V.

v.

0.

PAGE PAGE Regina v. Clayton

354 O'Hare v. Reeves

659
v. Combe

179 Ostler v. Cooke

143
v. Douglas

42 Oxford, Judge of the Mayor's

v. Dyer

851 Court of, Rex v. , note (a) .

21

v. Ealing, Inhabitants of

(12 Q. B. 178, note (a)) 612 P.

v. Ellesmere, Inhabitants Parham, Regina v.

858
of (12 Q. B. 19)

738 Paupierre, Day v.

802

v. Glamorganshire, Jug

tices of, 900

561 Payne, Bate v Paynter, Regina v.

399

v. Goole, Inbabitants of

815 Pearson, Bailey v.

612

(12 Q. B. 172) Penhall, Colombine v.

128

v. Great Western Railway Priors Hardwicke, Inhabitants of,

Company, Re Burnham Rates 327

592 Regina v. (12 Q. B. 168)

v. Hulton 612

v. Lancashire, Justices of (12 Q. B. 305)

364 Q.

v. Leaden Roothing, InQueen, The, Bristol Poor, Go

habitants of (12 Q. B. 181). 653 vernor, &c., of, v. 405, 414

v. Lindsey, Justices of 484 De Bode, Baron v. 364

v. London, Lord Mayor of 1 v. Douglas

42

v. Londonderry and Cole74 raine Railway Company

998 London, Lord Mayor

v. Longwood

116 30

v. Macclesfield, Inhabit-
Ryalls v., In Error
ants of

881 (11 Q. B. 796)

363
v. Parham

858 Smith v.

738
v. Paynter

399

v. Priors Hardwick, InhaR.

bitants of (12 Q. B. 168) 612 Read, Regina v.

524
v. Read

524 Re Butler and Masters

341
v. Russell

237 Crosby Tithes.

761

v. St. George, Hanover
Richards
988 Square, Inhabitants of

642 Reeves, O'Hare v.

659

v. St. Leonard's, ShoreRegina v. Aldbrough, Inhabitants ditch, Inhabitants of

964 of

190

v. St. Pancras, Inhabitants Regina v. Attercliffe cum Darnal, of (12 Q. B. 298)

560 Inhabitants of .

933

v. Sheffield, Canal Comv. Baptist Missionary So

pany

913 ciety (10 Q. B. 884)

756

v. South Wales Railway - v. Barnsley, Inhabitants of

Company

988 (18 Q. B. 193)

679
v. Sutcliffe

833 v. Barton

389

v. Tacolnestone, Inhav. Blane

769

bitants of (12 Q. B. 157). 166 v. Blanshard

318

v. Tinsley, Inhabitants of 933 v. Bowen

790

v. Totness, Inhabitants of v. Brecknockshire, Inha

(11 Q. B. 80)

178 bitants of (15 Q. B. 813) 364

v. Weedon Beck, Lords, v. Brightside Bierlow, In

&c., of

808 habitants of

933
v. Whittles.

248 v. Bristol Poor, Governor,

v. Winsford, Inhabitants of 405 of

873 v. Browne 654 Regula Generalis

.

&c.,

PAGE

PAGE Re Wilcox 666 Tattersall, Foster v. note (a)

212 Rex v. Oxford, Judge of the

Thompson, Doe dem. Dand v.

670 Mayor's Court of note (c) 21 Tinsley, Inhabitants of, Regina v. 933 Robinson v. Waddington . 753 Totness, Inhabitants of, Regina v. Rosher, Freeman v. 780 (11 Q. B. 80)

178 Royal Exchange Assurance Com- Trinity House, Hull, Guild of, v. pany, Alcock v. 292 Beadle

175 Royle, Doe dem. Patrick v. 100 Turrill v. Crawley

197 Russell, Huntley v. .

572 , Regina v.

237

U.
Ryalls v. The Queen, In Error (11
Q. B. 795)

363 Ulph, Doe dem. Darlington x. 204

.

v.

V.

.

.

V.

S.

v. St. George, Hanover Square, In

Vaughan v Matthews

187 habitants of, Regina v. 642 Von Glehn, Elliot v.

632 St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, Inhabitants of, Regina v.

964

W. St. Pancras, Inhabitants of, Re

gina v. (12 Q. B. 298, note). 560 Waddington, Robinson v. 753 Salmon, Webb v. . 886 Wakefield, North v.

536 In Error 894 Walley v. M'Connell

903 Scadding v. Lorant 687 Ward, Keene v.

515 In Error 706 Webb v. Salmon

886 Schmidt, D’Ebro v. .

653

In Error 894 Scroope, Homfray v. 509 v. Spicer

886 Shaw, Birmingham, Churchward

In Error . 894 ens, &c., of, v. (10 Q. B. 868) 364 Weedon v. Woodbridge

462 v. York and North Midland

In Error 470 Railway Company

347

Beck, Lords, &c., of, ReSheffield, Canal Company, Regina gina v.

808 913 Welchman v. Sturgis

552 Shepperton, Hutchinson v. 955 Whittles, Regina v..

248 Simpson, Forth v. 680 Willcox, Re

666 Slade, Gardner v. ** 796 Wilson v. Holden

. 815 Small v. Nairne

840 Winsford, Inhabitants of, Regina v. 873

, . Smith v. The Queen 738 Woodbridge, Weedon v.

462 South Wales Railway Company,

v. In Error 470 Regina v.

988

Union, Guardians Spicer, Webb v.

886

of, v. Colneis Union, Guardians In Error 894 of

269 Sturgis, Welchman v.

552 Sutcliffe, Regina v.

833

V.

The following cases, as far as p. 99, were omitted in Vol. XII., for

want of space.

The QUEEN v. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of

LONDON. [Feb. 25, 1847.]

or together, certain other official duties relating to the public business of the Corporation : That, for many years past, the office has been acquired by purchase, and the admission has been for life (subject to removal for misconduct), with powé: of alienation on payment of a fine, the alienee being admitted by the court of Mayor arfd aldermen, which is a court of record, and records the admission : That the person admitted•makes the declaration required by law on admission to municipal offices and takes a peculiar oath (which was set forth): And that the clerks or attorneys never sign any roll,.but wactise immediately on admission, subject to the control of the court of Mayor and addernen, who may suspend or remove them for misconduct; and that there is not, nor has been, during the existence of the Lord Mayor's Court, any roll which a person admitted as an’attorney could sign. And for these reasons, &c

Special demurrer. Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench (assuming the objection of argumentativeness not to be

insisted upon), that the Lord.Mayor's Court was an “inferior court," within the letter of stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 27: and that the incidents of the court, and office of attorney therein, as stated in the return, did not render the clause inapplicable; the statutory words being

express. And that the wand.of a'roll was no answer; for the statute must be taken to mean that, if the

court had ng roli winch a person entitled to admission could sign, a roll must be provided. Judgment, what the return is not valid, and that a peremptory mandamus issue. On writ of ejpor, Held by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, without any decision on the above points : That the

writ was bad, inasmuch as it did not show that the court was, within the terms of stat. 6 &

7 Vict. c. 73, s. 27, an inferior court “of law” or “of equity." And that the defect was not helped by the return, since a peremptory mandamus could not go

(as the court below bad awarded it) in the terms of the present writ. Judgment reversed.

MANDAMUS. The writ recited, That William Henry Ashurst, gentleman, being an attorney duly admitted of some one or more of our *2]

superior Courts *of law at Westminster, and also a solicitor duly

admitted of our High Court of Chancery, hath, since the passing, &c., of a certain act of parliament, &c. (62& 7 Vict. c. 73, “for consolidating and amending several of the laws relating to attorneys,” &c.), duly produced before you the said Mayor and aldermen his admission as such attorney and solicitor as aforesaid, properly verified, and proved to be and continue in full force, and hath duly applied to and requested you, the said Mayor and aldermen, to admit him, the said W. H. A., an attorney of a certain inferior Court within the said city of London, held before and presided over by you, the said Mayor and aldermen, and

called the *Lord Mayor's Court, on signing the roll of the Court *3]

as directed by the said act of parliament; but that you, the said Mayor and aldermen, have wrongfully refused to comply with the said application of the said W. H. A., or to admit him as such attorney of the said LordMayor's Court; in contempt of us, and in violation of the said act of parliament and other the laws of this realm, and to the great damage and grievance of him, the said W. H. A. The writ then stated prayer of remedy by W. H. A., and commanded the Lord Mayor and aldermen that they should, “ without delay, admit or cause to be admitted the said W. H. A. as such attorney of the said Lord Mayor's Court, according” to the said act, or signify cause, &c.

Return. That the city of London is, and, from time whereof, &c., hath been, an ancient city, and that the citizens and freemen of the said city, during all that time, have been a body corporate and politic, &c., and that they now are a body politic and corporate, by the name of The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London. And that, from time whereof, &c., the said Court so called the Lord Mayor's Court, as in the said writ mentioned, of right hath been, and still of right ought to be, a court of record, and has, by custom, jurisdiction within the said city as a court of law and a court of equity; and that the town clerk of the said city is registrar of the said Court; and that, besides entertaining ordinary actions and suits at law and equity in the said Court, the said Lord Mayor's Court is a Court of peculiar jurisdiction, in which many actions arising out of the local customs of the city of London, are, by the laws and customs of England, alone triable; and particularly actions upon certain by-laws passed *by the assembly of the Mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the said city, im

[*4 posing penalties for breach of their prescriptive customs, and which penalties can only be sued for in the said Lord Mayor's Court: and that the law of foreign attachment, and the peculiar practice relating thereto, is secured to the citizens of London by prescriptive custom confirmed by statute law, and gives rise to the largest portion of the business transacted both on the common law side and equity side of the said Court: and that the said Court has likewise criminal jurisdiction, in the exercise of which freemen who have offended against the laws and customs of the said city, may, upon informations filed by the Common Serjeant of the said city, and trial had thereupon, be disfranchised by the judgment of the said Court. And that, inasmuch as the greater portion of the business carried on in the said Court, both in law and equity, arises out of peculiar laws and customs of the said city, the forms and practice of the said Court, as well as the laws and customs to which they relate, differ essentially from the forms and practice of the Courts at Westminster, and require great practice and experience to qualify an attorney properly to conduct the proceedings of the said Court. And that it is one of the immemorial customs of the said Court for the attorney of any party suing as plaintiff in the said Court, to administer an oath to his own client, and to retain in his own possession the affidavit sworn by his client, upon which an attachment issues : and it is also another immemorial custom of the said Court for the plaintiff in any. action upon which an attachment issues, before he obtains the fruits of his judgment, to give sureties to repay the amount to *the defendant in case he should within a year and a day come in and disprove the plaintiff's debt, and that the plaintiff's attorney under the said custom takes such suretics; and, in case it shall be made to appear that, from inadvertence or any other cause, the sureties were not, at the time they were so taken, solvent and responsible, the attorney is personally liable for the amount of such judgment; and it has occurred, in the course of practice in the said Court, that the attorneys of certain parties suing as plaintiffs in the said Court have been fixed with the amount

B

[*5