Star.
London, England, 1822-11-28 00:00:00

THE KING V RIDOWSVAL

Mr. Serjeant Iluu.omc showed cause against a
Rule obtained lvy Mt. Biongham, calling upon the
.proset nulls, Sir John Sewell and John Atkins, and
Charles M:irray, their Solicitor, to spew cause why
the certiorari obtained in this cause should not be
quashed, why a writ ofproccdendo should not issue,
and veLy the Solicitor should not pay the co-ts incur-
red by the defendant, is consequent eof notice to go
t.) trial, and the costs of this application. The Learned
Serjeant said, he would not have troubled their Lord-
ships, it this Rule had been confined to the costs in-
curred by the defendant in consequence of the notice
of trial, but he did not think the "defendant entitled
to the toss of this application, as he might, without
making this•application. have obtained his costs by
an ordinary side Bar Rule.

CHIEF JusTice.-4 don't think he could obtain his
costs by such a Rule, as this Ve2s not a record sent
down from this Court.
The Learned Serjeant wasproceetling to comment
upon the Atlitiavits in support of the Rule, and to con-
tend that the certiorari could not be quashed—
Ciller JUSTICS.—Mr. Brougham, if you are paid
the costs of going to trial, and of this application,
would you not let the certiorari stand?
Mr. SMOUGHAM,....My complaint is, my Lord, of
the time at which the certiorari was issued.

Mr. Justice (3AYl.ey.•—The Crown had a right to
remove the trial.

Clint/ Jusucs.---There was nothing wrong in is-
suing the writ; but the circumstances under which
it was issued were oppressive to the defendant, and
w•e therefore think him entitled to his costs.

Mr. BnouottAst.—My Lord, I think we are a little
worse than if we had been let go to trial in thecountry.
Mr. Justice 11.syteT.—Are you worse off by being
set ved with that writ on the 10th, that if you had
been served on the Ist?

Mr. Justice BasT.—lf the certiorari be quashed, the
Crotii can sue out another. I think, Mr. Brougham,
by giving you the costs of going to trial, and the
costs of this application, you will have all you want.
Mr. BROUGUAllielfiri well, my Lord, I am At.
tisfied; I have all I want.

Mr. Scrjeant Litn.Locc—More than you (wet
to have.

CHIEF JUSTICE.—If you don't like what is pro-
posed, we will make the Rule absolute in the terms in
which it is drawn up, and then you can sue out ano-
ther writ of certiorari.

The Rule was then made absolute, as far as relates
to the payment of the costs of going to trial, and of
this application.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. CRESWELL moved for a Rule to shew cause,
why a criminal information should not be filed against
two' Magistrates of the Borough of New Radnor, for
refusing to renew the license of Thomas Grifiths,
landlord of the Crown public-house in that borough.
Cum/ JUSTICR—What corrupt active do you
impute to these Gentlemen?
Mr. CRESWELL—My Lords, I have the affidavit of
Griffiths, who swears that he believes the cause of
the Magistrates refusal was his giving st vote for
the Borough to a Gentleman opposed in politics to
those Gentlemen, _

Cnt>ir JUSTICE—Does he give any reason for that
belief?—Mr. Cagswat.s.—No, my Lard.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—A Grand Jury would not
find a bill of indictment upon such evidence.
Cuter JUSTICE—We cannot presume corruption
against these Gentlemen. If the number of public-
houses be not left to the discretion of the Magistrates,
we can never expect that a reduction of public-houses
will take place.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER
IN RS ISAACSON, THOMAS CLASH& AND BSOONSgr
Serje. ant VAUGHAN in the course of last Term
had obtained a Rule to shew cause why Isaacson and
Clarke, both being Attornies of this Court, should not
be struck off the 8011, for having permitted Brookes
to act as an Attorney in their names ; and why
Brookes should not be imprisoned in the Fleet for
having so acted; and further, why all the parties
should not answer the matters contained in the affi-
davits on which this rule was moved, and why they
should not pay the costs of the application. This,
Rule arose out of the following circumstances s—ln
the month of June last, a person named Wtn. Clarke
brought an action against Brookes, to recover a sum
of money which Clarke alleged Brookes had received
from one Seager, a debtor of Clarke's, on his account.
The plaintiff in that action had proved that he called
on Brookes, at his office, in Broad:court, Dray-lane,
and employed him as an Attorney to prosecute an
action for him against Stager, and that Altookps bed

trntli fafifail :the kW! frdm *Meager.
ea de(.n hfinself; ato 50 mach as was
elaimeti from him, it reppett of tile money reeeivid.
from Seeger, by alleging that he had received tii*
money as the clerk of Mr. Isaacson, to whom he hal
paid over the money, and in whose name the cause
had proceeded. up to the comp:smile. The Jury,
however, thought on the evidence, that he had acted
as the Attorney of Clarke,- and had actually assumed
that character, although he had not the slightest pre-
tensions to it. They, therefore, gave a 'verdict for tfe
plaintiff, adding these words, .4 With all costs." This
trial having raised a strong presumption that Brookes
had illegally practised man Attorney, without having
been regularly admitted, the present motion was
' made to punish him for such conduct, and affidavits
of several persons were produced, which stated, that
Brookes had practised as an Attorney for them in
different cases, 'having formerly used the name cf
Thomas Clarke, and subsequently that of Isaacson.
Mr. Serjeant Put, on Monday, diewed cause
against this *Rule, and produced affidavits of
and Thomas Clarke, both of whom stated that they
had employed Brookes as iheir clerk at a regUlar
salary, and had never given him ',emission to use
their names in his own behalf, nor had ever divide,!
the profits of their business with Eliot An affitiavir
of Brookes was also lead, in which he coosfilit,ed the
account given by Isaacson. and Thomas Clarke, and
declared that he had always acted a. the clerk of
son and Thomas Clarke, add in no other capaci,y or
situation whatever.

Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN and Mr. Setjeant ONST.Ow
yesterday observed on the loose m.tnuer in iridium
affidavits of these persons were swr:rn,
The Cowie* then adjourned the further considcra-
•tion of the case until this morniog ; when
Lord Chief Justice DALLAS, after consulting with
the other Judges, said, at present he •hortrt n t give
any judgment on the Rule before the Cour„ for Ire
con idered that Nailer information ot, tl,is subject
miglit be gained; and fur himself, he mu t say, be
observed, that further information appealed neces-
sary. After going through the principal a:legation;
in the afli :aviis on both side:, he observed on the
different dec;rees of credibility to be attached to tl;e
statements, and inquired whether in this ca e the al-
legations in the atlida vits of these parties ranged
within credibility, ititprobability, o- absolute incredi-
bility ? Hrs Lordship then- et.entioned a ea -e in the
Court of King's Bench, in which in a similar appli-
cation, that Court, where Lind Kenyon then presided,
decided that the Rile must he made ahso.ute, though
the feet-sons complained of had directly ans. cred the
charge brought again -t them, as their affi lavits re-
presented an incredible story. In this case, though
his Lordship would not say the stafements of these
at ties "ere incredible, he should at least decia:e ihat
they appeared to him inipi &sable. He theleirre
wished for further info; ma in.., for it was clear that
Brookes had acted as an attorney, and lie riq.lred
that it should be shown by Brookes that he had so
acted, not for his own benefit or emolument, bat
merely for the advantage of Clarke and Laacson re-
spectively. An attachment must them efore issue against
these parties, on which they must give hair to an .wee
interrogatories which should he forthwith tiled, and
a day in next Term should be appointed for hearing
the answer to these inter: ogator ies, and the rem ort of
the Prothonotary thereon.
Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Justice Bunnouctf
shortly ex,,te,sed their concurrence with li•L -rdship,
and an attachment was therefore or..ered .• %Pt issued,
the bail on which was required to be 1001. for each
of the parties themselves, and two sureties if 501.
each. In the meantime the Rule was iii,:ered to be
enlarged, arid the sixth day of next Term was ap-
pointed for the hearing.
The Ciwter then said, the parties must stand com-
mitted, unless the clients of. Mr. Serjeant Vaughan
would take their undertaking to appear and give bail.
Mm. Serjeant VAUGHAN said, he should mist press
for their commitment, but he would expect due n;-
tice of frail.

Mr. Brookes said he would give respor.sible sure-
ties, and he promised to give immediate notice of
bail ; which promise being accepted, he left the Court
with Isaacson and Clarke, who had also undertaken
to appear and give sureties.
Notice was given to the Solicitors practising in the
Court, that after the vest= hlichaelmas Term, the evening
attendance of a Judge in Chambers in Term time would be di.-
continued; and that in all future Terms attendance would be
given every day from half an hour after three until five o'clock.

BIRTH
Tuesday, the Lady of Cyril J. Monkhouse, Esq. of Cr'arcn.
street, Strand, of a son.

MARRIED.
On the 26th inst. at st. Mary-la-bonne Church, George Sim-
son,jutt. Esq. of Si!!wood Park, Berk!, to Mary Anne, dAugb-
ter of Janes Sutherland, Esq. of Gloucester-place, Pornaso-
square.