BAILIFF ON CIRCUIT TO MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL. 1.-Description and amount of fees, see Table of Fees, 1 Vict. c. 30. 2.-Aggregate amount received in respect of 2 & 7.-Aggregate amount received in respect such fees, 9667. 18s. 9åd. 3 & 4.-By whom received, &c. :-The clerks, in equal proportions. 7.-Sums received by the clerks :-Fees received by each clerk, 4837. 9s. 4 d. salary received. MARSHAL TO MR. JUSTICE MAULE. No 3. By whom received :-the marshal. 3 of such fees, &c. : Fees received on the Northern summer cir cuit, 1845, 147. 2s. 6d. & 4.-By whom received, &c.: To the bailiff. Note.-Mr. Justice Cresswell remained in town during the Spring circuits, 1846; therefore this return applies only to the circuit as above-mentioned, and not to the whole period for which the return was required. Court of Exchequer. LORD CHIEF BARON POLLOCK. 7. Sum received by the Lord Chief Baron: Salary, nominally 7,000l. per annum; but the expense of the two circuits, which hitherto reduce it to a net salary of about 6,4001, per 5 & 6.-Amount paid into or out of the Con- have been found to be above 3007. each, would solidated Fund :-Nil. 7.-Sums received by the marshal : 1057. 13s. 6d., consisting entirely of the foregoing fees. MARSHAL TO MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL. 1.-Description and amount of fees, see Table of Fees, 1 Vict. c. 30. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.-Aggregate amount received in respect of such fees, &c.: Gross amount of fees received on the Northern summer circuit, 1845, for business transacted from the Courts of Law at Westminster, the Court of Pleas at Durham, and the Common Pleas at Lancaster, 2657. 18s. 8d., and which, after deducting various payments and expenses, is payable to the marshal. No part consists of salary, nor is any part paid into the Consolidated Fund. Note. Mr. Justice Cresswell remained in town during the Spring circuits, 1846; therefore this return applies only to the circuit as above mentioned, and not to the whole period for which the return was required. annum. MR. BARON PARKE. 1, 2, 3 & 4.-Description and amount of fees &c.: As a judge on the circuit, is attended by a marshal, who receives fees varying according to the quantity of business done: and a crier. The crier pays over nothing. The marshal pays over 6s. 8d. on each cause, from the courts at Westminster, entered at those places where the judge, as a judge of assize, presides on the civil side, and 6s. 8d. on each traverse entered when he presides on the criminal side, and 12s. 4d. for each entry of what are termed Foreign Records at Durham. These sums are applied towards the payment of the circuit expenses, which, after deducting those sums, and other small sums paid by the sheriffs in lieu of the customary donation of gloves, at those places where there is no execution, have amounted on an average to 2671. 6s. 31d. per circuit. 7.-Sum received by Mr. Baron Parke: Salary as a judge of the Court of Exchequer, 5,000l. per annum, payable out of the Consolidated Fund; and as a judge of that court, no fees or any other emoluments. The expense of chambers in Serjeants' Inn, and circuits, are paid out of the salary. MR. BARON ALDERSON. 1, 2, 3, 4.-Description and amount of fees, &c.: As a judge on the circuit, is attended by a marshal, who receives fees varying according to quantity of business done; and a crier. The crier pays over nothing. The marshal pays over 6s. 8d., on each cause from the courts at Westminster, entered at those places where the judge, as a judge of assize, presides on the civil side, and 6s. 8d. on each traverse Parliamentary Returns.-Notes of the Week. 389 entered when he presides on the criminal side, | 2.-Aggregate amount received in respect of and 12s. 4d. each entry of what are termed Foreign Records at Durham. These sums are applied towards the payment of the circuit expenses, which, after deducting those sums, and other small sums paid by the sheriffs in lieu of the customary donation of gloves, at those places where there is no execution, have amounted on an average to 2671. per circuit. 7.-Sum received by Mr. Baron Alderson : Salary as a judge of the Court of Exchequer, 5,000l. per annum, payable out of the Consolidated Fund; and as a judge of that court, no fees nor any other emoluments. The expenses of chambers in Serjeants' Inn, and circuits, are paid out of the salary. MR. BARON ROLFE. 1, 3, 4.-Description and amount of fees, &c. : On the circuits a fee of 6s. 8d. is payable to the judge's marshal, for the use of the judge, on every record entered for trial from any of the courts at Westminster, which fee goes towards the expense of the circuit. It is payable by the party entering the record for trial, and applied towards payment of the circuit expenses, which amount to about 7001. or 8007. a year. Each judge going the Northern circuit receives from the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster a payment of about 301. for his services on the circuit, and for assisting the Chancellor of the Duchy in any appeals which may come before him during the two terms next following the circuit. No other salary, fees, or emoluments. 7. Sum received by Mr. Baron Rolfe. As one of the Barons of the Exchequer, salary of 5,000l. per annum, which is charged on the Consolidated Fund. No salary received. 4.-To whom payable, and how applied: The fees received by the clerk and crier and the bailiff were applied to their own use, after deducting payments to the ushers for collecting the same, to the hall-keeper for attendance, and for stationery, &c. 5, 6. Amount paid into the Consolidated Fund, &c. :-Nil. such fees: £ s. d. Fees received at chambers - 6,739 12 34 Ditto Summer circuit and Winter Commissions, 1845 Ditto Spring circuits, 1846 3.-By whom received: 566 12 11 596 7 14 TRIAL AT BAR.-BURON V. DENMAN. THE case of Buron v. Denman, which was an action against the Hon. Commander Denman, to recover compensation in damages for the destruction of a factory established by the plaintiff, a Spanish merchant, in connection. with the slave trade, at the Gallinas, on the coast of Africa, was tried at bar in the Court of Exchequer, on Monday and the two following days. The Admiralty defended their officer, being represented by the Attorney and Solici tor-General, and the counsel for the Admiralty. The verdict was taken for the defendant, under the direction of the court, upon the ground that Captain Denman's acts at the Gallinas had been ratified, approved, and adopted by the executive government at home. The ratification by the sovereign was held to be equivalent to an original command, in conformity with the common law maxim,-Omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato priori æquiparatur. Mr. Baron Parke, who, as the senior Baron, summed up the case, stated that he entertained some doubt on the point on which the verdict turned, although not sufficient to induce him to dissent from the rest of the court, consisting on this occasion of Barons Alderson, Rolfe, and Platt. A bill of exceptions was tendered to the summing up of the court, upon the part of the plaintiff, and accepted. As may have been anticipated from the cor THE CLERKS TO THE LORD CHIEF BARON respondence which has already appeared in our AND PUISNE BARONS.. 1.-Description and amount of fees, see Table of Fees, 1 Vict. c. 30: columns on the subject, Sir Fitzroy Kelly did not appear at the trial as counsel for either party. 390 Parliamentary Proceedings.-New Bills.-Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor. METROPOLITAN AND PROVINCIAL LAW ASSOCIATION. This association having been fully formed, the committee of management have prepared a statement of their past proceedings and the course they intend to pursue, and have арpointed various sub-committees for considering and reporting on the measures to be carried into effect. This statement, or the substance of it, we shall be enabled to submit to our readers in an early number. Imprisonment before Trial.-Lord Nugent. To Prevent Bribery at Elections.-Sir J. Pakington. To Establish an Appeal in Criminal Cases.Mr. Ewart. To Repeal the Punishment of Death.-Mr. Ewart. NEW BILLS IN PARLIAMENT. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (NO. 1). THIS bill consolidates and partly amends PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS RE- the several statutes and parts of statutes relat LATING TO THE LAW. ing to the duties of justices of the peace out of Sessions, with respect to persons charged with indictable offences. For the present, we would call attention to the 18th section, in which it is declared that the justices' room shall not be deemed an open court, and that the justices, in their discretion, may order that no person shall have access to their room. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (NO. 2). The Statutes relating to Summary Convictions and Orders of Justices of the Peace are, with certain alterations, consolidated in this bill. The 11th clause provides, that in these cases of summary conviction, the justices' room shall be deemed an open and public court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as convenient, and both parties may be fully heard and have their witnesses examined and cross-examined by counsel or attorney, except common informers not being the parties aggrieved. (See 1 Archbold's Justice of the Peace, p. 362). SPECIAL AND PETTY SESSIONS. Special Sessions are provided for in this bill. The meetings of justices of the peace in the justices are empowered to appoint a clerk A Court of Special Sessions is constituted, and of the court, and to pay such clerk by salary, instead of fees, and the fees are to be paid to the treasurer of the county. PROTECTION OF JUSTICES. Justices of the peace are by this bill to be protected from vexations actions for the manner in which they exercise their discretionary powers. (See Bassett v. Godschall, 3 Wils. 121; 2 Archbold's Justice of the Peace, p. 43). RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS, Lord Chancellor. Gibson v. Ingo. Jan. 27, 1848. TAXATION OF COSTS.- SERVICE OF SUBPOENA TO APPOINT SOLICITOR. The solicitor of a defendant who was abroad, having died during the taxation of the costs ordered to be paid by the defendants, and| thereupon the taxing master refusing to proceed, the defendant was ordered to be served with subpœna to appoint another so licitor, and service of it, under the circumstances, at the late residence of parties with whom the defendant last and usually résided, was ordered to be deemed good service. ་་་་ Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.-Vice-Chancellor.-V. C. Knight Bruce. 391 Lambert, 5 Hare, 374, as directly in point. None of the other defendants had been served with notice of the motion. The Vice-Chancellor refused to make the order, saying he could not qualify it in the way asked, as it might throw a liability upon absent defendants. Walton v. Johnson. Feb. 14, 1847. YEARLY TENANT. RECEIVER. IN JUNCTION. In order to obtain a special injunction against a yearly tenant, occupying land in the possession of a receiver of the court, by virtue of an agreement with such receiver, it is not necessary that a bill should have been filed against such tenant, although he was no party to the original suit. Mr. Romilly, with whom was Mr. Heathfield, stated that the plaintiffs, to whom the defendants generally had been decreed to pay the costs of the suit, being desirous of obtaining an order that Mr. Mills, the Taxing Master, should proceed with the taxation, had been directed by his Honour Vice-Chancellor Wigram to make this application to his Lordship. The solicitor of one of the defendants (Simpson) having died since the date of the decree, the Taxing Master declined to proceed until another solicitor was substituted for the former, as the defendant, Simpson, was unrepresented ; but the latter had left this country for America, where, as was stated in an affidavit, it was believed that he intended to reside permanently. When in this country, being the captain of a merchant vessel, he had no fixed place of abode, but had last resided at the house of his father and sister, who had since left it, and whose present dwelling was not known to the plaintiffs. Under the old practice the parties were represented by their respective clerks in court, and when one of the latter died during the suit, the solicitor named another. Since the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 103, and the General Orders the farms belonging to the property, and had of October, 1842, the solicitors themselves Perform the duties of the sworn clerks, &c. The difficulty in the present instance was to ascertain the mode of proceeding when the solicitor was dead and his client abroad. They cited Ratcliff v. Roper, 1 P. Wins. 420; Franklin v. Colhoun, 12 Ves. 2; and Shillibeer v. Langdale, quoted in a note to the last case. A SUIT had been instituted in this case for carrying out the trusts of a deed, and by a decree in the cause a receiver had been apJohn Farmdale was the yearly tenant of one of pointed of certain real estates in Yorkshire. the approbation of the Master. On the 7th been let into possession by the receiver with September last, the receiver gave him notice to quit the time of notice would expire in March, 1848, and a proposal to let to another tenant from that time had been carried in and allowed by the Master. John Farmdale was proceeding to remove the hay, green fodder, and manure from the farm, contrary to the custom of the country, as sworn upon affidavit. John Farmdale was no party to the suit. A special injunction, exparte, was now applied for to restrain him from removing the property. The Lord Chancellor. The order you want is one for a subpoena against the defendant, Simpson, to appoint another solicitor in the room of the deceased. The question is, what service of such subpoena will be sufficient; and this remains precisely as it did before the Mr. E. F. Smith appeared for the injunction, passing of the above-mentioned act, which and contended that, although no bill had been merely took away the exclusive right of the six filed against John Farmdale, it was competent clerks to appear. I will make an order for for the court to grant the injunction without service of such subpoena on the defendant, such a proceeding, as a receiver had been apSimpson, and that service of it at his late resi-pointed, who had dealt with J. Farmdale under dence, being the residence of his father and the sanction of the court. sister a short time since, shall be deemed good service. Vice-Chancellor of England. Wigginton v. Pateman, Jan. 20, 1848. DISCLAIMER.-DISMISSAL OF BILL.-COSTS. On an application of the plaintiff to dismiss his bill with costs against a disclaiming defendant, without prejudice to any question hoo the costs of such defendant should be ultimately borne, order refused. In this case one of the defendants to the suit disclaimed all interest, and Mr. Nalder now applied to the court, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the bill might be dismissed against such defendant, with costs to be paid by the plaintiff, but without prejudice to any question which should be thereafter raised by the plaintiff as to the mode in which such costs should be ultimately borne, citing the case of Baily v. had in fact entered into an agreement with the The Vice-Chancellor said, that the tenant court itself by means of the receiver, and he did not think it was necessary that a bill should be filed against him. The injunction might be taken in the terins sought. Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce. Knight y. Cawthron. Dec. 21, 1848. PRACTICE.-23RD ORDER OF AUGUST, 1841. Where the executors of one of several next of kin filed a bill against the administrator for an account and payment of their distributive share, it was held that the other next of kin might be served with a copy of the bill, pursuant to the 23rd Order of August, 1841. THOMAS CAWTHRON died intestate in August, 1839, and the present suit was instituted by the executors of one of his next of kin, who 392 Superior Courts: V. C. Knight Bruce.-Queen's Bench. were four in number, against the administrator money had and received was brought by the for the purpose of having his accounts taken and the distributive share to which the plaintiffs were entitled, paid to them. The other next of kin were served with a copy of the bill in the cause now coming on to be heard. Bacon and Law, for the plaintiff, proposed to take the ordinary decree to account. Russell and Nalder, for the defendant, required that there should be an inquiry, whether Ann Shillito, one of the next of kin, had sanctioned certain payments as alleged by the defendant's answer. The Vice-Chancellor said, that such an inquiry would be proper, but that he thought the next of kin had been improperly made parties by service of copy of bill only. Bacon and Law cited Powell v. Cockerell, Hare, 557, and Smith v. Tuley, (V. C. Wigram's Court.) The Vice-Chancellor said, that as Ann Shillito might contend that the plaintiffs' testator was not one of the next of kin, there certainly was a question to be decided between her and the plaintiffs. He would however communicate with Sir James Wigram, who, it was said, had decided a case similar to the present. At a subsequent period of the day, the ViceChancellor said, that Sir James Wigram did not remember the point being raised before him, but that he considered the present to be a case within the 23rd Order. As he understood the Vice-Chancellor of England held the same opinion with Sir James Wigram, he could not feel himself at liberty to decide contrary to the opinions of two learned judges of such experience. A client in the country employed a country attorney to sign judgment on a warrant of attorney for him. Execution was sued out, and the London agents of the country attorney sent the writ into the country to be executed. The money was remitted to London and paid into the bankers of the London agents: Held, that money had and received would not lie by the client against the London agents: there was no privity between them. SLADE, an attorney in the country, had been employed by the plaintiff to conduct a suit against a person called Heath. Slade employed the defendants as his London agents. A letter was written by Slade to his agents in London, directing them to sue out a writ of fi. fa. The writ was accordingly issued, indorsed with the names of the defendants, and delivered to the sheriff, who levied under it, and returned the proceeds into the hands of the defendants. Under these circumstances, an action for plaintiff against the defendants for the amount so paid into their hands by the sheriff, and a verdict found for the plaintiff, with leave reserved to enter a verdict for the defendants, if this court should be of opinion that the action was not maintainable. A rule nisi having been obtained, Mr. M. Smith and Mr. Taprell showed cause. The authorities on this subject are rather conflicting. The cases of Moody v. Spencer and Lilly v. Hayes are strong authorities to show that the present form of action can be maintained. Where a sum of money is specifically paid over as the result of an execution in a particular suit, it becomes money paid to the use of the client. A delegated authority is given to the defendants by the attorney in the country, and by virtue of that authority they receive money which is due to the client, and for that purpose there consequently arises a privity between the plaintiff and the defendants. A case of Hanley v. Cassam was decided this last Term in the Exchequer, in which a summary application to that court was granted for the purposes of compelling attorneys to pay over a sum of money under a similar state of circumstances. In Griffiths v. Williams, the London agent is spoken of as the plaintiff's attorney in London, and the Court of Exchequer so treated him in the case already referred to. Crowder, contrà. The case of Cobb v. Becked is the latest decision on this subject. All the cases were there fully brought under the consideration of the court, and it was held that there must be a privity between the plaintiff and defendant to support the action of money had and received. The only case which is really at variance with that decision is Moody v. Spencer, which cannot now be supported. Hanley v. Cassam is not an authority here, for that was an application to the summary jurisdiction of the court. [Lord Denman, C.J. We will not trouble you any further at present. We will inquire about the case which is said to have been decided by the Exchequer, and let you know whether we require to hear you any further.] e Cur. ad. vult. Lord Denman, C. J. We think the case of Cobb v. Becke to be almost identical with the present. The distinction between that case and the previous one of Moody v. Spencer, is not satisfactorily established, but if a preference is to be given it must be assigned to the latter of the two cases. We delayed the decision of this case, as we were told that the Court of Exchequer took a different view of the mat ter, and had in Hanley v. Cassam enforced the claim of a client against a London agent. We agree with the case of Hanley v. Cassam, in the last number of the Law Times, the report of which we believe to be correctly given. That |