Star.
London, England, 1829-05-26 00:00:00

VIZ COLLROR OR PHYSICIANS O. HARRISON.

It avid be remembered in this case that the question
argue.' on Saturday was, whether the plaintiffs, having
tailed in their action for penalties, were or were not
liable tory the defendant his costs?
Lord rM4TiItDEN now delivered the opinion of the
Court. The question was, whether the plaintiff', had
they succeeded in the action, would have been entitled
to their costs under the 4th James 1. cap. 5? for. if
they would have been, the defendant, having succeeded,
was entitled to be paid his costs. The opinion of the
Court was, that in cases of this description the College
would be entitled to costs, for where a right was
vested in a corporation the withholding of tl.at
right, and thereby compelling the corporation to
sue for it, was an injury in respect to which damages
might be recovered; and if damages might be recovered
costs would of course follow. The Court did not sup.
pose the College was implied by the practice of any un•
licensed person. but by the withholding of that to which
they were entitled ander an Act of Parliament. .In the
course of argument it had been remarked that the
College of Physicians exercised a monopoly. It was
true that no man could practise in London as a physi-
cian without being a Member or licentiate of the Col-.
lege, but they no more exercise a monopoly than the
Learned Gentlemen he now had the pleasure of seeing
before him, who were obliged to be admitted to the
bar before they could practise; but neither they or the
learned body who formed the College of Physicians
were to be placed on the same footing with persons
engaged in trade and commerce. They both stood on
much higher ground, and he trusted they would always
continub on an equal footing of honour and dignity.
His Lordship then directed the rule for the master to
review his taxation to be discharged with costs.

THR KING V. Till GUARDIAN& OP TIER POOR OP •THR
PARISH OP GARAT FANRINGDON.
In this case Robert Palmer Gill had obtained a rule
calling upon the Guardians, Churchwardens. and
Overseers of the poor of the parish of, Great Farrinv
don to show cause why a mandamus should not labor
commanding them to allow him to inspect the books
and accounts of this seceift. expenditure, and applica-
tion of the rates of the said. patish, and to take copies
of the same at his own costs and chatges.
Mr. TAUNTON now showed cause against the rule. It
was admitted io bis.alEdavits that Gill was liable to be
assessed for the relief of the poor.. and had therefore
under the Act of Parliament, 22d George 111. cap. 83,
by which the parish was regulated, a tight to inspect
the books; but they contended that it did not appear
be had made such a demand. and had experienced such
a refusal.to his being allowed to inspect them as was
required by the Court before it would grant a manda-
mus. It was besides urged that the applicant's conduct
arose from a desire to harass the officers, and not from
suffering on his part from a misapplication of the funds..
he only having been rated on one occasion at 4% and
another at ls.
Sir J. ScaaLETT supported the rule,. and read .paiss.
asses ;tom his affidavits, proving that Gill had applied,
to inspect and make copies of the accounts, and had
been sewed.
11.41 e for mandamus made absolute.
EX PARTS —.•
Mr. PLATT moved ti r a rule calling upon' the Cot
missioner. of hi. Majesty's Woods and' Ft/tests trisho
cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding;
them to issue their warrant tothe High Bailiff of We*,
minster to summon a Jury to assess compensation fee
certain houses in Chandos.street. The ground on Which
he applied was, that the inquisition already had was, if
1 e Wight so tall it, a ntisinquisition, there having been
only eleven Jurymen instead of twelve.
• ford Tatitaanart—Have you applied to the Com-
*„.Miasioneis to issue a new warrant?
PLATT replied in the'llfitHlSSive.
• LariLTamtawaaal—And what answer. did yet get?!
.mss amid that they were told that the meet