The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

4- -
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-TUESDAY,
THE QUEEN V. GEORGE DIXON.

In this case a rule had been obtained for a quo war-
ranto, calling on the defendant to show by what authority
he claimed to be the Mayor of Carlisle. The facts of the
case were these :—The defendant was well qualified to be
put on the citizen roll of Carlisle for the years ending on
the Ist of November, 1848 and 1849. In the year ending
on the Ist of November, 1848, he actually was on that
roll ; but in the next year he was not. On the 12th of
November, 1847, he whs elected town councillor, to go
out of office on the Ist of November, 1850. On the 9th
of November, 1848, being then a town councillor, he was
elected mayor, but he wrim not then on the citizen roll of
the city. It was necessary that the mayor should be cho-
sen from among the councillors or aldermen, and the
question was whether, not being on the roll at the time he
was elected mayor, he could be said to be well elected to
the office.

The court decided that his worship's election was per-
fectly valid.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—THURSDAY.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. WILLMER AND SMITH.

The Attorney-General applied to the Court the
hearing of this rule to stand over until after an action at
law had been tried. He said that this was an application
for a criminal information against the defendants for a
libel upon the proprietors of the electric telegraph. The
very same alleged libel had been published in the Morning
Herald, and an action had been brought against Mr.
Chapman, the publisher of that paper. The defendant in
that action had put in a special justification on the record ;
and it would be convenient, if not just, that the rule for a
criminal information should not be made absolute until
after the jury in the civil case had pronounced a verdict
on the question whether the inculpated matter was libel-
lous or not.

The Court remarked that the defendants in the criminal
and civil cases were not the same, and that the Court could
not, according to any rules of practice, make one proceed-
ing dependent on another where the parties were not the
same in both.
Application refused.

Mr. R. Gurney, Q.C., has been elected judge of the
Sheriff's Court for the city of London.
The Oxford Circuit Bar, through their leader, Mr. W.
Whateley, have addressed Lord Campbell, congratulating
his Lordship on his elevation to the office of Chief Justice
of England, to which his Lordship has replied in suitable
terms.

Sergeant Wilkins applied to the court of Exchequer,
on Tuesday, for a rule for a new trial in the case of
" O'Connor V. Bradshaw," recently tried at the Middlesex
Assizes, when the verdict was for the defendant, the pro-
prietor of the Nottingham Journal. It was hinted that
a compromise would be come to. The court took time to
consider.

Application was made at the Bail Court, on Tuesday,
for a criminal information against a gentleman who had
sent a challenge to one of his wife's relatives, the ground
of offence being that the challenged party had received
the wife and child of the challenger at his house, contrary
to the challenger's wishes. The writer added, that he
should consider the challenged " a dastardly coward," if
he refused theccombat. The rule was granted.
On Thursday, in the Court of ,Queen's Bench, Sir F.
Thesiger obtained a rule nisi against Mr. Latimer, the
proprietor of the Plymouth Journal, for an alleged libel
on Miss Sellon and the other Sisters of Mercy at Devon-
port. The libel charged the sisters with purchasing a
communion service, which they have presented to a
church at Devonport, out of the funds of their institu-
tion.—A rule was made absolute against the same de.
fendant for a libel on the Rev. G. R. Prynne, whom he
charged with immorality.

CO-STS IN COUNTY COURTS.—The Times prominently
calls attention to the practice of attornies bringing actions
in the superior courts, which may be tried in the county
courts, and points out that by this practice they secure to
themselves high costs, which their clients, though they
be successful.plaintiffs in the actions, have to pay out of
their own pockets. There is one particular section in the
county court act which declares that where a plaintiff
brings his action for a debt under £2O in a superior court,
and the verdict shall be for a sum less than £2O, the
plaintiff shall have the debt only, and shall himself pay
his own costs ; but if a verdict be given for the defendant,
then the plaintiff shall pa) the defendant's costs, as be-
tween attorney and client. Thus in such cases the plain-
tiffs have to pay their own cost of the proceedings, which
far exceed any debt they may have recovered. When
they have expected to receive their £5 or £lO, they will
find, to their great chagrin, that that is a mere legal fic-
tion ; for they will have to pay their own attorney from
£25 to £3O. The Times suggests that in such cases,
where the attorneys bring actions in the superior courts
instead of the county courts, they shall themselves be
mulcted by the court in the costs which their clients
would have to pay.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE—FIFTY-FOUR
Arin TWENTY-FOUR.—Sergeant Shee moved in the Court
of Exchequer, on Monday, for a new trial in the case of
Adams v. Gibbs, tried at Maidstone, before Chief Justice
Wilde, on the ground of misdirection and excessive da-
mages. Mr. Gibbs, a farmer, aged fifty-four, sought
Miss Adams, aged twenty-four, in marriage. All the
preliminaries were arranged, wedding-dresses bought, and
even the wedding breakfast ordered, when the defendant
suddenly set off to Liverpool, and subsequently to Ame-
rica. Sergeant Shee contended that the damages, £BOO,
were excessive. The defendant was ready to pay hand-
somely for his refusal to marry the plaintiff, but £BOO was
far too much. What loss had the plaintiff sustained ?
There was no interesting correspondence, no sentimental
courtship, no broken heart, or anything of that sort.
(Laughter.) What bad been the lossof this young lady ?
She had lost a husband of fifty-four. Why, what had a
man of fifty to do with a young wife s4f twenty-four?
Nothing at all. She would be much better without him.
,(Laughter.) Sir F. Pollock.—lt is all very well for you,
Brother Shee, who are under fifty, to say that ; but I can
assure you that men far advanced beyond that age some-
times think differently. (Immense laughter.) Judgment
<cleferxed.