The Sun.
London, England, 1827-05-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 5.
HOLROYD V. VAMPHILON.
In this case Mr. ADOLPHUS made a motion of rather an
unusual description. It appeared that in 1823 a notice
was served in the name of the plaintiff and other persons,
upon the defendant, a gentleman of independent fortune,
cautioning him not to pursue game upon their premises.
Similar notices were served, at the same time, upon other
persons. The notices, however, thougoli served in the name
of Holrcyd and others, were printed at the expense of the
Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and distributed by his
servants, and the whole proceeding was intended as a com-
pliment to his Royal Highness, by restraining the defen-
dant and others lion' pursuing game over premises which
were situate in the neighbourhood of Claremont. • His
Royal Highness does not nut, however, appear to have pre-
served in the neighbourhood that esteem which had been,
as it were, paid him in advance upon the credit of his
future conduct. Accordingly, some years after the origi-
nal notice, the defendant, who was in pursuit of game, and
shot a hare on some premises adjoining the forbidden ground
(and which hare escaped into the premises of Mr. Holroyd),
was requested by Mr. H.'s gamekeeper to come on the pre-
mises and take the hare away. The gamekeeper added,
that the gentlemen who had made the original prohibition
in favour of his Royal Highness, would continue it no
longer, and that Mr. Pamphilon was at liberty to pursue
game there in future. Mr. P. did accordingly, in compliance
with this invitation, go at different times in pursuit of game,
upon the premises in question. An action of trespass was in
consequence brought against him at the late Kingston As-
sizes, in which Mr. Holroyd was the nominal plaintiff;
but the case was conducted by Mr. Smallpiece, his Royal
Highness's attorney, and the witnesses upon the trial were
the bailiff and servants of the Prince. The Jury returned
a verdict of damages to the amount of a farthing, and the
defence was of such a nature, that the farthing damages did
not entitle the plaintiff to have his costs. Notwithstanding
the nature of the action, the Judge at Nisi Prins had, un-
asked by Counsel, certified that the plaintiff ought to re-
ceive his costs, and the motion which. Mr. Adolphus now
submitted was, that the effect of the certificate may he pre-
vented, by (we believe) expunging it from the record. In
support of the motion the Learned Gentleman produced an
affidavit of Mr. Holroyd, in which he swore that he had
consented to become the plaintiff in the action, on condition
that his Royal Highness should indemnify him against the
costa of the proceeding. He further said, that if he had
been aware of the occurrence between Mr. Pamphilon and
the gamekeeper, he,would not have consented to have be-
come the plaintiff under any circumstances. Mr. Adolphus
submitted that the whole proceeding on one side, looked
not very unlike the offence of maintenance, and that the
plaintiff ought not, in any view of the case, to have his
costs in an action of such a description.
The COURT was of opinion that they had not the power
to expunge the certificate ; but directed Mr. Adolphus to
lay the affidavit, which he had produced, before the Learned
Judge who had tried the action, as the propriety of
granting or annulling the certificate was in his power
alone.