Court Of King's Bench, We...
;')r. 5CARLE.TT moved for a Tule, calling on the Mlagistrates of the East half Hundred of Brhiton, to show-cause why they should not hcar an application of a petroni named Clarke, for -the licence of a public-house in Lambeth, which he had purchased from a man nnined Barton. The Magistrates had refused the lieence, not from any objection to the applicant, bat from an erreneoas opinion that the' had no jurisdiction. the COURT interrupted the learned Counsel, by expressing a ,doubt whether the Magistrat.r could now rehear the application with effect; as it seemed by 26 Geo. 11. c. 21, that they were onNv empowrered to grant licences at a sessions holden in Scptember, or wthin 20 daya afterwards; and if no licence could now be granted, the Court would not grant a mandamus to compel Mlagistratea to do -that which wroulel be of no avail. Mr. SCARLETT said he would consider the statute, and renew his motion on a fiuture day. Tratg xrIG V. SIR W. MIrDDLETON, DAMT. Tnis was a rule, calling on Sir IV. Aliddleton ta show cause why an information, in the nature of a qto warranto, should not be ex- hibited against him for illegaly assuming to be one of the Portmen of Ipswich, on the ground that he was not elected by a majority of the sedect body of burgestes. Air. ADAM! now showed cause, on the ground that by the charter and eustom of Ipswich, though notby the geseral law, the defendant was rightly elected. Tb-i CO URT thought that the question involved points of law and fAt which ought to be tried, and accordingly made the rule absolute. TrrE KING V. TRIPHOOIr AND OTITELS. lil. STORKS moved for a rule, callinig on two persons, named 'Triplhook, to showr cause why they should not be comnmitted for as. zuming to practices as attornies; aud why an attomey of the court, whose name he forbore to nmention, should not be struck off' the i-oils for alloging them to practice in his name. The two Triphooks werc father and son; the father was a schoolmaster residing near Uttoxeter, the son, an attorney's clerk, but not himself an attorniey. A person nsamed Holbrooke, who resided near Triphook, sen., ap. plied to him for advice on finding himself sued for a debt of 141. 14s. Triphook replied that he had a son in London, who would set tle the -busmness without further trouble, If hIe would advance 151. Upon this vepresentation, Holbrooke advanced the money, and considered the matter as settled; but to his surprise was aflerwaris informed that there mnust be a trial, and the attorney, who had never appeared till now, same down to lend his name to uroceedings which had really been conducted by Triphook, jun. It eWas now discovered thatthere uas no gwund of defence, and accordingly the plaintiff obtained judgmnten for 711. debt, and costs, and the unfortunate defendant found hlibself in the whole subjected to an expense of 1121. The attorney, o had really dane nothing, made out his bill of costt as thovigh ItAFnl conducted the proceedings. The t' lRt granted a rule to show ruse, and rose at onco'clock. COURT OF KING'S BENCIH, WESTMIINSTEn, Nov. 13. KItt; KING V. TIIE MIAGISTRATFS OF TU1E DISTRICT OF _ - EAST RPfTl'Yr. -