« PreviousContinue »
On the 23d of December 1834, Lord Lyndhurst resigned the office of Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and was succeeded in the same by Sir James Scarlett, Knight, one of his Majesty's Counsel, who was shortly afterwards created a Peer by the title of Baron Abinger, of Abinger in the county of Surrey, and of the city of Norwich.
About the same time, Sir Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, Knight, one of his Majesty's Counsel, was appointed Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, on the resignation of Lord Plunkett ; and Frederick Pollock, Esq., one of his Majesty's Counsel, and William Webb Follett, Esq., were respectively appointed' his Majesty's AttorneyGeneral and his Majesty's Solicitor-General, on the resignations of Sir John Campbell, Knight, and Robert Monsey Rolfe, Esq. Frederick Pollock and William Webb Follett, Esqrs., respectively received the honour of knighthood upon their appointment.
On the 11th of January 1835, Sir William Elias Taunton, one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, died; and John Taylor Coleridge, Esq., Serjeantat-law, was appointed to the vacant office, and was thereupon knighted.
In Michaelmas vacation, Daniel Wakefield, Henry John Shepherd, Walker Skirrow, Christopher Temple, John Miller, Richard Torin Kindersley, Edward Jacob, James Wigram, and Fitzroy Kelly, of Lincoln's Inn, Esgrs.; William Burge, George Spence, and Thomas Joshua Platt, of the Inner Temple, Esqrs.; and Charles Henry Barber, of Gray's Inn, Esq., were appointed his Majesty's Counsel, and took their seats within the bar in the following Hilary Term.
On the 23d of April 1835, Lord Lyndhurst resigned the Great Seal, which was immediately put into Commission, Sir Charles Christopher Pepys, Master of the Rolls, Sir Launcelot Shadwell, Vice-Chancellor of England, and Sir John Bernard Bosanquet, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas, being appointed the Lords Commissioners.
About the same time Lord Plunkett was re-appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the resignation of Sir Edward Burtenshaw Sugden ; and Sir John Campbell, Knight, and Robert Monsey Rolfe, Esq., were respectively re-appointed his Majesty's Attorney-General, and his Majesty's Solicitor-General, on the resignations of Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir William Webb Follett. Robert Monsey Rolfe, Esq., was knighted on his re-appointment.
In Easter Term 1835, Thomas Starkie and Robert Alexander, of Lincoln's Inn, Esqrs., were appointed his Majesty's Counsel.
In Hilary vacation 1835, Basil Montagu, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., was appointed one of his Majesty's Counsel.
a special all
THIS was an application on behalf of a person of the A solicitor name of Lord, that his name might be struck out ;
st ought to have as one of the plaintiffs in the bill, and that his costs thority from
his client for might be paid by his solicitor personally, as having instituting a instituted the suit without due authority.
suit, but such authority need
not be in Mr. Pepys and Mr. Walker, for the motion, contended writing. that, as the affidavit of the Plaintiff positively denied that he had ever given the solicitor any specific instructions to file the bill, it was unnecessary to enter into an examination of the facts sworn to on behalf of the solicitor, and which, it would be argued, amounted to a sufficient verbal authority. It was the duty of the solicitor, acting upon the rule to be deduced from the language of Lord Eldon in Wilson v. Wilson (a), and Wright v. Castle (6), to have protected himself by obtain
ing (a) 1J.W. 457.
(6) 3 Mer. 12. VOL. II.
ing from his client an authority in writing; and, as he had not done so in the present instance, he must take the consequences.
Sir E. Sugden, contrà, insisted that the construction attempted to be put upon Lord Eldon's dictum was unreasonable in itself, and would, if adopted, be an encouragement to the grossest fraud and injustice.
The Lord CHANCELLOR said it was true that a solicitor must, for the purpose of instituting a suit, receive specific authority from his client; but it had never been decided that such authority might not be by parol. The rule now contended for, - that wherever the Plaintiff denied the fact of the retainer, the solicitor was bound to produce an authority in writing, - was not a fair inference from the language of Lord Eldon ; much less was it established by the cases referred to. It would be necessary for him, therefore, to go into the affidavits.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that he adhered to the opinion he had already expressed, ---that the authority for filing a bill might be by parol as well as in writing, and that, in the former case, it might be proved by circumstances and by the subsequent conduct of the party. The circumstances, however, which were disclosed on these affidavits did not, on the whole, appear to establish a sufficient authority in the present instance; and the application of the Plaintiff must, therefore, be granted.