30 Superior Courts: Q. B Practice Court. Common Pleas. ENTERING COUNTY COURT. COSTS.-3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42. In an affidavit produced in support of a rule for entering a suggestion on the record to deprive the plaintiff of costs, less than 40s. having been recovered, it was sworn that the defendant from and since the commencement of the suit had resided within the jurisdictim of the County Court, to which he was liable to be warned and summoned : Held, that a sufficient primâ facie case was made out, on which to call upon the plaintiff for an answer and that an objection that it was not sworn that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the County Court, could not be maintained. under these circumstances. Pursuant to 5 Reg. | It is no answer to such an application, that the plaintiff sues as executrix since the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42. Petersdorff shewed cause against a rule obtained on behalf of the defendant for entering Littledal, JAs the examination does not a suggestion on the record to deprive the take place until within the last ten days of the plaintiff of his costs in this action, 408. only term, there is abundance of time for the appli-having been recovered on the trial of the cation to be repeated, if the illness of the ap-cause, for which the defendant was liable to plicant's sister should continue imminently be summoned and warned to the Middlesex dangerous. At present there is no reason suggested for supposing that the illness of the sister will last so long as to render it impossible for the applicant to come up to town for the purpose of being examined and admitted. The rule must not be infringed or departed from without some reason of a very strong kind. That does not at present appear to be the case. Application refused.-Ex parte James, M. T. 1839. Q. B. P. C. ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY.-EXAMINATION An accidenta' omission of the notice to the Law Bingham applied for leave that a gentleman who was an articled clerk might be examined previous to his admission, under these peculiar circumstances. He had filed the required notice pursuant to the 5th rule of Hilary Term, 6 William 4, previous to the last term; but by some misunderstanding of what the Judge's clerk said, he did not give the term's notice of his intention to apply to be examined required by rule 4 of the same term, at the hall of the Law Society, in Chancery-lane. Under these circumstances, it was hoped, that, as all the substantial advantages resulting from the rule had been secured by the steps actually taken by the applicant, the Court would be of opinion that his notice might now be received at the Law Society as within due time. Liltledale, J. (after consulting Mr. Hill), granted the application. Application granted.-Ea parte Rowland, M. T. 1839. Q. B. P. C. County Court. He took a preliminary objection to the affidavit on which the rule had been obtained, that it contained no sufficient allegation to shew that the defendant was liable to be summoned to the County Court, as it was suggested. The only statement was, that the defendant at the commencement of the suit, and since that time, had been and still was liable to be summoned and warned to the Court of Requests for the county, being resident within the limits to which its provisions extended; that there was nothing in this to shew that the cause of action had so arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court, as to render the defendant liable to be summoned. The case was analagous to one in which the party would have been obliged to declare in the County Court, that the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, and that fact must be distinctly shewn. The effect of the motion on which the rule was obtained, would be to deprive this Court of a certain power which it order to do so, it lay on the defendant to make had been supposed to have possessed, but in out his case clearly. Tindal, C. J.-It is a question upon whom the onus lies; whether upon the defendant to establish his case distinctly, or upon the plaintiff to rebut the suggestion made, and the prima facie case which is made out. He Petersdorf urged that as the defendant was seeking to interfere with the ordinary course of justice, it was for him to make out his case distinctly but that he had not done so. had stated only one of two essential facts, his residence in Middlesex, but he bad omitted to say any thing about the place where the cause of action had arisen. Tindal, C. J.-Perhaps the plaintiff can shew that it did not arise in the county. Petersdorff cited Bayley v. Chitty, 2 M. & W. 28. Jumes, contrà, contended, that a prima facie case for the Court to act upon had been clearly Superior Courts: Common Pleas. -Q. B. Order of Business.-Sittings.-Cause Lists. 31 established, and that it was for the plaintiff to | Wednesday.. 20 New Trial Paper. rebut the suggestion thrown out. Tindal, C. J.-The only question is on which side the proof of the affirmative lies. The form of the atlidavit is that suggested by the terms of the Middlesex Court of Requests Act, and I think that the objection cannot be allowed to prevail. The allegation is that the defendant was liable to be summoned in this cause of action; the answer is, that he was not so liable; but no such answer is given. Thursday 211 22 The four last days of Term-Motions. 23 25 The Court will sit in Banco on Tuesday, the 26th November, and four following days, when the Court will take the New Trial Paper two days, and the Special Paper three days. SITTINGS IN EQUITY. Saturday.. Petersdorff then proceeded to contend on the rule, that it must be discharged, because, inasmuch as that no action was brought by the plaintiff in her capacity as executrix, she could not be made liable to costs on an application of the present nature. The only question which could arise was whether the act of 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, which renders executors liable to costs in certain cases, could affect the case, but it was submitted that it would not apply here. The effect of making this rule absolute would be to attach a liability to costs to executors and administrators, which had never hitherto at- Tuesday tached to them under the statute of Gloucester. Tuesday Friday Friday He cited Harris v. Lloyd, 4 M. & Sel. 171, and Tuesday Tindal, C. J.-The words of the statute of 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 31, are general that in every action by any executor, &c. in right of any testator, &c. the said executor, unless the Court should otherwise order, shall be liable to pay the costs of the defendant, as if he were suing in his own right, and in a cause of action accruing to himself. The rule must therefore be absolute. Bosanquet, J.-The 'case cited of Wase v. Wyburd, is distinctly in point. Rule absolute.-Bishop v. Marsh, M. T. 1839. C. P. CAUSE LISTS. Queen's Bench.-CROWN PAPER. Michaelmas Term, 1839. Staffordshire-The Queen v. Eli Kuight. Worcestershire - The Queen v. Justices of Leicestershire-The Queen v. Samuel Canner, Staffordshire-The Queen v. the Inhabitants of The Queen v. The Inha Arlecdon. Yorkshire The Queen v. Inhabitants of Warwickshire-The Queen v Benjamin Price. Lincolnshire The Queen v. Inhabitants of Wainfleet, All Saints. Surrey-The Queen v. Richard Sterry and ano. Exeter-The Queen v. Edw. M'Gowan. Staffordshire-The Queen v. Charles Dudley. Alsop v. Blair-ditto. Lord Foley v. Burnand-abated. Halford v. Halford, re-hearing-not to be in Compton v. Payn-ditto. Jones v. Taber, at defendant's request-to be heard before Baron Alderson, with exceptions. Caldecott v. Williams. Chambers v. Bircham-supplemental suit. Stott v. Stott. Cuddon v. Cartwright. Cox v. Hill. Court of Review. The General List of Petitions in Bankruptcy New Petitions answered for Petition Day, Nov. 2, 1839. King v. Manning. Wood v. Wood-stands over to amend. term. Price v. Price. Headlam v. Bojie. Phillips. Bainbrigge v. Blair. 1840. Walsh v. Ball. Monday Hatch v. Ball, abated. Jones v. Morgan. Monday Jobson v. Devring. Monday 2d March. Small v. Attwood. Monday 6th April. Lewis v. Adams. Monday 11th May. Bishop v. Peddle. Monday 15th June. Monday Hall v. Gregory. 6th July. Watson v. Churchill. Monday Andrews v. Cross. Monday Levy v. Berry. Monday Parker v. Alcock, do. Dawson v. Keith. Wetherill v. Weighill Drisser v. Same Luey v. Boulter. cause. original and revived cause. Campbell v. Dickins-original suit. 17th August. 14th September. 19th October. JOHN CLARK, Clerk of the said Court. THE EDITOR'S LETTER BOX. since the 1st August is now published. This The Quarterly Digest of all Cases reported completes the volume for the year. "A Constant Reader" is informed that each course of lectures at the Law Institution is distinct in itself,-taking complete parts of Same v. Appleford-supplemental suit on bill the subjects to which the Lectures relate. and answer. The letter of J. B. W. has been received. THE RECENT JUDICIAL CHANGES. | town. MEMOIR OF MR. JUSTICE VAUGHAN. THE changes on the Bench which we stated in our last number as then in progress have been now completed; but before we advert to them, we wish to discharge a duty to the memory of the learned Judge whose death has caused the vacancy which has just been filled up. Mr. Justice Vaughan was no ordinary man; he filled a conspicuous place in the profession for many years, and he has died universally regretted. The memorials of his life, which have come to our hands, are but scanty. He was born in the year 1768, and, reckoning from his call to the Bar, was the senior Judge on the Bench. He hardly belongs to the oldest generation of lawyers, some of whom we have recently commemorated. Lord Eldon and Lord Stowell's set must have ranked him only as a junior; and he leaves many eminent seniors still surviving, as Sir Samuel Shepherd, Sir Wm. Alexander, Sir William Garrow, Lord Wynford, Mr. Const, and others. He was educated, we believe, at Westminster School, but did not go to either university, proceeding at once to the study of his profession. He was duly entered at Lincoln's Inn, and was called in Trinity Term 1791, in the same year in which Lord Abinger came to the Bar. He chose the Common Law Bar and the Midland Circuit, where he soon made way, supported as he was, not only by his talents, but by a good connection to give him ample opportunities of displaying them. He speedily became a leader at sessions, and his easy popular manners made him a very general favourite. Early in 1799 he was made a Serjeant, and thus rose into the lead on his own Circuit, and to some business in the Common Pleas in VOL. XIX.-No. 558. no There he had as his competitors common men,-Sir Samuel Shepherd, Mr. Serjeant Lens, the present Lords Lyndhurst and Wynford, Mr. Serjeant Pell, and others, nevertheless, in due time, he came into full practice in both these eminent professional stations. We well remember the time when he might be considered the most in repute of the three rows of coifs which were then to be found daily in the Common Pleas. A Tory in politics (although without any party bitterness), and with good friends at Court, it is not to be wondered at that he came in for his share of professional honours. In 1816 these fell thick on him. In Hilary Vacation he was made Solicitor General to Queen Charlotte; in Easter Term King's Serjeant; in Trinity Vacation Attorney General to Queen Charlotte; and he was certainly spoken of as likely to become a law officer of the King; but here he was crossed in his path by another Serjeant of heavier metal, we mean the present Lord Lyndhurst. He obtained therefore no higher professional distinction at the Bar, but kept his ground as a successful leader in the Common Pleas. We e happen to know that in one year, about this time, he made no less a sum than nine thousand guineas. It is, however, as all professional men know, allowed to very few indeed to keep a decided lead in any Court for a long series of years; and it is very certain that Serjeant Wilde would make most men look well to their laurels; and this eminent advocate now began to rise to that place in the profession which he has ever since maintained. At any rate, promotion to the Bench, which but few ever decline, did not come undesired, and in Hilary Vacation, 1827, he was appointed a Baron of the Exchequer, on the resignation of Baron Graham. In Easter Term, 1834, he was D 34 The recent Judicial Changes.- Changes in the Law last Session of Parliament, it will be remembered that both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Langdale seemed to incline to the opinion that the Equity Exchequer should be abolished, and that two new Judges should be appointed in the Court of Chancery; while Lord Lyndhurst in the transferred into the Court of Common | the Court of Chancery is concerned. In Pleas, changing places with Mr. Justice the debate in the House of Lords in the (now Mr. Baron) Alderson, and at the same time he was made a Privy Councillor. He sat, therefore, more than twelve years on the Bench, and although it cannot be said that he shewed any extraordinary learning while there, yet he always discharged his duty with industry, patience, and ability. His manner at the Bar, which was some-House of Lords, and Mr. Freshfield in the what boisterous, was much softened on the Bench, and he ever shewed himself a kind and finished gentleman-indeed, no man was more generally liked and valued in private life. He died suddenly, of a complaint of the heart, in September last, at his country seat near Watford, aged 71. He was twice married; first, to the Honorable Augusta St. John, second daughter of the twelfth Baron St. John, by whom he left issue; and secondly, to the Dowager Lady St. John, the widow of the thirteenth Baron St. John, who survives him. He was brother to Sir Henry Halford, who took that name, we believe, at the request of a patient who left him an estate on that condition. It is rather curious that his great rival at the bar, the late Sir Albert Pell, married the Honorable Margaret St. John, a younger daughter of the twelfth Baron St. John Having now to the best of our ability, given an impartial account of this able and excellent Judge, we will next proceed to shew how his place has been supplied; and as to this it will be found, that the judicial arrangement which we stated last week, has been carried into effect. The vacant seat in the Common Pleas has been filled We up by Mr. Baron, now Mr. Justice Maule, much satisfaction to the suitors of the See Memoir of Sir A. Pell, 4 L. O. 408. House of Commons, thought that the Court should be improved but continued. It may be said that Sir R. Rolfe's appointment will prejudice the free discusssion of the question, and perhaps it may; still, if it were thought more beneficial to abolish the Equity Exchequer, he might be appointed to one of the new Courts, the Judge of which will probably be not inferior to a puisne baron of the Exchequer. We confess we watch every point connected with the coming reform in Chancery with much expectation, as we think it behoves the present heads of the law to bring forward, without loss of time, a well considered plan for the remedy of the grievous state of the suitors in that Court, to which we shall lose no opportunity of calling public attention. The Solicitor General cannot be formally appointed, we conceive, except by a Cabinet, which meets on the 18th instant. CHANGES IN THE LAW IN THE LAST SESSION OF PARLIAMENT. No. XIII THE ACT FOR THE TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS. 2 & 3 VICT., c. 38. We have recently laid before our readers the proposed alterations in private committees of the House of Commons. We have now to call their attention to the act of the last session for regulating the trial of Election Petitions. We gave a full account of the mode of trying them under the 9 G. 4, c. 22, at the commencement of our fifteenth volume. That act is suspended by the present act until the end of the second session after the dissolution of this present parliaof the first parliament which may be called ment (s. 1); and the mode of trying the election petitions now pending, (s. 3), and all future election petitions is prescribed by the present act. Every election petition is to be subscribed right to vote at the election to which the same by some person claiming therein to have had a shall relate, or to have had a right to be returned a See a report of this debate, 18 L. O. 161-169. |
