Corporation v. Insolvent Debtor's Court, in re Hamlin, 3 N. & P. 543 v. Leeds and Liverpool Navigation Company, 2 N. & P. 540 Poor Rate Costs, 10 v. Roberts, 7 Ad. & E. 441; 3 N. & P. 592.. Municipal Corporation Acts, 4 v. Sutton, 3 N. & P. 569 v. Watson, 2 N. & P. 595 Bridge Court of Requests Page 203 Churchwarden Writ of Error, 1 Criminal Information v. St. Andrew's Holborn, Governors of the Poor of, 7 Ad. & E. 281 Reynolds v. Webb, 4 Bing. N. C. 694; 6 D. P. C. 728 Robinson v. Messenger, 3 N. & P. 583 Roe v. Cobham, 6 Scott, 146; 6 D. P. C. 628 Routledge v. Abbott, 3 N. & P. 560 Costs, 5 Pleading, Simpson v. Clayton, 4 Bing. N. C. 758 Smith v. Campbell, 6 D. P. C. 728 Stewart v. Aberdeen, 4 M. & W. 211 Lease Evidence, 5 Stephens v. Underwood, 4 Bing. N. C. 655; 6 D. P. C. 737 Insurance Pleading, 7 Arbitration Taylerson v. Peters, 7 Ad. & E. 110; 2 N. & P. 622 Wettenhall v. Graham, 4 Bing. N. C. 714; 6 D. P. C. 746 v. Corporation of East Retford, ib. 484 .. Appeals on reported Nias v. Northern and Eastern Railway Company, ib. 355..Appeals on reported Oldham v. Stonehouse, ib. 317 cases Appeal, (Costs.) Pentland v. Warrington, 3 M. & C. 249 Conduct of suit, (Nominal plaintiff.) Appeals on reported cases Powys v. Mansfield, ib. 359 Practice, 6, (Subpœna to hear judgment.) Local Acts, (Purchase of land under.) Practice, 4, (Proof of document.) Lunatic trustee, (1 Will. 4, c. 60.) EVENTS OF THE QUARTER. Ir is rather a remarkable event, that, whilst Lord Brougham was triumphing over Lord Durham for what in our opinion was little more than a technical blunder, the privy council should be about to discuss a more glaring blunder of his own. Five serjeants (Taddy, Wilde, Spankie, Atcherley and Merewether,) have presented a petition to her Majesty, setting forth that the Court of Common Pleas was thrown open under a mandate to the judges, bearing only the sign-manual of his late Majesty, sealed with no seal or signet, and countersigned by no public officer; that the said mandate is illegal, inasmuch as it purports to alter the constitution and practice of one of the superior Courts of justice by the authority of the crown alone; that the prescriptive privileges of the serjeants-at-law cannot be abrogated by any authority but that of an act of parliament; and that experience has shown that the benefit of the greater dispatch of business, expected to accrue to the public from the alteration, has not been realized. The petition was referred to the privy council, and Sir W. Follett and Mr. Austin have been heard upon it. The general impression seems to be that the warrant was bad; but the Ch. J. Tindal suggested at the outset of the argument that, as the judges of the different courts had a discretion to hear whom they pleased, the judges of the Court of Common Pleas might throw open that Court to the bar in general without an order from the crown. If this be so, it matters comparatively little whether they acted in compliance with a legal warrant or not; for the utmost that can be inferred from its illegality is, that the judges may close the Court again if it so pleases them, and thus the whole resolves itself into a question of expediency. The petitioning serjeants say that the benefit of the greater dispatch of business has not been realized, a proposition which may refer either to quantity or time. If it refers to time, we answer that the business is dispatched more rapidly at present than under the old regime, that serjeants were always celebrated for the goodness of their wind, and that it is the judges' own fault if they are kept waiting for the bar; if to quantity, that more is done in point of fact, and that restricting the suitor in his choice of counsel, or compelling him to employ different counsel in the different stages of his cause, is a very strange mode of bringing business to a Court. The pleadings are drawn by a first-rate pleader; the cause is led by a first-rate queen's counsel; but if any incidental question arises, a serjeant must be retained and instructed, and neither pleader nor leader can be heard. Such is the state of things an enlightened bench is expected to bring back, But assuming that the good is not apparent, has the expected evil been felt? have this band of brothers been thrust or tempted from their seats? has their order sunk into contempt, or has the Common Pleas been denuded of its bar by the demand for serjeants in the Exchequer and Queen's Bench? On the contrary, no class of gentlemen with an odd title are more honoured: they have names amongst them that reflect lustre on the whole profession; but somehow or other attorneys seem to think that there is no brilliancy to spare, or that it is a pity to move such gems from their setting (at least, such gems as could be moved); for on the first day of term two goodly rows of coifs are always to be seen, and any suitor who has a fancy for serjeants may have them, like cherries, by the bunch, |