore being to have four
playlets, and there now being but three, the custom
was suspended, and he relied upon his privilege as a
member of the bar to be heard. He relied upon the fact
that there were at present but three counsel of the court,
g which number, if all were invariably able to attend,
f.\would not be sufficient r the practice of the court ;
it-would be incumbent on the Judge to appoint such
- 'counsel as were Positively required. He re'e,red
'the judgment of Justice Littledale in Collin V. Bioko, 2
- ' 13. and Ad. 663.