Star.
London, England, 1827-06-22 00:00:00

THE WINO V. THE JUSTICES OF SURREY.

Mr. BARISSWALL obtained a Rule Nisi last Term,
for a Certiorari to return into this Court an order of
Sessions, confirming a rate made by the Trustees for
erecting new Churches, under the statute 1 Geo. IV. to
cover certain expenses in the erection of new Churches
in the parish of St. Mary, Newington. The objr ct of
bringing the Order was to determine the right of the
Trustees to allow peals of bells to be rung in the new
Churches, and to pay salaries to bell-ringers, beadles,
and organists.
The SOLICITOR.GENERAL and Mr. MANOLES took a
preliminary objection, that the Writ of Certiorori was
taken away by the Act, and, therefore, the Order
could not be removed.

After hearing the ATTORNEY-G=IIIAL and Mr.
BARNIWALL in support of the Rule,
The Count. were of opinion, upon the construction of
the Appeal Clause, that the Certiorari was taken away,
and, therefore, discharged the Rule.

The COURT announced that they would take the New
Trial Paper to•morrow and Saturday, instead of the
Special and Crown Papers.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNI 21.
HAMMETT V. KRENIER.

Mr. Sergeant ADAMS moved, in this case, to obtain
a rule to chew cause, why it should not be referred to
the Prothonotary of this Court, why the Sheriff's Amor.
ney, a Mr. Badeley, should not answer the matters in an
affidavit imputing improper conduct to him; and why,
during the present Term, all proceedings should not be
stayed. This application was made on two affidavits,
the one by a person named Lewis Levy, and the other
'by the defendant; in which it was sworn, that the de-
fendant having incurred a debt with Badeley for costs,he
had given two bills, one of which he had not paid when
it became due. This Bill, as Badeley said, was in the
hands of Hammett, in whose name an action was
brought to recover the amount. In this action, Badeley
was the attorney for Hammett; but the deponents
stated, that they had reason to believe that Hammett
was only a fictitious person, and that Badeley was the
real plaintiff in the action, the bill never having gone
OM of Badeley's hands; and when dishur:oured, was
noted by his notary and returned to him. The affidavits'
also stated, that Badeley was in the habit of discounting
small bills, which, if not paid when due, be immediately
sued the parties, and ran them to an expense of 50,
and sometimes 75 per cent. It was also sworn, that
no bill of costs could be obtained from Badeley when
applied for ; and Badeley had been heard to say, that
Kennier's small bills were as good as a premium to him.l
The LORD CIIIE7 JUSTICE said, that if an attorney of
the Court got bills into his possession for the purpose
of discounting them, he was guilty of a gross abuse of
his office; and it such a charge could be proved against
him, he would be punished for it. The affidavits, how-
ever, upon which Mr. Sergeant Adams .liad moved,
were not sufficiently strong for the Court to act upon,
they only stated what the several deponents had heard.
the Court were also of opinion that an attorney should
not be called on to answer the miters of an affidavit
on any slight grounds, and they therelnie thought it
would be better that the Learned Sergeant should so
shape his application, that the case should go before
the Prothonotary.

Mr. Sergeaut Autors acceded to the sogscztion of the