ing to their literal meaning; and for these various June 23, 1847." The Poor Removal Amendment Bill has been rejected by a very small majority, but from no approval of the existing condition of the law, but rather because all are agreed that the entire Law of Settlement must be revised, probably abolished, in the next session, and that it was a sheer waste of legislative labour to make a law in June to be repealed in February. We would once more direct the serious attention of the Magistrates who are to preside at the Quarter Sessions next week to the indecency of their playing the part of prosecutors instead of "holding the balance even between the parties." The subject has forced itself on the attention of the public-the practice has been denounced in Parliament, and is condemned by the Government. We trust, after the notice that it has attracted, the Magistrates will not want to be compelled by law to transfer prosecutions from the bench to the bar, but that they will, of their own accord, anticipate the Legislature, and, making a virtue of necessity, abandon a practice which, if continued now that its injustice is proclaimed, will shake the confidence of the public in the administration of the law. It will be scarcely necessary to direct attention to the very important judgment in the case of Reg. v. The Justices of Carmarthen, reported to-day, in which the much-debated question as to coroners' fees is set at rest, the Queen's Bench ruling that the coroner's remuneration is in the discretion of the justices, but that they are bound to pay the monies expended for medical fees, room, &c. REVIEW OF MAGISTRATES' CASES. HILARY, EAster, and TRINITY TERMS. We were, unfortunately, prevented from concluding our Reviews of Hilary Term in the ordinary course, and we have now, therefore, to include the last three Terms, with the exception of those few noticed in 8 Law T. 540 (a); and as the Sessions are close at hand, we have endeavoured to compress the principal cases into one number, and for that object have postponed some cases which are not of immediate interest. Affidavits Certiorari-Entituling. The ordinary rule is, that after a certiorari issued, affidavits should be entituled in the cause, but Reg. v. Chasemore, suprà, shews that this means after the writ has been served. In that case, the rules for a certiorari had been made absolute, but no writ actually served upon the Court below, and the Court held that the affidavits were well entituled in the Court only. APPEAL. Lunatic paupers-8 & 9 Vict. c. 126, 8. 62.For the first time a judicial construction has been put upon the 62nd section of the Lunatic Pauper Act, which has formed the subject of much discussion. It enacts that an order of maintenance may be made upon the parish or union where the justices have adjudged the lunatic to be settled, and then proceeds thus: Provided always, that the guardians of any union or parish, or the overseers of any parish, township, or place affected by such order, may appeal against the same in like manner as if the same were a warrant of removal; and in case of such appeal, the guardians of the union or parish, or the overseers of the parish, township, or place, or the clerk of the peace of the county to which such lunatic was chargeable before such order was made, may defend such appeal, and the persons appealing or intending to appeal, and the persons defending such appeal, shall have all the same powers, rights, and privileges, and (a) Those cases were, Reg. v. Keen, as to the time for filing affidavits; Reg. v. The Recorder of Leeds, as to the removal being a grievance; Reg. v. The Justices of Suffolk, deciding that where Sessions are held in several places upon stated adjournment-days, the time for service of grounds of appeal is fourteen days before the first day of the original Sessions; and Reg. v. St. Ann's, Westminster, Reg. v. East Stonehouse, as to apprenticeship settlements. be subject to the same obligations in all respects as in had been without jurisdiction, holding that an admission made by the respondent's attorney was The question at once arises, need copies of ex- some evidence of a service, within the meaning aminations be sent ? If the 79th section was in- of the statute. That admission was as foltended to be incorporated, why should not the Le- lows: "I hereby admit the due services of gislature have said so? Upon the strict gramma- the notices of bail and appeal given herein on tical construction it would not be necessary, as the respondent Mr. Chesshyre, the appellant's there can be no persons "defending the appeal attorney undertaking to produce the original nountil there be an appeal, and the sending of the tices on the hearing of this appeal, together with the examinations is a condition precedent to the appeal, order." "" The contest was, whether this admitted as no actual removal takes place. Mr. Justice more than the fact of service, leaving all other quesWightman, however, held that the words were tions open. The decision is a warning as to mak. general enough to include the provisions of the ing any admissions, without great care in guarding 79th section, and that copies of examinations must against the words being construed far beyond the be sent. It follows, of course, from this decision, intention. that the rules as to notice and grounds of appeal Abandonment of order.-The question discussed must also be applicable. Indeed the words "in- at much length in Reg. v. Hinchcliffe, 2 New Mag. tending to appeal" get rid of the grammatical Cas. 106; 8 Taw T. 389, is of considerable imcontradiction which the part of the clause as to portance and difficulty. It is, whether an order of the respondents contains. This decision will pro- filiation can be abandoned by the mother, and a bably affect numerous orders under this statute. It fresh one applied for. As in the particular instance is not, however, entirely satisfactory. it turned out that the full costs occasioned by the that the churchwardens and overseers of the parti- the other side, the Court did not decide the general Who may appeal.—In the same case it was held order sought to be abandoned had not been paid to cular parish within the union upon which, collec-point. It seems to us that the weight of argument tively, the order of maintenance was made, were preponderates in favour of such abandonment. proper parties to appeal, because they were" af- The strong leaning of the Court of Queen's Bench fected" by the order. in favour of all appeals being decided upon the merits, would probably induce them to apply the same rule to these orders as to any order of removal, which it is now fully established may be abandoned and another obtained, maintainable on the merits. "That which is revoked before any one is injured, is well revoked," is the language of Lord DENMAN, in Reg. v. The Justices of West Riding, 2 Q. B. 713, which would apply here with just the same force. In that case Mr. Justice Patteson explained that the practice of abandonment was good independently of the additional reasons arising from the enforced communication of objections under the Poor-Law Act. The same principle applies to the abandonment of judge's orders, which is always permissible, provided the other party has not been damnified or the order acted on. That it should not be acted on is essential. (See Pearce v. Chaplin, 16 L. J. 49, Q. B.) The danger that such abandonments would produce vexatious proceedings is purely imaginary, for the payment of the costs is a condition precedent, and of course any conduct of that kind would be taken into account upon a second application. Grounds of appeal. The Court of Queen's Bench continues to enforce as much as possible the wholesome rule that all objections shall be specified in the grounds of appeal; and several instances have occurred during the period we are now reviewing. Thus, in Reg. v. St. Anne's, Westminster, 2 New Mag. Cas. 75; 16 L. J. 33, M.C.; 8 Law T. 338, under a ground of appeal that "notice in writing of the said paupers being chargeable to or relieved in your parish, accompanied by a copy or counterpart of the said order, and by a copy of the examinations on which the said order was made, has not been sent by post or otherwise," it was held that no advantage could be taken of an omission in the copy sent of the names of two of the children from the adjudication. So under a ground of appeal that the said paupers are not settled in one parish in any manner whatsoever, evidence of a birth settlement in a third parish is held inadmissible. (Reg. v. Widdicombe-in-the-Moor, 1 Law T. 364; 2 New Mag. Cas. 64; 16 L. J. 44, M. C.) It was here contended that it was admissible, because the other grounds of appeal disposed of the settlement by hiring and service set up upon the examinations; but the Court answered that if they meant this, they should have said so. This principle cannot be too strictly followed. By drawing the ground of appeal, however, in a general form, minute objections may still be raised at the trial. Thus, in Reg. v. Staffordshire, 8 Law T. 173, the ground of appeal was that the order, notice of chargeability, and examinations were bad on the faces thereof, and that the examinations contained no legal evidence of the paupers' settlement in C. or of their having come to settle in, or being chargeable to L.; and under this, Mr. Justice Erle decided that it was open to object that the Adam Salt, as whose widow the pauper claimed the settlement, was not shewn to be the same Adam Salt whose birth was proved by one John Salt. It of course followed that the justices having decided in favour of the objection, it was matter of fact with which the Court of Queen's Bench had no right to interfere. BASTARDY. a CERTIORARI. settled that where a case is reserved and brought Practice as to objections.—It is now definitively up by certiorari, there is no mode of taking any other objections than those reserved in the case itself. It was supposed that this new practice might be introduced in consequence of the reason given in Reg. v. Heyop, 1 New Mag. Cas. 497, that such objections could not be there taken, bemoved for, and accordingly in Reg. v. St. Anne's, Westminster, 2 New Mag. Cas. 60; 8 Law. T. 338; 16 L. J. 33, M. C.; and Reg. v. Hartpury, 9 Law T. 196, additional objections were mentioned when the certiorari was obtained. The Court, however, laid it down as the rule, that either the case must be abandoned, and the objections open on certiorari alone relied upon, or the case adopted, and the objections therein reserved alone considered. In the course of cause not mentioned at the time the certiorari was the last case Lord Denman, C. J. as he has often done before, expressed his desire to lessen the flood forbear from quoting, as it must have the assent of of parochial litigation, in language which we cannot all those who have observed the frivolous nature of many of the cases reserved. before noticed the decisions as to the meaning and grant a case that is to unravel all that bad passed before, the business of the country will be impeded, and the channels of justice choked up. The present state of the Crown-paper shews that already and I think that magistrates, in the exercise of a the facilities for such discussion have been excessive; proper confidence in themselves, and acting upon the general principles which always guide men of education, whether in the law or not, ought to have the firmness to refuse what is often importunately pressed upon them by those who, justly perhaps, have with them very great weight." of the case as sent up, lest, by permitting mistakes The Court will also adhere strictly to the contents to be rectified, they should induce negligence and laxity. Thus, in Reg. v. Widdicombe-in-the EVIDENCE. Moor, already cited, they refused to treat a ground tions should consider what are the essential con- cular parish, such relief must be taken to be some evidence against that parish, without any affirmative proof of their knowledge or acquiescence. The careful limitation of the judgment to the immediate question, is worthy of especial notice. Such relief is some evidence, but the weight to be given to it is for the Sessions to decide; and if given by mistake, or if given against the will of the particular parish, or under any other circumstances to lessen its value, as an acknowledgment of their liability to the burden, then the Sessions would by no means be bound to treat it as conclusive, but their decision would be final either way, it being purely a question of fact upon the circumstances practically to work no injustice, and is in accordproved before them. This decision will be found ance with the principle that it is to be assumed that Prima facie, therefore, each parish is bound by the officers will act properly in their particular duty. acts of the collective board of guardians. While noticing these decisions, we may refer to Reg v. Holme St. Cuthbert's, 8 Law T. 444, in which it was appeal setting up nothing more than relief by a contended with great ability, that a ground of third parish to the pauper while resident out of that parish, was sufficient to let in evidence of such parish would be got rid of unless such evidence relief, and that the settlement proved in the appellant on the ground that it appeared in truth that was explained. The Court evaded the decision had considered the evidence in and settlement was, in fact, decided upon the former occasion; but where their intention is not shewn by that whilst there, she received monthly relief from lieved, and then soon after returned to D.; and the minute-book of the clerk of the peace, which, for H. aforesaid, and continued to do so for six months; the Sessions this purpose, is the record, such evidence is admissible. Of the former class are Reg. v. St. Anne's and that she had also received relief in the Hartpury itself insufficient to satisfy them that the setWestminster, 8 Law T. 343; 2 New Mag. Cas. 62; workhouse. A case was actually reserved for the tlement was in the third parish. It is diffi where the entry was "quashed not on the merits, and opinion of the Court, whether there was any evi-cult to discover from that case what the opinion without prejudice to the making of any other order dence of acknowledgment by Hartpury. We think of the Court was; but as in Reg. v. Crondall (see for the removal of the pauper from either of the said no one, except of course the litigant parish, whose the LAW TIMES of to-day) the only fact ultimately parishes to the others, or to any other to which he may with Lord Denman, who, in discharging the rule, in the examination having failed in proof, it seems erroneous judgment may be excused, would disagree relied upon was the out relief, the other allegations be removeable." Of the latter class are Reg. v. Widdicombe-in-the-Moor, 2 New Mag. Cas. 64; 8 Law T. 364; 16 L. J. 44, M. C. where the entry was, that the order had been quashed," because the exami nations were insufficient to support the same." said, "There never was a case more free from doubt." to us that if the Court of Quarter Sessions had received the evidence and decided that it satisfied no evidence before them to enable them to make such the proceedings must be communicated to the appel- the fact of relief being given will not necssarily 446, gave rise to an important discussion as to what Sending copies.-Reg. v. Crondall, 8 Law T. (Reg. v. Landkey, 9 Law T. 75; 2 New Mag. Cas. made, and a copy of which, therefore, is to be sent constitutes an examination upon which the order is 16 L. J. 75, M. C.) where the entry was, "Order quashed without any special entry, as the Court has to the appellant parish. The rule can only be stated in general terms that whatever is really a part of special entry;" and Reg. v. Droitwich, 2 New Mag. Cas. 68; 8 Law T. 363; 16 L. J. 38, M. C. lant. The application of the rule must be left to where the same rule was applied to determine the the discretion and judgment of the parties. It may, effect that was to be given to a judgment of the however, be useful to mention the circumstances Court of Queen's Bench, where it proceeded upon the copy to be sent. which, in Reg. v. Crondall, made it unnecessary for formal objections only, although there were also It appeared that examinations materials upon which a judgment upon the settle- were taken by removing justices on two separate ment might have been given. In Reg. v. Landkey, and made a statement in the presence of the justices, days; that on the first day the pauper was sworn, the Court again pressed upon parochial officers the which was taken down in writing; that that statebeneficial practice of abandonment, with tender of ment was produced on the trial of the appeal, and costs, where the order is found open to objection. Prisoner. We mention the case of Reg. v. Wid-appeared not to be formally drawn as an examinadicombe-in-the-Moor, for another point contained tion, and to have upon it memoranda by the attorin it, although it is not very easy to understand ney of the respondents, but to correspond very how it could have been considered by any one as open to doubt. The 59 Geo. 3, c.12, s. 28, enacts, that depositions may be taken of prisoners as to the settlement of their families, and may be read in evidence before any justices for the purpose of any order of removal so long only as such person so examined shall continue a prisoner. It is necessary, then, under this statute, to give some evidence to shew that the deponent is still a prisoner, before the deposition is admissible. nearly with the examination of the pauper, which SETTLEMENT. THE LAWYER. Summary. SOME extremely important judgments will be found amid this week's reports, and to make room for them, especially for the elaborate judgment on the great mining case, and the scarcely less interesting decision on the drawer's own order, we have been obliged to validity of promissory notes payable to the resort to another double number. We have authority to state that there is no truth in the rumour that Lord DENMAN contemplated retirement from the Bench. We are glad to learn that his Lordship has not the slightest intention to resign the office he honours. THE PRACTICE OF WILLS. BOOK IV. ON WINDING UP THE ESTATE. AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. Acknowledgment Relief given by relieving officer of union.-Among the most important decisions in this period are those of Reg. v. Attachment for disobeying subpoena. The mis- Little Marlow, 8 Law T. 448; 2 New Mag. Cas. take in framing the affidavits upon which a rule LAW TIMES of to-day), as to relief given by re81; and Reg. v. Crondall (reported in the nisi was obtained in Reg. v. Vickary, 8 Law T. 387; 2 New Mag. Cas. 69; 16 L. J. 49, M. C. has living officers of the unions. The transfer of the left it still undecided whether a rated inhabitant, duties of relief from the churchwardens and overproducing a rate-book, in obedience to a sworn seers to the board of guardians, while the duties office subpoena (which he must do, Reg. v. Green-connected with inquiries into the settlement and away, 1 New Mag. Cas. 393; 14 L. J. 190), can difficult to determine what effect relief ordered by with appeals remained in the former, rendered it be compelled to submit it to examination. It must probably occur again, and then care must be taken the board, in respect of a particular parish, would to shew that the proceeding at which the alleged mately taken by the Court is the only satisfactory have upon that parish. We think the view ulticontempt was committed was a legal proceeding, one that could be adopted. By Reg. v. Little in the first instance charged upon the gross value of Upon what property payable.-These duties are before a competent jurisdiction. In the principal Marlow, they declare that the mere fact of relief the personal estate. It will therefore be necessary case a due complaint was not shewn, and of course, without it, the justices had no jurisdiction, and the being given by the relieving officer of the union, to state shortly what property is to be included in subpœna no binding power. though it is alleged by him to have been in respect the estimate the executor or administrator must of a particular parish, is no evidence of acknowledgment of a settlement as against that parish; for Sufficiency of statement.—While objections are he is not shewn to have the authority of the board often taken, and, what is more to be regretted, re- of guardians, the express or implied representatives served from the Sessions, of a very hypercritical of the whole union, and therefore also, in some nature, there are omissions to be found in examina- degree, of each parish. But in Reg. v. Crondall, tions, which, though apparently slight, do in truth they decide that where it is shewn to have been affect the essentials of the settlement, and are there- given by the authority of the board, and, as far as the fore held fatal. The person drawing these examina-board was concerned, given in respect of a parti EXAMINATIONS. make, with a view to the payment of these duties. minable on lives, and certain copyhold property Leaseholds for years, whether absolute or deterwhich passes to the executor or administrator, must be included in the estate and effects in respect of which probate duty is payable. does not affect the argument. THE BANKRUPTCY BILL. WHY such haste in the passing of this mangled measure? Why hurry through the Parliament, in the last days of its existence, when there is neither leisure nor inclination to scan the merits of the scheme, a Bill avowedly temporary? No single object is to be gained by it in the way of law reform; it will bring with it all the mischiefs of change without the benefits; it is, in short, one of those makeshifts of which the history of Bankruptcy legislation is so rife, and which have reduced the law to the condition of imbecility, that has made it the reproach of our jurisprudence. Why, then, this hurrying onward of an addition to the incongruous mass? ascertaining the facts, and was obliged to act both as counsel and attorney in the case. PATTESON, J. said, that if the low scale of fees cases as those now before him, counsel would be em provisions. Another year cannot be permitted to pass without at least an effort to carry out an object so universally demanded. With such were really the reason why cases were not prosecuted a prospect, what folly is it to introduce the in a proper manner, it was time that the proper par inconveniences that attend all changes, how-ties should revise those fees, because, at present, jusever excellent in themselves, by the passing tice really was not done. They must now endeavour in haste a measure which is to be again reto get on as well as they could; but he did hope that Profession and the public the trouble of learn- ployed to conduct them in a proper manner in future, pealed twelve months hence, giving to the the system would be altered, and that in such serious ing a new law, with the full knowledge that, ere it is quite familiar to them, it is to give place to another novelty. There is no greater mischief than make-shift laws. Nothing will excuse them but the presence of temporary ills demanding special remedies. To apply to a permanent defect in the law, or its administration, a surface cure, and avow that it is not intended to be a healing measure, is a gratuitous folly which we trust the Legislature will not be lulled into sanctioning; but that some member of the House of Commons, if it be now too late in the Lords, will take the trouble to ask the postponement of this Bill until the next session may afford an opportunity for maturing a perfect code; and it is well known that, during the last weeks of an expiring Parliament, anything in the shape of a show of resolute opposition will secure the rejection of a bill not freighted with the favour of a party or the cheers of the public. PROSECUTING JUDGES. Ar various times most of the judges have warmly expressed their disapproval of the practice forced upon them, by the falsee conomy of counties, of appearing at once as prosecutor The avowed purpose of the pending Bill is and judge; called upon to conduct the case as the abolition of the Court of Review; a de- counsel against the prisoner, and at the same sirable measure as part of a complete code of time to carry out the legal fiction of being bankruptcy, but in itself, and by itself, of no counsel for him. If judges were angels inimportance whatever. Nothing is to be gained stead of men, they could not discharge two by the change either in cost or convenience. such opposite functions; and therefore, conThe Court of Review is undoubtedly a useless scious of the impropriety of their position, court; it is universally condemned by the Pro- many of them have publicly protested against fession, by the merchants, by the Commis- the injustice, in the hope that those who have sioners, by all who have given evidence upon the power would apply the remedy. the subject. Its functions might have been better discharged by a Court of Appeal, constituted like the Court of Error at common law, by all the commissioners except the one whose judgment is questioned. If the pending measure merely abolished this useless court, it might be excused; there would be something gained in the saving of twelve months' cost of it. But this Bill does no such thing. It makes the change without the slightest advantage to anybody. Sir J. K. BRUCE will cease to be the chief judge in bankruptcy, but the Chancellor is to appoint one of the Vice-Chancellors to fulfil the same duties; that is, Sir J. K. BRUCE is to do, under the name of Vice-Chancellor just that which he now does under the name of Chief Judge! Nor is there to be any saving in the machinery to justify the change. The establishment of the Court is to be maintained. Mr. AYRTON is still to have his 1,2001. a year, as Chief Registrar, and Mr. VIZARD his 1,000l. a year as Registrar. We would not deprive these excellent officers of a farthing of their salaries, but we would have them more usefully earned. They may be put to occupy other posts, either in town or country, where the work will be in some degree proportioned to the pay. Or they might be employed as a sort of peripatetic Commissioners, to conduct the extra courts which the Bill empowers the Chancellor to establish in the remoter districts of the metropolis. But still the question returns, why this measure at all? The Lords' Committee has reported in favour of an entire revision and codification of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, taking as its basis an abolition of the absurd distinction between them at present recognised. All within and without the doors of Parliament are agreed that a code must be framed, though they differ slightly as to its دو Thus Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in a case reported in 1 Cox's Criminal Cases, 48, said, "A judge ought never to be put to prosecute." And Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, in Reg. v. Hezell (1 Cox's Crim. Cases, 348), said, "It is most unseemly for a judge to be called upon to act as prosecutor, instead of holding the scales between the parties." And Mr. Justice MAULE, at the late assizes at Reading, remarked :-"The fiction of law in criminal cases is, that the judge is counsel for the prisoner; but here it is sought not only to upset and reverse that doctrine, and make me counsel for the prosecution, but to throw the whole burden of the prosecution on me. But I will not do it. It is indecent. I will be counsel for the prisoner; and let the depositions be handed to some counsel to conduct the prosecution." And we find in a report of the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court on Wednesday last a similar declaration of opinion on the part of Mr. Justice PATTESON. It is thus related : Upon the learned JUDGE taking his seat, and referring to the list of the cases that were to be disposed of, he inquired whether any learned counsel were engaged to conduct the cases of manslaughter that were to be tried, and, on his being answered in the negative, he observed, that it was very improper not to employ counsel in such cases, and thus to cast upon the judge, who knew nothing at all about the case, the duty of wading through the depositions to bring out all the necessary facts. Ballantine said, that other learned judges had frequently made the same complaint, but he believed that the inconvenience could never be remedied until the present scale of expenses allowed by the Court underwent revision. At present the allowance was of so niggardly a character, that no respectable solicitor would undertake to conduct a case, and all that the officer of the Court could do was to place the decame on, and thus, at five minutes' notice, he was positions in the hands of some counsel before the case called upon to prosecute, but he had no opportunity of Among the Judges, indeed, there is entire unanimity on this subject; but at the Quarter Sessions there is no such scruple of conscience. That which the Judge, trained to the difficult task of impartially weighing evidence, fears to undertake, the Justice, untaught in the art of judging, hesitates not to do; and you may see him playing the double part of Prosecutor and Judge, and dealing out sentences of transportation for the half of a man's whole life with all the confidence and self-satisfaction of one whe believes himself a benefactor to his country and assured that he is a paragon of magistrates. And so he endeavours to be; but he cannot accomplish his design. It is impossible for him "to hold the balance even between the parties," and represent the prosecutor and protect the prisoner at the same moment: it is impossible for a man not to be biassed in favour of his own side and against the other. But the language of the Judges, argument and entreaty, have been addressed to the Magistrates in vain. They persist in presenting to the public the spectacle of Prosecuting Judges. Whether it be from false pride or false economy, the result is equally noxious; and it is the duty of the Legislature to inter fere to compel those of them who will hear neither reproof nor reason, to interfere to compel the transfer of the duty of prose cuting prisoners from the Bench to the Bar. Since the above was written, we have read with very great pleasure the following powerful article in the Times on this subject; and we rejoice to have the giant aid of our contemporary in the furtherance of an object which we have been strenuously urging for four years past: Economy in the administration of justice is one of the most reasonable demands of the age. But cheapness is out of the question, however low the nominal cost, if the article it affords is valueless. A blind retrenchment of expenditure may be as ruinous as the utmost prodigality, and the refusal to incur a moderate outlay in judicial proceedings may be carried so far as to prove altogether fatal to the vitality of justice. We should be sorry to see justice starved to death by pushing to too great an extent the experiment of how little it can be brought to subsist upon. The evil to which we have been alluding was the subject of remark by Mr. Justice Patteson on Wednesday, in the Central Criminal Court, when he of judge and counsel. In some important charge of found himself called upon to perform the double office manslaughter no barrister had been employed for the prosecution, and the learned dignitary on the Bench was compelled to lay aside the duty of hearing the case, while he occupied himself in reading it. His Lordship very properly complained of being obliged to perform a task so perfectly distinct from the province of a judge, and indeed so utterly at variance with the recognized character of the office. The rule of law which represents him as the prisoner's counsel is altogether demolished when the task of conducting the scale of fees will not admit of the business being the prosecution is thrown upon the judge, because done in a proper and efficient manner. There is, however, something beyond mere indecency in the practice of which we complain, for it causes, on many occasions, an absolute failure of justice. A divided duty can never be efficiently performed, and a judge who attempts to try a prisoner and prosecute him at the same time must be deficient in the impartiality required for the former task, or in the zeal demanded for the accomplishment of the latter. A case in point was not long in occurring to demonstrate the truth of Mr. Justice Patteson's remark, for when a trial for manslaughter was about to commence, he found himself obliged to wade through a vast mass of depositions on which no professional assistance had been retained to render the rudis indigestaque moles clear and intelligible, by rejecting whatever was superfluous, and putting in order the materials that were relevant. The task had therefore to be performed, or rather attempted, by the judge, unravelled before him, so that he might have who ought to have had all the facts regularly followed the threads, instead of having to extri instructions to despatch attendants to bring them up to the poll. If any of them are noted in the comThe Practice of Elections and of Registration, mittee book as being under influence, it should be so comprising the Registration of Electors Act, stated in these lists, and the persons having that inincorporating the Reform Act and recent Elec-fluence should be forthwith requested to exert themtion Statutes, all the decisions of the Common selves. Towards the close of the day the inspectors Pleas upon Appeals to this time, with Instruc- should employ their leisure, as the polling slackens, tions for the management of Elections in Coun- in extracting the names of those who appear in their ties, Cities, and Boroughs, and Instructions to books as not having yet polled, and despatching them Returning Officers; with Precedents of Books, to the committee-room, or giving them to any surrounding friends, with such suggestions as may occur Forms, &c.; with an Introduction and Copious to them. Index. By EDWARD W. Cox, Esq. Barristerat-Law. Fifth Edition. London, 1847: LAW TIMES OFFICE. Second: where there are District Committees, there will be a slight variation of these duties. In such case the business of the Central Committee will cate them himself as well as he could from their NOTICES Of new LAW BOOKS. should be made out and sent to the outer room, with state of entanglement. In the course of this tedious operation, the learned judge remarked, "that nearly the whole of the statements taken down were inadmissible as evidence." Yet he had been obliged to read them all before he could discriminate between the essential and the insignificant. This unnecessary exercise of the judicial patience, and wasteful occupation of the judicial time, might have been saved by a counsel's fee-which cannot, surely, be weighed for a moment against the cost entailed by the loss of time and annoyance to which the Bench was subjected. The time of the Barrister is not so precious to the public as the time of the Judge; and, at all events, if it were, there would be a saving in the mere fact, that the former is obliged to come into court with a great portion of his work already done, while the latter must know nothing of a case until he takes his seat for the purpose of hearing it. A Judge, with a mass of depositions placed in his hands at the very moment of trial, must go through them all, however irrelevant the greater portion of them may be, and the public time is, of course, being unprofitably consumed during this tedious but necessary operation. A Barrister is, on the contrary, responsible that the Court shall not be occupied by the introduction of matter unimportant to the issue to be tried; and there is, consequently, real economy in employing counsel to prosecute. Justice, in fact, must in all cases be delayed, and in many thoroughly defeated, by throwing upon the judge duties like these, which are repugnant to the spirit of his office, and injurious to the frame of mind in which he ought to preside at a trial. The mere force of habit would possibly give him a prejudice in favour of the side he is compelled to adopt; and it is, therefore, dangerous in the extreme to compel him to take the part of counsel for the prosecution in a case where his judicial services are required. It is most improbable that, in order to counteract any impression unfavourable to the prisoner, a judge in the position we have described would lean strongly to the side of mercy; but, even if it were so, the interests of justice would be compromised. The system depreeated by Mr. Justice Patteson has been complained of on previous occasions by some of his Lordship's learned colleagues, and it has now been proved to be productive of so much evil, that we have a right to demand its abolition. Its continuance is unfair to the judge, unprofitable to the public, and unjust to the prisoners. THE ELECTION BOOKS FORMS. Ir is due to the numerous correspondents who have forwarded suggestions on this subject to acknowledge generally their courtesy, but it would be impossible to answer each individually. The arrangements of a Committee-room, the machinery of the canvass and the polling, the manner of ruling the Canvass Books, the Committee Books and the Inspectors' and Check Clerks' Polls Books are so much matters of taste, and so little regulated by any rule, that it would be impossible to frame any plans that would please all. That which has been adopted in the series of Books and Forms just published for the use of the readers of the LAW TIMES, is the result of practical acquaintance with the details of an election, improved by the suggestions of many experienced election-agents in all parts of the country, to whom the plan and the forms were submitted previously to their publication. The rule adopted was, if a doubt existed as to the propriety of the introduction of any particular column in a Book or Form, to give it a place, inasmuch as it is easy to have a blank column, but difficult to add one. The Canvass Books were taken from a form used for many years in one of the largest boroughs, and found convenient for its purpose. The form of the Committee Register Book was furnished by an agent of a frequently contested northern county, where it had been tried and proved. The Inspector's Poll Book and the Check Clerks' Book are in the form used in one of the metropolitan boroughs. And so with the Books and Forms for Returning Officers. The Poll Books were submitted to the approval of experienced town clerks and under-sheriffs before the form was finally settled, and the Instructions to the Poll Clerks were prepared with care and approved in like manner. THE additions to this edition comprise an analysis be devoted to receiving the Polls Returns (No. 8), and Check Clerk's slips from the various districts, and entering the former in the Central Polls Return Book in the Check Clerk's slips, and entering the votes in (No. 7); striking out the names of the voters returned the ruled register; making up and despatching to the various District Committees every half hour at least the aggregate state of the poll for the borough, &c. and deliberating on and directing the general business of the election. The District Committees will perform the duties described above as belonging to the Central Committee. Such is the plan of this volume. Its utility must be judged by others. THE MONEY MARKET. The instructions to agents and committees com- The duties of returning officers are then minutely The manner in which this information is conveyed is shewn in the following brief extract :— ORDER OF THE ELECTION. The system above described will be made more intelligible, perhaps, by an illustration of its working. Central Committee. Suppose the day of election to First: in a borough or county requiring only a have arrived, and all the parties to be in their places. In the inner committee-room, the Agent and his assistants. In the outer committee-room, the Secretary and his staff. At each polling booth the Inspector and his Check Clerk. At the polling place the Superintendent. The polling begins. John Thomas tenders his vote for the opposite party. The Inspector turns to the number and name in his book: he sees noted against it, "Two John Thomases, this one tall, light complexion, and the other swarthy and short; put the questions and oath to this one.' The Inspector observes the man accordingly, suspects that all is not right; requires the question to be put and the oath administered; some objection is made; he sends for the Superintendent; the point is argued before the Returning Officer; he decides to admit the vote; John Thomas votes for Smith and Brown; the Inspector so enters the vote in his book; the Check Clerk also enters the number, name, and vote in his book. Thus it proceeds till the Check Clerk has filled his page of twenty or ten lines, as the case may be. The leaf so filled is torn from the book and delivered to the Messenger in attendance, to be conveyed to the committee-room, the Clerk noting in the countercheck the name of the Messenger to whom it was intrusted. Arrived at the committee-room, the leaf is delivered to the Secretary and transmitted into the inner room. There it is first received by the Clerk, cast up, and the totals, with the number of the booth, and the page of the leaf, entered in the Polls Return Book (No. 6). The leaf is then handed to the person having the charge of the ruled REGISTER OF ELECTORS, and by him the names of the persons there entered as having polled are struck through with a pen in the register, and their manner of voting is marked in the margin. From him the leaf is transferred to the Agent, who presides at the committee book, and who there records the votes. This done, it is placed on its proper file. The system above described is not merely theoIt may be that the plans will admit of improve-retical-good upon paper, but failing in practice ;ment, but there is so much of mere fancy or long it has been tried and practically proved, and the habit to guide the judgment in this matter, that it author has found it simple and efficacious in the would be impossible to arrange any forms that working and producing numerical correctness in the some would not consider as capable of alteration for calculations of the committee-room. the better. It is not enough to say that so and so would be better. We desire to be informed for what reason it would be better-what would be the advantage of a different arrangement. inner room is that of keeping a constant eye upon the Three per Cents. Reduced India Stock FOREIGN. Spanish Five per Cents..... Portuguese Deferred Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cents..... Danish Four per Cents. ...... ................. Colombian................. Chilian ......... 37 37 82 821 83 834 BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. [The charge for the insertion of the above is 5s.] ANDERSON. On the 9th inst. at Holly Lodge, Fairfield, FLOOD.-On the 6th inst. at Dublin, the wife of J. Flood, BLAKENEY, John, esq. of Bedford-row, to Sarah, eldest CROSLEY, Benjamin Charles, only son of the late Benjamin CURRY, Capt. Douglas, R.N. son of Vice-Admiral Curry, C.B. to Elizabeth, second daughter of Edward Castleman, HALLETT, Henry Hughes, esq. of Staple-inn, to Bridget RIDDELL, John Carre, esq. of Melbourne, and one of the magistrates for the colony, third son of the late Thomas Riddell, esq. of Camiestown, Roxburgshire, to Annie, eldest daughter of Sidney Stephen, esq. barrister-at-law, on the 22nd of October last, at Melbourne, Port Philip. DEATHS. BARSTOW.-On the 12th inst. at his father's house, Northcrescent, Bedford-square, James Matravers, only child of James Barstow, esq. barrister-at-law, aged 11. Copies are stamped for transmission by post, free, to any person inclosing three shillings, in penny postage stamps. Price of the sheet, containing both sets of Tables, 3s. on paper; 48. 6d. on millboard; 6s. on canvas, with frame : 78. on canvas, glazed, with rollers. The Tables, mounted separately, each, on millboard, 28. 7d.; on canvas, with frame, 4s. ; on roller, glazed, 5s. SCHEDULE of FEES, on a large sheet, price 6d. each. The THIRD EDITION OF PATERSON'S COUNTY COURTS ACT, containing a List of the County Court Towns and Districts, with the Officers of all the Courts, Precedents of Statement of Cause of price 6s. 6d. boards; 8s. 6d. bound; 9s. 6d. interleaved. Brompton, Thursday, June 17. (Before ANDREW AMOS, Esq.) CRAFT v. Cox. Jurisdiction-Another action pending in superior court. Quære, may an action be brought in the County Court, another action being pending for the same cause in the superior courts? Plaintiff in person. Francis Herbert for defendant. This was an action to recover a balance of 51. 16s. 5d. for work, arising out of a building transaction. The defence was a set-off for 61. 6s. being more than the amount claimed. Herbert, before the case was gone into, called an attorney, who proved that plaintiff had brought an action in one of the superior courts against his client, the defendant, for the recovery of the same debt; that plaintiff had declared that defendant had obtained an order for the delivery of the particulars of the plaintiff's demand, which had not been obeyed, and that such action was still pending. Defendant's attorney, therefore, submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction. The JUDGE was, however, of opinion, that as plaintiff had not obtained judgment in the action, the objection was untenable. Herbert applied to the Judge to take a note of his objection, which his Honour did, and gave him time for consideration, and leave to mention the case again at the rising of the Court. The trial then proceeded. Judgment for plaintiff; damages, 1s. 5d. Herbert, at the rising of the Court, again submitted that his Honour had no jurisdiction, and cited the case of Kerbey v. Siggirs, 2 Dowl. P. C. 659. Defendant's attorney also contended that it would be a great hardship if a plaintiff were to be allowed to bring an action in a County Court when another had been brought and was pending in a superior court before the County Courts Act came into operation. ROWCLIFFE v. DASCOMBE. Debt for 11. 9s. 4d. rent. Riccard for plaintiff, Gillard for defendant. Riccard objected to the plaintiff giving evidence of His HONOUR.-I shall allow any other plea that does not require to be specially pleaded, to be gone into, in addition to the statute. Judgment for defendant. ROWCLIFFE v. ROWCLIFFE. Debt for 177. 2s. 4d. being half a year's rent, for Court that these causes be adjourned till the next sitting, to admit of the production of Gen. Wyndham, from his seat in Cumberland, of the Rev. Henry Trevannion, of Whitby, Yorkshire, and the Hon. Mrs. Leigh, of St. James's Palace, as witnesses to prove the coverture of the defendant. Judge applied for the costs of the day to be paid down, but his Honour made the order for the adjournment and the costs to be costs in the cause. His Honour intimated that the affidavit in support must be sworn in open court. YORKSHIRE. Leeds, Monday, June 14. Jewison, one of the bailiffs of the court, stated that he had entered with execution, and being turned out of possession, applied to the borough police for assistance; the officers refused, having directions from the watch committee to do so. His Honour wrote, requesting the attendance of the magistrates (who were then sitting in the adjoining Court) to hear the complaint; they refused, stating that if his Honour had any complaint to make, he must attend them. After a week's consideration, his Honour directed the bailiffs to repeat application for assistance when the necessity should arise, and upon refusal be would summon the police before him. NUSSEY V. ROTTOMLEY. Assignment to creditors. In this case plaintiffs sought to recover a debt from defendant, who was formerly in business in Leeds. From defendant's statement it appeared that he made Gillard then took another objection, as to the an assignment, owing at the time upwards of 5,000l. jurisdiction of the Court. As the defendant owed plain. By the assistance of his father, who advanced up. tiff three quarters of a year's rent, which amounted towards of 2,000l. he paid 10s. in the pound, but the more than 201. when the plaint was entered, and as plaintiffs refused to sign. plaintiff had not abandoned the surplus, he could not His HONOUR, enquiring particularly into the recover in this Court. matter, said-Where a party has bona fide made an His HONOUR said, as the rent was payable quar-assignment, he thought it right to give him the benefit terly, every quarter's rent was a separate cause of thereof. Indeed, he was glad to meet with cases action, and overruled the objection. where the debtor, acting fairly, called his creditors together, and equally divided his effects amongst them; he was disposed to encourage them, and thought it would not be right to allow such unfair claims as this of Messrs. Nussey, who would thus be paid in full, and have an advantage over the other creditors. He could not think but the money paid by defendant's father was for the purpose of freeing him from all liabilities. He therefore did not think it right to let Messrs. Nussey and others sue him, and he should protect him from such proceedings. He should protect him until he found he (defendant) had done wrong. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. DEVONSHIRE (Circuit No. 58). (Before TYRRELL, Esq.) There were no cases of particular interest. Hancock, for the defendant, objected that the plaintiff for 201. His HONOUR stated he would not stop the cause, for he thought the plaintiff was entitled to abandon the excess in court before judgment given. The JUDGE said he had been reconsidering the The plaintiff accordingly abandoned the excess matter, and without determining the question, whe-above 201. in court, and judgment was given for ther, in this action, he had jurisdiction or not, he was of opinion that defendant's evidence of the lis pendens The JUDGE intimated that he would consider the in the superior court was not sufficient, and that he point, and that the defendant's attorney could move should have produced the different proceedings in the to set aside the judgment next court. day. action. His Honour, therefore, allowed defendant's At Honiton, in a case, Wakely v. Baker, where an attorney time to consider whether he would, forth-award had been made in pursuance of an order of the with, move for a new trial or not; and if not, his last court, Honour directed the verdict to stand. DEVONSHIRE. At this Court, held on Friday, before JOHN TYRRELL, Esq. the judge, there were seventy-six causes entered for trial. James Pearse, Esq. the clerk, for the first time appeared in bis gown. Summoning debtors out of the district. His HONOUR.-Have you an affidavit of the Shapland.-No; but I can myself. Cox, on behalf of the defendant, moved to set aside the award. His objection was, that it being an action to recover a debt of 31. 6s. 44d. to which a setoff had been pleaded, the order of reference was of all matters in dispute between the parties in this cause, and that the arbitrator having included a matter not involved in the present issue, and not included by the judge in the order of reference, as provided by the 77th section of the County Courts Act, it must be set aside. The JUDGE set aside the award, and directed a fresh reference to three persons, the former arbitrator being one, and the plaintiff and defendant naming a man each to join with him. In the next case, also at the suit of the same parties, and similar in circumstances, his HONOUR stated, in addition :- That where all was apparently fair, and a party has made an assignment, he thought the creditors ought to come in. He should order the debt to be paid by small instalments, and suspend the proceedings to see if the plaintiffs would do so. Wednesday, June 16. Juryman. Exemptions from service upon a jury must be made when the list is framed. This Court has no power to strike out any names. Mr. Metcalfe, maltster, who had been summoned as a juryman, claimed exemption on account of being a member of the town-council. Upon reference to the 72nd section of the Small Debts Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, the Court thought the exemption could not be allowed. The names were taken from the list furnished by the clerk of the peace, and Mr. Metcalfe's name appeared there; he should claim exemption at the time the jury list was revised. The clerk had no power to strike out any names. Mr. Metcalfe pressed the point, not meaning any disrespect to the Court, but upon principle; and a sufficient number appearing to form a jury (viz. five), the Court excused him. LANCASHIRE. Manchester, Wednesday, June 16. (Before J. S. T. GREENE, Esq. in the absence, through indisposition, of R. BRANDT, Esq.) ROBERTS v. WILLIAMS. Contrary decisions. Action pending in superior court between the same parties no bar to plaint in County Court. Whitworth, for defendant, applied to the Court to have the summons dismissed, on the ground that an action between the parties for the same cause of action and the same amount of debt, was now pending in the Common Pleas at Lancaster, to which an appearance had been entered for defendant. His HONOUR said this was no defence, and that he had no power to dismiss the summons, and ordered the cause to proceed. |