Old Bailey New Court.
The Times, 1824-06-08T00:00:00

bieven young men. who had acted as ahopmen to Carlile, were se- verally put to the bar to plead to indictments for publishing blas- phemous and seditious libels. Wliana Irayly pleaded not guilty, and said he would take his trial this session. Michael Johcn O'Connor pleaded guiltr. Johnt Christopher pleaded not gtiltv, auid declined to traverse. Janmes Clarke pleaded not guilty, and dedined either to travene, or avail himself of a mivnomer,his name being John Clarke,and not James. Win. Cochrane pleaded not guilty, and dedined to traverse. * Thoma. Riley Parry pleaded not guilty, and traversed to next session. Richard Campio.t pleaded not guilty to ieur indictments, two of which he was told he coald not traverse, as he had been in custody upon them for more than 21 days. He said he was ready to take his trial. .E'; Thomauts Jey'wijs pleaded not guilty to two indictments; but ex- presseda wish to traverse to next se.sion, in order to prepare for lhis defence. EIe was. informed, however. that he could not be allowed to do so, as he had becn in custody upon this chargenearlya month. To-morrow wasfixed for the trials of those who did not traverse. PRACTICE OF THE BAR WIT1I RESPECT TO THIE RETURN Or FEES. Yesterday morning, illr. ALLEY, the barrister, on entering the 'New Court, where he was engaged in a case, addressed Sir Peter Laurie, the Sheriff, and complained of a statement which had ap- peared in The Timesr of that day, and which he ba.l no hesitation in declaring to be an impudent libel upon the bar. The learned gen- tleman then produced The Times, and pointed out the following pa- ragraph :_ " We have been informed that Mr. Law, upon hearing the facts which we stated oii Friday, relative to a man who ought to have been, but was not, defended, immediately retutned the fee. We mention this as an honourable act on the part of the learned Counsel, as it has long been an established principle zt the bar, not to return a fee under any circumstances." Mir. ALLEY added, tlhat it hadever been his invariablepractice to return his fee, if he was unzble toattend to the intereuts of the person whom he was retained to defend. SirP. LAuRiE replied, that. the paragmph was certainly untrue in one part of it-he meant that part which related to Mr. Law. That gentlernan had never received the fee, and therefore could not have returned it. AMr. ALLEY said the paragraph was a slander ; and he denied "that it had been long an established principle at the bar never to return a fee under any circumstances." Other barristers expressed much displeasure at the paragraph in question, and ose observed that it would operate as its own antidote, for it bore upon the face of it the character of falsehood. Air. ALLEY then left the Court for a short time, and Mir. ADOL- P1rus coming in the interim, Sir P. LAURIE asked him if he ever returned a fee? Mr. ADOLPaUtS said,-Certainly not; it was neverdone. Coun- ail could not recover fees, and once paid they were neAr returned. The profassion of the Jaw was not to be regarded as upon the same footing with a mere trade. Sir P. LAURIE, on i\lr. AUey re-entering the court rubsequently, told him he had been informel that it was not always the practice to return fees. Air. ALLEY said he knew not what the practice of other gentle- men might be, but he pledged his honour that he never in his whole life neglected to return a fee if any thnig prevented him from attending to the interests of his client. ?e was perfectly incapable of such an act.-Here the conversation ended. OLD BAILT:E' NRW ClnTT"T