The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-04 00:00:00

LEVY V, 3101 LAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action by the plaintiff, a sheriff's officer,
against the late judge of the Westminster County Court,
his high bailiff, and other persons, for trespass, and false
imprisonment, to which the surviving defendants
pleaded that the plaintiff had insulted the judge of
the county court whilst sitting in his court, and was
thereupon at the order of the judge taken into custaly,
and at the rising of the Court committed to prison for
seven days. The plaintiff having demurred to this plea,
the question was argued a few days ago by Mr. S. Tem-
ple for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and
Mr. Ogle for the defendants.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE yesterday delivered the
judgment of the Court; and after stating the facts, and
the terms of the warrant of commitment, said the prin-
cipal causes of demurrer relied on were, first, that
the plea was bad fur uncertainty, and, secondly,
that the word " therefora " was improperly used
in the warrant ; for it must either refer to
one or both of the antecedent cases put, and
in either case was insufficient. The Court thought
these objections could not be supported. It was urged
that the plea and warrant were bad for not setting out
the nature of the insult, that the Court might be able to
judge whether it were such an insult as would justify the
judge of the county court in committing the plaintiff for
seven days. On the other side it was contended the
warrant must be construed with reference to the 133 d
section of the County Courts Act, and that its plain
meaning was that the plaintiff having insulted the judge
was therefore kept in custody until the rising of the
Court, and then ordered to be committed for seven days.
Also, that the justification, so far as the surviving de-
fendants were concerned, was complete, because they
could not dispute or disobey the order of the judge, and
that the judge was justified in making the order, be-
cause he was a judge in a superior court. Upon the
latter point, although it was unnecessary to decide it, the
Court thought there were strong grounds for thinking
that these courts, which were still county courts, were
inferior courts, although they were courts of record,
With respect to the warrant itself, the Court, on the
authority of " The King v. The Sheriff of Hereford-
shire," 11 Ad. and El., 287, thought it sufficiently de-
scribed the nature of the offence. The 113th section of
the County Courts Act provided that
if any person
should wilfully insult any judge or officer of the said
court, it would be lawful for any officer of the court by the
order of the judge to take such offender into custody,
and detain him until the rising of the court, and the
judge was empowered, if he thought fit, by a warrant
under his hand, to commit such offender to prison
for any time not exceeding seven days. The Court
thought that the judge bad jurisdiction under thiss"
don to decide what was an insult, and therefore held
with the defendants that the cause of committal was ,3
suf-
ficiently stated, that the statement of the plaintiff's
being detained till the rising of the court must be taken
to be a narrative by the judge of what took place pre-
vious to the committal. Judgment must therefore bo for
the defendants.—Judgment accordingly._

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, May 3.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge, and a
full Bench of Magistrates.)
The Court sat this day by adjournment at the Guild-
hall, Westminster, for the purpose- of hearing petitions
and appeals.
THE RECOGNIZANCES FOR THE APPEARANCE OF LOLA

the order of P. MONTE& •
As was intimated at the last sitting of the Court, this
matter was again mentioned this morning.
Mr. CLARICSON (who had bean retained in support of
Maria Dolores Con:
any steps that
pto• re:
oe: of
efh Slr
Marl-
borough-street office) said that, by an arrangement that
had been come parties, theappeal
to between the parties,
Bingham, Es , the magistrate at Marl-
the order for the amount of the recognizances for the ap-
Mentes), which had been entreated, would be now with-
drawn; de Landefeld (Lola
drawn; and he could only further say, in reference to
that it should receive his best attention.
Mr. BODKIN said that his clients, in withdrawing their
appeal, wished the public to know that they were not the
might be taken in the matter elsewhere,
legal advisers of Lola M ntes but had only consented
The appeal was then abandoned, and the parties left
the court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
./1/44 NSION- HO USE.
Edward Barnett ryas charged with forgery upon tho
London Joint-Stook Bank.
Mr. Jshn Saunders, 'clerk in the London Joint-Stock
Bank, said—Messrs. Michael Levy Green and Co., of
Houndsditch, k,ep
an account at our bank. BAween
twelve and one o'clock this thy the cheque produced, No.
was presented by
31,616, for 25/ the prisoner f pay-
It ;
me" " signed M. L. Green and Co. I asked him
how he would have it, and he said a 51 note, five pounds
in silver, and
th© rest in gold. I had reason to doubt
the signature, and detained the prisoner.
also
Mr. Kay, a clerk in the Joint-Stock Bank, sail—
This morning I received the order produced for a chi..que-
book, signe.l Mr. L. Green and Co. I delivered a cheque-
b)ok, No. 31,616. I cannot eay to whom I gave it.
Mr. M. L. Green, clothier, of Houndsditch, said—
The prisoner was in my service till last Moaday week,
for about fifteen months. I know his handwriting,
having seen him write. The body of the eh9que and
the order produced aie in his handwriting. He had no
authority to got my cheque-book, or to write or sign any