THE LAWYER. Summary. A summons was asked for a witness resident in the City of London, to which the Act does not ex tend, and therefore they properly declined to issue a summons which the statute had provided no means of serving or enforcing. It is clearly a casus omissus. MOTIONS for new trials have occupied almost exclusively the attention of the Courts. Why this growing evil? Whether the judges are less learned, or the counsel more cap mined to establish, in connection with the LAW tion. A law good for the whole country cannot tious than formerly, is a problem worth investigating. It appears to be the fashion now to move in almost every case, and refusals." of the rule nisi are comparatively few. It may be queried whether the judges have not encouraged these indiscriminate applications by too great facility in granting the rule nisi, which is not unfrequently sought with no other purpose than that of hanging up the case, and depriving the other party of he benefit of his verdict for twelve months. So the losing suitor is recommended to try his chance, and with such a prospect ventures the costs of the motion. The Judges should discourage this practice by less readiness to grant the rule nisi. It should never be given unless it is clearly required by the law or the merits of the case, viewing the former strictly and the latter liberally. We believe that most, if not all of them, honour the LAW TIMES with a perusal, and therefore we take the liberty to throw out suggestions for improvements that often more readily occur to the practitioner, who sees the evil in its effects, out of door than to the judge, who sees only what passes in the Court. COUNTY COURTS. The following, for the use of Practitioners in the County Courts, are 1. The Forms, Nos. 1 to 38, some having Four Forms on a Sheet, others Book, 35s.; No. 3. Execution-Book, 2Ss.; No. 4, Cash-Book, 28s. ; N.B. The name of the County, &c. printed in the Forms III. The SECOND EDITION of PATERSON'S COUNTY COURTS pages. Price 6s, boards; 8s. bound; 9s. interleaved. THE COUNTY COURTS CIRCULAR. WITH a view to promote the important object of an unity of decision on the part of the Judges, of action on the part of the officers, and of proceed. ings on the part of practitioners and suitors, and by gathering into one focus the sayings and doings of all the Courts in the kingdom, it has been deterTIMES, under the same management and with the same contributors, a stamped periodical, to be called "THE COUNTY COURTS CIRCULAR," to appear on the first day of every month. Its purpose to collect and convey to all who are engaged in these tribunals, whether as Judges, Clerks, Bailiffs, Attorneys, or Suitors, every kind of information which will be not merely useful and interesting, but actually necessary to them. And this shews the folly of exceptional legislabut be good for the City of London. But local interests always intervene to procure the exception every measure of reform. In this instance the of that huge hot-bed of abuse and corruption from City of London is made a sanctuary for debtors desirous of evading the County Courts. A plaintiff whose witnesses reside within its precincts cannot, if they be unwilling, pursue his claim. Our informant's was a case in point. He wanted a witness to make out his case; the witness lived in the city-he would not come unless compelled-the Act does not run into the city-our friend lost his debt. It will have been observed that Mr. KOE's refu The plan was suggested by the practical difficulty we find in compressing into the already crowded columns of the LAW TIMES one-half of the information of value and interest relating to the County Courts with which the kindness of the sal to permit a plaintiff to tender himself in eviProfession is favouring us. Our space here is dence has been supported by no other of the necessarily restricted to two or three columns. Judges, and will scarcely be maintained by himself. Hence we are compelled to exclude whole branches On Monday it was noticed in Parliament. The of intelligence that would be very acceptable. By report in the Law TIMES was brought by Mr. means of a distinct sheet, published monthly, and BOUVERIE under the notice of the Attorney-Geexclusively dedicated to the affairs of the County neral, whose opinion was asked, and given very Courts, we shall be enabled, by help of the wide decidedly, that Mr. KoE was wrong, and that it connection and machinery of the LAW TIMES, to was the intent of the Act to permit the parties to gather a mass of information of great utility, and give evidence in all cases. to place it, at convenient intervals and at a trifling annual cost, in the hands of those whom it will especially concern. But it is not intended to exclude the County Courts from the LAW TIMES. We shall continue to present here the earliest notes of decisions on points of practice, and commentaries as hitherto. The Monthly Circular will contain more elaborate reports, and divers other kinds of information for which it is impossible to make room in these pages, with the convenience of presenting all the County Court information at a glance in a convenient form for reference, and so prepared, that the conductors may hope to see it received as an authority in the Courts, and used by all engaged in them as the common centre of communication-as their guide The very important question as to the payment of the building fund fee is perplexing the Clerks, who hesitate what they should do. So great, indeed, is the difficulty, that a short explanatory Act should be immediately passed to remove it, and this should be done by making the fee payable out of the moneys recovered and not upon moneys claimed; for it is hard that a plaintiff should lose both his debt and five per cent. in addition. This charge operates more severely than might be supposed. For instance, a plaintiff takes out a summons for a debt of 147.; he pays no less than a guinea in fees upon this; the cost of a writ being only 5s. 6d. Thus, instead of a benefit, this Act entails on him a loss of 17. 1s. in pursuit of a bad debt, when by the previous procedure his loss would not have been 10s. This injustice arises from the demand of five per cent. for the fee fuud being made upon the sum claimed, instead of, as certainly was the intent, upon Announcements of the days appointed for hold-the sum recovered. ing all the Courts during the coming month, ar- It may be noted, that in the Swansea County ranged alphabetically for ready reference. The Court the Judge has required the Attorneys pracimmense value of this to all practitioners and tising there to sign a roll, which he has directed Although we do not conSuitors in the County Courts is so obvious, that we the Clerk to procure. trust to receive the ready co-operation of the sider such a course necessary, it is certainly desirJudges and Clerks in its systematic accomplish-able, and might be advantageously adopted as a ment by ther undertaking regularly to forward the general rule. appointments of their Courts in time for each publication. Among the contents, the following will form prominent features: V. BITTLESTONE and WISE'S NEW PRACTICE CASES-Cases and handbook. has been decided or enacted on any subject during the half-year. In Numbers, stamped for post, 1s. 1d. each, or in Parts. Part I. nued regularly. In the Press, THE PRACTICE of the COUNTY COURTS; a Treatise. By Edward Use. of Twenty per Cent. NOTICE. Again an unlooked for delay in the publication of Paterson's Third Edition of the County Courts Act, but now through the broken promises of the printers, Messrs. Levey, Robson, and Franklyn, who engaged to print it in a week, and have been already a month about it. We almost fear to name a day, after these repeated disappointments, but we hope it will be ready by Wednesday next at latest. We are indebted to correspondents for suggestions of many special Forms required by Clerks, Practitioners, and Suitors, in addition to those named last week. Our list of copyright Forms now contains the following, all of which will be published early in the week. Forms required by Clerks, but not given in the Rules(Prepared by Counsel—Copyright.) 26a. Execution for Costs. 28a. Execution against an Executor on a Devastavit. 51. 52. 53. Order for time to Plaintiff or Defendant (sec. 81). Order for Apportionment of Costs (sec. 88). Order of Commitment of Defendant (sec. 99). 54. Order for Reference to Arbitration (sec. 77). Forms required by Clerks, Attorneys, and Parties, not given by the Rules-(Prepared by Counsel-Copyright). 39. Particulars of Plaintiff's Demand (Rule 2). 40. Particulars of Defendant's Set-off (Rule 17). 41. Defendant's Notice to Clerk of Set-off (Rule 17). 42. Defendant's Notice to Clerk of Special Defence (Rule 19). 43. Particulars of Plaintiff's Claim on Interpleader (Rule 39). 44. Demand of a Jury by Plaintiff or Defendant (Rule 20). 45. Notice to Clerk of Application for a new Trial (Rule 21) 46. Notice to the Party of Application for a new Trial (Rul. 47. Notice to Clerk by Plaintiff of Acceptance of Debt or Damages in satisfaction (Rule 16). Reports of all decisions on the Jurisdiction or Practical commentaries on questions arising in, Notification of all appointments and changes in General intelligence relating to the Courts. And no doubt experience will suggest many ad- In the Southwark County Court the Judge has refused permission to an Attorney's clerk to appear for a party, although expressly authorized by his master. This rule cannot be too strictly observed. It may be inconvenient in particular cases; but the danger of relaxing it is so great; to open the door ever so little would let in so large a flood of abuses; pretences would be so continually invented, and the real facts would be so difficult to ascertain, that the Judges will act wisely, and the Profession will, if it consult its own interest and reputation, strenuously urge upon them, not only to lay down the rule, but never on any occasion to relax it. With the Attorneys, as with the Bar, the courtesy will doubtless be established of holding each other's briefs in case of unavoidable absence, so that a suitor would never be left unprotected. Heartily do we congralulate the Profession on the unanimous decision of the Judges not to hear It has swept any but Counsel and Attorneys. away an entire army of sham lawyers. But constant vigilance will be required to prevent their irruption. We have now a whole drawer-full of the respectability of their Courts, by as strictly their tricks, and we entreat the Judges to maintain excluding unqualified advocates as do the superior Courts, to which it should be the common aim of Judges, Officers, and Practitioners, as nearly as pos. sible, in the formality of their proceedings, to assimilate the County Courts. We see with pleasure that many of the Judges not only sanction but approve of the Attorneys wearing their gowns in the County Courts. We have no doubt that the form will be generally adopted. It has many conveniences, and gives to the aspect of the Court an air of importance which, however irrational, does impress the popular mind, and add weight to the proceedings; and we must deal with men as we find them. E. W. C. NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT. Berwick District. - (Before WILKINSON, Judge.) This Court was held on the 24th instant, and at the opening the judge intimated that he would take the cases as they had been entered, being of opinion that those in which counsel or attorney might appear were not entitled to be heard first. He also intimated that none but the plaintiffs, or members of their family, or agents usually engaged in their affairs, would be allowed to conduct a case, unless by counsel or attorney; and that he was of opinion that the plaintiff might be examined to prove his own case, but whenever he could adduce additional evidence (such as the production of his shop books, &c.), that would be required in every case. There were twenty-one cases entered, but the only one worthy of notice was that of Mounsey v. Jane Marshall. CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COURT. Cambridge, Friday, April 23. This day the Cambridgeshire County Court was opened before JOHN COLLYER, Esq. the judge, for the trial of causes under the New Small Debts Act, at the Guildhall. Seventy-four causes were set down for trial. The following were the most important:IND V. GREEN. Attorney's bill for 111. 7s. 2d.-Evidence by plaintiff. Cooper, on behalf of plaintiff, called him to prove that defendant had called at his office on several oc casions, and instructed him to defend certain actions, and that the business with which defendant was charged was done at defendant's request. Naylor objected to the plaintiff's evidence, and referred to the case at Hertford. The JUDGE.-I cannot entertain the objection for a moment. Hunt, for plaintiff, contended he could recover the amount for the goods, and might issue a fresh sum mons to recover the sum lent. Ind, in answer, said that under the 63rd section the plaintiff could not divide his cause of action so as to apply to the Court on a future occasion. The JUDGE was of opinion that he must dismiss the plaint, with costs. SKINNER V. SKINNER and OTHERS, Executors, &c. Statement of cause of action. This was an action to recover a certain legacy of 101. left to plaintiff by his brother's will. The summons stated the action to be brought "in suit for a legacy due to the plaintiff under the will of Aaron Skinner, deceased." Naylor, for defendant, objected to the form of action, and contended it ought to have been "in debt." The JUDGE held the summons to be good. ESSEX COUNTY COURT. Colchester, Monday, April 26. (Before W. GURDON, Esq.) Thirty-three cases were set down for trial. PITTUCK V. CRICKMORE. Jurisdiction-Balance of account — Construction of sect. 65. This was an action for the share of the profits arising from the sale of fish. The plaintiff shipped himself as a mariner, depending for remuneration on a share of the profits. No account had been struck between the parties. Goody, for the defendant, objected that the Court had no jurisdiction, and referred to the 65th sect. contending that, as the parties had not settled any accounts, there was no balance within the meaning of that section. Abell, for the plaintiff, contrà. question, and he submitted that, in accordance with the usual custom, that was a sufficient authority. In this opinion, however, the Court did not agree; the Judge consequently refused to allow the case to proceed. The clerk expressed his astonishment at the Court adopting such a rule, and inquired the judge's The JUDGE decided that the Court had jurisdiction. reason for so doing. The learned Judge explained VICE V. PORter. Proof of service of summons. The assistant bailiff in this case had left the summons with the wife of the defendant. The wife said that her husband would be at home in the evening, and promised to give it to him. His HONOUR held, that service had been proved. His HONOUR disallowed the objection, remarking that there could be no ambiguity, since the defendant had only hired one tenement of the plaintiff, and could not, therefore, be misled. He further remarked that that this was the first case of that description which had come under his notice since the enforcement of the new Small Debts Act, and with its commencement he had determined to abolish, as far as it lay in his power, a system both injurious to the legal profession and to the public generally. The practice of permitting clerks to conduct cases, under the names of the gentlemen by whom they may be employed, without their producing any satisfactory au BRAND V. SOUTHGATE. thority for so doing, was a great and growing evil, and the sooner it was checked the better it would be for Summons-Statement of cause of action. This was an action for the recovery of rent for a all parties. He (the learned Judge) knew it to be a tenement situate at West Meisen. The summons did very common case for solicitors' or attorneys' clerks not state in what parish the tenement was situate. to carry on a little business of their own, under the Church, for the defendant, took a preliminary ob-name of, and wholly unknown to, the gentleman to jection to the sufficiency of the summons on that whom they were articled, who were thus not only in. ground. jured, but to a considerable degree defrauded. Therefore, unless Mr. Lain could produce any letter or some other proof satisfactory to the Court, of his presence being authorised, he certainly would not go on A solicitor (whose name did not transpire) stated that the system alluded to by the learned Judge was rapidly increasing. Mr. G. Clive, the Judge of the Southwark County Court, had informed him that he also would do his utmost to suppress it, and he hoped the public press would notice the observations which had fallen from the learned Judge, for the subject was of equal importance to Abell, for plaintiff, objected that they should have the public at large as to the Profession itself. In been pleaded as a set-off, under sect. 76. discussing the case the Judge said that his observaThe JUDGE decided that payments on account need tions in relation to the general practices of attorneys' not be specially pleaded. According to the old law, and solicitors' clerks did not in the slightest degree they would have been admissible under the plea of apply to this particular case; but, for the more effecgeneral issue. He also decided, that when a set-off tual abolition of the system, he was determined for was pleaded, if it did not come out on the cross-ings to be entered into unless he was well and perthe future not to allow any plaint or other proceedexamination of plaintiff's witnesses, but was proved in defendant's case, then plaintiff might call evidence to rebut it; but if it appeared in the progress of the plaintiff's case, then he must finish his evidence. he should not allow technical objections to prevail unless the parties had a substantial defence. PITTOCK V. CRICKMAN. Set-off-Order of proceedings. Goody, for defendant, proposed to prove payments on account. ARTLEY V. TIFFIN. Non-appearance of plaintiff. (a) Church, for defendant, objected that plaintiff was not present according to the 74th section, and that he wanted to examine him. Cooper, who appeared for plaintiff, contended that personal appearance was not necessary, the 91st section giving liberty to appear by attorney. The JUDGE held that this was sufficient, and if either party wants the other to be examined, he should summon him. Settlement of actions-Point of practice. The JUDGE stated that where an action was settled out of Court, it should be withdrawn from the cause-list; otherwise it would be called on, and the bailiff would be entitled to his fee for so doing. with the case. fectly satisfied of the clerk's authority for acting under the name of the solicitor or attorney by whom he may be engaged.—Times. WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COURT. The JUDGE opened the court here on Friday last. He merely directed the clerk to read the several appointments of judge, clerk, and high bailiffs; and stated that he would not allow any person to appear before him as an advocate, unless he were a barrister or an attorney-at-law. The clerks are directed to wear their robes. SUSSEX COUNTY COURTS. At the conclusion of the hearing of causes, Albery said he wished to mention a doubt which seemed to be very generally entertained as to the construction of the 52nd section of the Act. It did THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD.-A supplement to the London Gazette, published on Friday not clearly appear whether the per-centage payable last, contains an order in Council that from and after under that section to "The General Fund," was to the 24th day of the present month, the court hereto-be paid by the plaintiff in the first instance on enterfore holden at Sheffield, for the manor of Sheffield, ing the plaint, or deducted after judgment from the under an Act passed in the 48th year of George III. amount recovered. The Act only authorized that shall be abolished; and that from and after the 26th per-centage to be demanded and received by the clerk of this month, the county court of Yorkshire, for the of every court "in which and while it should be necesrecovery of debts and demands, under provision of the sary" for the purposes therein mentioned, and such Act of the last session of Parliament, shall be holden necessity did not appear to exist in this court. He said county court is now ordered to be holden, under adopted. at Sheffield, in addition to the places in which the therefore inquired what course was intended to be an order in Council, dated the 9th of March last; and that the name and style of the said court shall be "the County Court of Yorkshire, held at Sheffield," and the district of the said court shall be the Superin tendent Registrar's districts of Ecclesall, Bierlon, Sheffield, and Watley, except so much of Watley as BLOOMSBURY COUNTY COURT. (Before D. D. HEATH, Esq. Judge.) Solicitors' and Attorneys' clerks will not be permitted to appear for parties in the County Courts. This morning, upon a case of debt being called on for hearing, a young man, named Spencer Robert Lain, a clerk to a solicitor of extensive practice in the Inner Temple, appeared to sustain the case of the defendant. Before commencing, however, the learned Judge inquired if he (the clerk) could give the Court any proof of his being authorised to appear by the solicitor by whom he was engaged. Mr. Lain, in reply, stated that he was articled to the gentleman in (a) Quære-Does the 85th section give plaintiff power to are, "Either of the parties may obtain summonses to witsummon defendant as a witness, and, vice versa; the words nesses." The summons would be "to give evidence (by defendant) on behalf of the plaintiff !!"'—REPORTER, The JUDGE said he considered the amount payable to the Fee Fund under the 52ad section to be payable by every plaintiff on entering his plaint. The doubt that section left it optional with the clerk to receive which certainly existed relative to the construction of plaints without payment of the Fee Fund in the first instance; but the practice which was intended to be followed in this court was, to require the payment on entering the plaint. In cases where the clerk considered the poverty of the plaintiff a ground for so doing, he might receive the plaint without the " Fee Fund fee. The necessity of a "Fee Fund" for any particular court was a question for the Secretary of State, who had power to diminish the amount of the per-centage. Albery suggested that, if the "Fee Fund" was not contributed to in the first instance, and the plaintiff failed in his action, it might not be paid at all. Would the amount be returned in case a similar result happened to a plaintiff who paid it on entering his plaint? The JUDGE.-No; in that case he would deserve to lose all he paid. Albery. Then it is understood that plaints will be refused unless the Fee Fund is paid. The JUDGE.-Yes; unless the clerk, in his discretion, thinks the poverty of the plaintiff a reason for adopting a contrary course. Petworth, Friday, April 23. Tithe rent-charges. Daintrey inquired of the judge whether suits could be brought in this court for tithe commutation rentcharge. The JUDGE said, if it was a claim for which an action would lie, they might. Albery said there was a provision in the Tithe Commutation Act which prevented an action being brought. The JUDGE.-Then there can be no power to sue in this court. The party must pursue the remedy pointed out by the statute. Hastings, Monday, April 26. (Before Mr. FURNER, Judge.) WREN v. CROUCH. Service of summons. Defendant not appearing, the high-bailiff stated that he (defendant) lived with his mother nine miles off; that when he (bailiff) went to serve the summons, he was informed by the mother that defendant was out and would not return till evening; that he then left the summons at the house with the mother, who promised to give it to her son on his return. By the COURT.-Plaintiff ought to have subpoenaed the mother to shew that the defendant got the summons ten days before the hearing. There being no evidence of that, I cannot hear the case. Case dismissed. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY COURT. On the opening of the court, the learned judge announced that he thought it would tend to public convenience, if he stated the rules by which the Court would be governed as to the mode of conducting causes. In the first place, he considered that it would be better that all applications and motions should be made at the sitting of the Court; but if the business was ended in moderate time, he would listen to any applications or motions that might be made after the last cause was disposed of. As to the attendance of agents for either of the parties, he wished it distinctly to be understood, that he would hear no person who was not either a barrister or attorney. If the parties could not attend personally, a friend might attend and be heard, as a witness, but could not in any case appear as an advocate. In answer to questions from the professional gentlemen present, he stated that he could see no foun. dation for the decision which was reported to have been given, to the effect that the parties to the trial could not be heard as witnesses on their own behalf. He considered the clause was perfectly clear, and it was one of the most useful provisions in the Act. Shoosmith contended that the final order was in itself sufficient proof of validity of proceedings, and of the discharge of defendant from all debts contracted previously. The JUDGE held otherwise, and stated that it was for the defendant to prove that plaintiff's claim was inserted in the schedule. The order itself clearly shewed that it was only a protection against such debts as were set out in the schedule. Shoosmith then applied for an adjournment. Becke stated that his name had not been inserted in the schedule as a creditor; he had searched, and found it was not the case. Judgment for plaintiff. Immediate execution. Becke applied for his allowance of 7s. 6d. as a witAllowed attorney's costs. ness. learned judge decided, that where any defence was In several cases in which attorneys appeared, the raised, or a reason given for apprehending that such attendance, but not where there was in reality no would be the case, he would allow the attorney's question to be discussed. COUNTY COURT OF WARWICKSHIRE. Birmingham, April 28. (Before LEGH TRAFFORD, Esq.) There were 126 cases set down for trial. At the opening of the court, on the first cause being called on, Harding rose to inquire whether his Honour intended to hear duly qualified professional men alone. He asked the question on behalf of himself and the profession generally, who awaited the result with much interest, as determining whether they would or would not practise in that court. There was no wish whatever, on the part of his brethren, to cast any imputation on any other individuals, many of whom were very respectable; but no one could be ignorant that in a town like Birmingham, agents were numerous, and would appear if the Court allowed it. His HONOUR.-I have determined not to hear any persons address the Court, but attorneys or counsel, either to argue points of law or questions of fact. Smith. Or to examine witnesses? His HONOUR.-Or to examine witnesses. His HONOUR.-What arrangement would you suggest? Wills.-That the causes should be divided into two or three papers. Motteram.-In the same manner as at the Liver pool assizes; it being understood that each list shall not be commenced before a specified time. Promissory note-Attesting witness-Evidence. Plaintiff, in person, claimed payment of the amount of a promissory note. Defendant, in person, denied the debt. Plaintiff had not produced the attesting Nonsuited. witness. FOSTER and ANOTHER v. GOODYER. Trover-Professional assistance-Costs. An action of trover for recovery of sacks of the value of 21. 2s. Judgment for plaintiff. Smith, for the plaintiff, applied for allowance of the attorney's fee, the action being special, and requiring professional advice as to its conduct. Defendant appeared personally. The JUDGE. The amount is so small I cannot allow it. COUNTY COURT OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. Cheltenham, Tuesday, April 20, 1847. (Before JAMES FRANCILLON, Esq.) The first court for the trial of causes was held here this day at the public office. The JUDGE, after a brief address, in which he stated that he should be at all times happy to receive the assistance of professional gentlemen, and to render them assistance; and that all special applications were to be made at the opening of the court, proceeded to hear the plaints; eighty-three were entered, but about thirtyMotteram.-Our object is to prevent the attend-five only stood for trial. The majority of the cases were of little import, but the following may perhaps ance of all the parties on the first day. ascertaining the numbers of the causes. Wills complained that there was great difficulty in deserve notice. shall be glad to accede to any convenient arrangement that can be made. The learned judge then proceeded to try the causes. His HONOUR.-That would be difficult; because Upwards of 80 were entered. In several claims for sometimes twenty or thirty causes might be got over goods sold and delivered, the plaintiffs were not pro-in a few minutes, and one might last half a day. I vided with their books, and some of the cases were adjourned for the purpose of producing them; but the judge gave notice that he should in future expect plaintiffs to be prepared with their books where it was necessary to produce them; as if, after this day, parties were not ready with the necessary evidence, the Court would not delay the cases. Several other cases were also adjourned, to enable the plaintiffs to procure evidence that the summonses, when not personally served, came to the knowledge of the defendant ten clear days before the day appointed for the court, the Act requiring that proof of such knowledge should be given. Some plaintiffs, however, preferred withdrawing the cause, and entering fresh plaint, on account of the difficulty of procuring evidence of this nature. a The only cases which we noticed, as involving any legal points, were the following. BECKE V. PUTTNAM. Special defences-Claim for 21. 18s. 4d. an attorney's bill-Special defence, of which notice had been given, "that defendant had been discharged under stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96." On the case being called on, Becke (in person) contended, that the defendant, by his notice, had admitted plaintiff's claim, and must commence by proving his discharge; under a plea to the same effect, defendant must admit the debt. The JUDGE was of opinion that the defendant must begin; but he must not be understood as deciding that a defendant, by giving notice of a special defence, would, in all cases, preclude himself from compelling plaintiff to prove his case. Shoosmith, for defendant, produced final order. Becke called for the schedule; unless his claim was inserted, the discharge was no bar to his action. the convenience of the profession; a list of the causes The JUDGE.-I shall be glad to do all I can to meet shall be made, and hung outside the court, and another inside. COLEY U. WADDELLS. Statement of cause of action-Summons. Plaintiff, in person, claimed an account for money lent, and money expended by him for the defendant, in the purchase of various articles. The summons was only for money lent. The COURT.-You cannot recover for the money expended; you have only summoned defendant for money lent; you should also have summoned him for money paid to his use. It is a mixed claim. I must dismiss the summons; you are at liberty to issue a fresh one. TAYLOR v. HULME. Payment before service-Costs. Plaintiff and defendant appeared personally. Defendant had paid the debt the day before the summons was served, but after the plaint was entered. Plaintiff appeared to ask for costs. Disallowed. DOWNING . FOWLER. Service out of jurisdiction-Costs of appearanceSec. 61-Withdrawing summons—Ejectment. The summons was served on defendant out of the jurisdiction of the Court by the bailiff of the court; the premises were also out of the jurisdiction : Held void under the 61st section. GRAY v. GILES. Summons on judgment of County Court-Jurisdiction. Chesshyre, for plaintiff, said this action was brought for 91. 4s. 1d. being the debt, damages, and costs on an unsatisfied judgment of the County Court of Gloucestershire, under the 98th section, and produced a certificate of such judgment. The JUDGE.-The Court has no jurisdiction; it has only jurisdiction in the cases of judgments of this Court and the statutory courts repealed by the Act. This judgment is not a judgment of "any Court held by virtue of this Act, or under any Act repealed by this Act," and I cannot therefore proceed on it. The County Court of Gloucestershire is a common-law court, and is consequently not repealed. ABRAHAM v. Gay. Accountant appearing. On this case being called, defendant said that he had settled the action; whereupon a Mr. Cuttriss rose and replied, "It is not settled."-The JUDGE (to Cuttriss), "What are you?"-Cuttriss, “An accountant."-The JUDGE, "I cannot hear you, you are neither the plaintiff, nor the attorney for the plaintiff." Cuttriss then produced the plaint note, and requested the Judge's advice as to the terms on which the action had been settled; but the JUDGE said it would be extrajudicial in him to give any opi nion. The plaintiff was then called, but he did not appear, and the cause was struck out. Gay wished to call his Honour's attention to sec. MAY 1.] 91, as to who may appear for parties, and to observe on the impropriety of accountants acting in the court. The JUDGE said, "He has certainly possession of the note by some means, and I must therefore consider him as agent; but as he only asked my advice, I cannot now entertain the question. If the point had come regularly before me, that is, if he had appeared for the plaintiff in the trial of the cause, I could then have considered it." YORKSHIRE COUNTY COURT. Leeds, April 26. (Before THOMAS HORNCASTLE MARSHALL, Esq.) Exclusion of clerks and unqualified practitioners. On the opening of the court on Monday, the 19th of April, his Honour gave permission to attorneys' clerks, and other persons, not attorneys or barristers, to examine witnesses on behalf of suitors. This immediately introduced before the Court a Mr. Smailes, clerk to a person named Hornby, an attorney, residing at Dunnington below York, having an office in Leeds, which he perhaps visits twice a year. Other clerks, who had previously acted in the old Honour Court as advocates, availed themselves of the permission. On the court day first above mentioned (the LAW TIMES containing the rules of the judges generally upon this point, "excluding clerks," having in the meantime been published), his Honour, alluding thereto, said, "I think it right to mention, with respect to the attendance of persons not attorneys, THE LAW TIMES. Blagg not having been previously instructed, the shall be accused before her Majesty's consuls general, judge refused to hear his clerk. PROMOTIONS, APPOINTMENTS, ETC. [Clerks of the Peace for Counties, Cities, and Boroughs will consuls, or vice-consuls, of the crimes of arson, housebreaking, cutting or maiming, stabbing, or assault endangering life, the proceedings in the Consular convened in the manner pointed out in the order of the Courts shall be conducted in the presence of assessors, 19th of June, 1844; and any person who shall be convicted of any of the crimes aforesaid shall be sent out of the dominions of the Sublime Ottoman Porte. And, further, that, upon oath made by one or more The Queen has been pleased to appoint Sir Thomas credible witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to Burnett, bart. to be Lieutenant and Sheriff Principal apprehend that any British subject is about to comof the Shire of Kincardine, in the room of John Vis-mit a breach of the public peace, such British subject be required to give sufficient security to keep the count Arbuthnott, resigned. peace; and, in the event of any British subject being unable or unwilling to do so, it shall be lawful to send such British subject out of the Ottoman do The Queen has been pleased to grant to Henry The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Henry The Right Hon. Sir T. Wilde, knt. has appointed COURT PAPERS. that since the last court I have come to a different LUTON COUNTY COURT. Wednesday, April 28. (Before J. H. KOE, Esq. Q. C.) The first court for this district was held at the Magistrates' room, in Luton, on Wednesday last. Appearance by attorney. Immediately after the formal opening of the court, Mr. E. L. Brickwood, of Luton, wearing his attorney's gown, addressed the judge, and called his Honour's attention to various reports of the rules laid down by several of the judges in the different districts prohibiting all parties except professional gentlemen from acting on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants, where the latter did not appear in person to conduct their own cases, and solicited the judge to lay down a similar rule to that adopted by his learned brethren. His HONOUR declined to make any rule on the subject, considering that cases might arise in which it would only be fair that parties might be represented by their relatives or friends; and he read the 91st clause of the Act, which he said authorized the professional gentlemen only there named to appear as a matter of right for other parties, and that no other person could be heard except by leave of the judge. Court-roll-Attorneys' gowns. Brickwood then wished to inquire of his Honour whether any rule would be made that the attorneys intending to practise should sign a court-roll, and appear robed?" His HONOUR highly approved of a court-roll being kept, and directed the clerk to prepare one for next court; but although sanctioning the wearing of robes, would follow Mr. Gurdon's rule, reported in the LAW TIMES, and leave it to the Profession to adopt that costume or not. PARKES V. PUDDEPHATT. Appearance by an attorney's clerk refused. This was an action by an auctioneer and surveyor to recover 117. 16s. for money lent and work done. Brickwood appeared for plaintiff, and Simpson, clerk to Mr. Blagg, represented defendant; but Mr. (a) A clerk to Mr. J. E. Upton, who for some years past has attended the Honour Court of Pontefract, which included Leeds, and acted as advocate. Governors of Christ Church Hospital v. Grainger. Same v. Same Adams v. Dunn PROCLAMATION OF OUTLAWRY.-On Thursday, LEGAL INTELLIGENCE. minions. The NICHOLAS SUSSE AGAIN.-Among the numerous suits, actions, and other legal proceedings arising out of the will of the late Marquis of Hertford, with its numerous codicils, those of the executors against Nicholas Susse, the valet of the testator, have stood prominent. One of these was for the restitution of inscriptions for French rentes amounting in value to 700,000f. which belonged to the marquis, and which his executors asserted Susse had surreptitiously taken out of For this his drawer, after the death of his master. imputed act of robbery, they prosecuted Susse criminally in England; but, on trial at the Old Bailey, he was acquitted. Notwithstanding this acquittal, the executors, as the inscriptions were deposited in France, instituted a suit against Susse, in the Tribunal de Première Instance, for their restitution. Tribunal decided in favour of the executors, and the inscriptions were ordered to be restored to them. This, however, was not the final termination of the claims of the executors. They afterwards discovered that, while the inscriptions were in his hands, Susse had received dividends to the amount of 77,710f. and for the restitution of this sum another action was brought by the executors; but, in the first instance, they were defeated. Against this decision an appeal was brought before the Cour Royale, and it came to a hearing on Monday. After a repetition of all the circumstances, and of the arguments of counsel on both sides, the Cour Royal quashed the judgment of the Court below, and desired Susse to repay the Susse against another part of the same judgment of 77,710f. to the executors. There was also an appeal by the inferior tribunal, ordering him to restore other dividends received by him to the amount of 44,000f. ¡ but this the Cour Royale confirmed. THE LATE BARON DE BODE.-The will of the late Baron de Bode, written by him in pencil in the year 1834:-" I leave everything to my son, except the following; but this calculation is made in case Government pay me, or to my son after me, 250,000l. If less, then the following legacies to be reduced in proportion. Should Government pay more than 250,000l. the amount of the following legacies to remain, and the more will be left to my dear son Clement. My son to pay an annuity of 2,000l. to his mother for her life; 10,000l. to each of my daughters; 5,000l. to my brother Louis; 2,000l. to my brother Charles; nothing to Felix; 10,000l. to each of my illegitimate sons, Augustus and Frederick; and 10,000l. to Mr. Robert Langslow; 5,000l. to his sister Frederica, and 2,000l. to his sister Clementina." He had executed two codicils in 1836 and 1837, increasing the amount The actual personalty in this of these bequests. His son, the Hon. Clement A. G. P. L. Baron de Bode, has administered to the will in England. country liable to duty was only valued at 4501. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS. INCREASE AND DIMINUTION OF EXPENDITURE IN PUBLIC OFFICES.-A return has just been printed by order of the House of Commons of every increase and diminution which occurred within the year 1846 in all public offices. From this paper it appears that the total increased expenditure in salaries, emoluments, retired allowances, and office expenses during the year amounted to 82,9601. 79. 10d.; the diminution effected in those items was 55,5741. 7s. 10d. The gross increase has arisen chiefly from consequently the net increase of expenditure was the pressure of business in the Post-office department, 47,3861. which occasioned an augmentation of that establishment of no fewer than 1,363 persons, whose salaries amounted to 49,5681. 3s. 6d. Only 48 assistants were added during 1846 to all the other public offices. Retired allowances were granted to the amount of 15,9891. Os. 7d. The diminution of the public servants during the year was 86; of whom the Excise was relieved of 44, and the home Navy and Victuallingyards of 24 officials, at a saving of 3,6161. 4s. in the first, and of 2,170l. 17s. 6d. in the other instance. A saving under the equivocal head of "emoluments" was effected to the amount of 6,9011. 4s. of which 6,2101. 10s. 8d. has been lopped away from the "exchequer and other departments in Scotland." easy Recovery of Small Debts and Demands in England and Wales." I purpose in a few words to illustrate how far it deserves its title. This, I think, will appear by reference to the first case in which I have been personally engaged in the Court. A long-pending dispute on the balance of an account arising out of the Reading and Caversham Regatta existed and was pending in a local court of record in this borough at the time the Act came into operation; and willing to exemplify the value of its provisions for securing inexpensive justice, my client, the plaintiff, abandoned the proceedings instituted, and entered a plaint in the new court for the recovery of 41. being the balance claimed from the defendant. Much hostility of feeling had existed as to the claim, which was regarded in the town and by the parties rather as a trial of the personal character of a respectable tradesman than a dispute commensurate in importance with the amount sought to be recovered; and when the trial came off, it was apparent that nothing less than personal in. tegrity was the question in issue. The defendant was represented by one of the ablest and oldest practitioners in Reading, who stated that he had as many as half-a-dozen witnesses to examine, some of whom came from a considerable distance, in rebuttal of the plaintiff's statement, and to shew that he had totally misrepresented the transaction. It is needless to go into the merits of the case, which, after occupying the greater part of the morning, terminated in the plaintiff's favour; the Judge having first expressed a strong opinion as to the defence, which had entirely failed, and the plaintiff left the court without any imputation upon his character, entitled, by the express direction of the Judge, to the costs of the cause. Now, Sir, comes the utility of the Act. The costs were taxed by the officer of the Court without any notice of taxation having been given to either party to attend, and consequently without any opportunity having been afforded of discussing either principles or practice. I subjoin the particulars of the costs allowed. First, it will be observed, that the plaintiff and another are the only witnesses allowed to the plaintiff. He had four in court ready to be examined in confirmation of his statement, but an intimation from the learned judge that his testimony had not been shaken upon a severe cross-examination to which he was subjected, was the only reason that not more than one was examined, notwithstanding that witnesses in contradiction were in court, and afterwards were examined by the defendant's solicitor. Lastly, it will be seen that no costs of preparation or investigation are permitted. I am aware that under the Act the defendant is expressly exempted from paying the costs of employing an attorney, less than 51, baving been recovered; but surely this must be intended to mean the employment, payment for which is awarded in other cases by the same section, which is that of "appearing or acting on behalf of any person in the said court," and it cannot mean that acts done out of court, especially after the plaint has been entered, are not costs in the cause. Indeed, the disallowing the fee for advocacy is a grievous injustice; but to disallow all the costs of the professional assistance rendered is to place parties upon unequal terms, as a rich defendant |