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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Fritts, at Westminster, before Lord
CAMPBELL and a Common Jury.)
MACGREGOR V. GALSWORTIIY.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff,
Miss Macgregor, a lady residing in Welbeck-street,
spina the defendant, to recover damages for unlawfully
breaking and entering her house.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins was counsel for the plaintiff, and
the defendant was represented by Mr. Whateley and
Sir Juhn Bayley.
It appeared that in April, 1849, two persons named
Wales and Wells brought an action against the plaintiff
in the Bloomsbury County Court, and recovered a ver-
dict fur 19/. lOs. 6:1. debt and costs. On the 17th of
that month the officers of the court went to the plain-
tiff's residence to enter an execution for that sum, but
were unable to effect an entrance through the door.
They returned in the evening, after the doors and win-
dows of the house bad been bolted and barred, and
after having ineffectually attempted to enter by the front
door, proceeded to break open the window and window-
shutters, and so got into the house through the window.
The window-shutter was driven in, and a large vase
which stood inside the window was broken by the party
who bad thus violently effected an entrance into the
house. It was for this alleged trespass and damage that
the plaintiff now sought to recover damages.
Mr. WHATELEY, for the defence, ventured to say that
this was not the plaintiff's action, but had been got up
by other parties for their own gain. He (Ur. Whateley)
admitted that the defendant was personally liable for
any illegal act that might have been done in this case ;
but the defendant did not appear ever to have been cog-
nizant of the circumstances; in fact, he knew nothing
at all about the matter. He was entirely innocent, and
it would be a question for the jury to consider
whether the plaintiff had sustained any damage at his
hands. The plaintiff owed the money in question ; she
did not pay it; an execution was entered against her
goods, and the officers of the court were bound to exe-
cute their process. The questions for the jury were—
whether the front door of the plaintiff's house was open?
did the bailiff get in. and was he thrust out after he had
been in? Because, if that was true, there was no question
that if an officer of the law once fairly got into a house,
the door being opera and was thrust out again, he might
go in by any means he pleased afterwards.
Witnesses were called on the part of the defendant,
who proved that the officers had partly, in the first in-
stance, effec:cd an entrance into the house, but were
thrust out again ; and then it was that they proceeded
to break into the house through the window.
Lord,`,CamrnELL summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
maps 401

EXCHEQUER CHA3iBEI?, June 15.
The following rules were 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 importanc to he
known to all persons concerned in the administration of
justice in criminal courts :
" Court for Crown Cased Reserved.
"Exchequer Chamber, Westminster.
" Trinity Term, 13th Vict ties
" Whereas by en 'Act made and passed in the 11th
and 12th years of the reign cf her present 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 over 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 f:r
cue consideration of the justices of either bench and
Barons of the Exchequer.
"That the judge, or commissioner, or court of q.ler
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 earns shall have arisen,
and such case shall be transmitted to the said justices
and baronr.
" 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-
miffed by a court of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery,
or court u: quarter sessions, fir the consideration of
this Court, the original case signed by the judge, or
commistdoner, or chairman of sessions, reserving the
question of law, and seventeen copiei of such case, one
for :each "judge, and one for each party, shall be de-
livered to the clerk of this Court, at the Exchequer
Chamber, Westminster, at least four days bef. IN the day
pppoirted 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 care
must set forth the indictment or the particular count.
" That no ease be heard upon any demurrer to the
pleadings.
" That every case state whether judgment on the con-
viction was passed, or postponed, or the execution of the
judgment respited, and whether the person convicted be
in prison, ur has been discharged on recognizance on
bail to nppear 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 coast, at least two dais previously to the
sitting of the said Court.

"'Tat with every case delivered to.the judges of this
court (except edch cases as shall be reserved by such
judges) the fee payable to the clerks of the said judges
shall not exceed the tee payable on demurrer and other
caper books,' as contained in the table of fees allowed and
sanctioned by the judges, pursuant to
.the statute Ist
Victoria, cap. 30.
" CA3IPTIELL.
" T. WILDE.
" F. Pord.oca.
" J. PARKE.
" E. H. ALDERSDN.
• "J. PArrEsor.i.
" J. T. COLERIDGE.

" R. M. ROLFE.
" W. WIORTMAN.
" C. CRESSWELL.
" W. ERLE.
"T. J. PLATT.
" E. V. WILLIAMS.
" T. N. TALFOURD."

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, June 15.
THE COMMON PLEADERS AND THE BAR.

When the first cause was called on, Mr. VV. Payne
stat,,d that he appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Mr.
Ryland (common pleader) hereupon objected, Mr.
Payne not being one of . the common pleaders and coun-
sel appointed as advocates in this court, as Mr. Randall,
one of the common plolderi, was not engaged in the
case. _ . .

The RECOIIDER said that under the circumstances he
could not hear Mr. Payne, Mr. Randall one of the com-
mon pleaders not beiug retained. If all the common
pleaders were retained and other counsel were required,
then ho would hear other counsel.

Mr. PAYNE said he did not desire to intrench upon
the privilege of the common pleaders of the court. but
he understcod from the observations rattle 'at the Court
of Common Council, that the court was open to all
counsel, by the fact that the Court of Common Council
had not filled up the vacant office of common pleader,
which had been lately held by Mr. Laurie.
The. RECORDER objected to anything he had said
elsewhere as advice being urged in this court while he
was judicially sitting, nor could he hold himsef bound
by any report of what ho had said elsewhere, though he
did not wish it to be understood that he had not ex-
pressed an opinion en the subject of filling up the vacancy.
Mr. PAYNE then intimated that, as Mr. Randall had in
the interim been retained, he should retire from the case.
Mr. PULLING here said 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
pleaders were engaged in his case, and be craved that
right on behalf of himself and many barristers who
were not present.
The RECORDER thought it a very important matter, as
affecting the customs of London and the rights of citi-
zens, and he might deem it right t) 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 -RECOUDER said he was not the judge, except by
custom, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen being really
the judges of the court.
At the rising of the court, Mr. PeLLINa again made
the motion, and also a motion to admit James Josiah
Millard as an attorney of the court, and that Mr. Mil-
lard might be permitted to sign the 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.
Mr. PULLING then argued the point 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
there should not be less than four common pleaders;
that the custom was alluded to by Sir William Follett
in the sergeants' case, as reported by Se.rgennt Manning
p. 64; that the reason there was a limited number, or
what was termed a monopoly, was becatne of the reci-
procity 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 Com-
mon Council might reAuce 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 Lair counsel, as
had been decided by tte case of the Queen v. Derby-
shire and others. That there being but three common
pleaders would Iced 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 glaring and palpable, that if the custom
were tried, the Court of Queea's Bench would decide
it to be invalid and unreasonable. That be was objected
to on account 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
suspended it—the custom therefore being to have four
pleaders, and there now being but three, the custom
was suspended, and be relied upon his privilege es a
member of the bar to be heard. Be relied upon the fact
that there were at present but three counsel of the court,
number, if all were invariably able to attend,
would not be sufficient for the practice of the court ;
and it would be incumbent on the Judge to appoirt such
counsel as vt,erk: pU iti4 ly required. fir ref, rr,d to
the judgment of Juttice Littledale in Wan v. Hicks, 2
B. and Ad. 663: -