15 JUNE 1839, Page 5

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Tuesday, Sir Frederick

Pollock showed cause against a conditional rule obtained by Mr. Newton against Baron Alderson, for contempt, in not obeying a writ of certio- rari issued to the Judges on the Northern Circuit, commanding them to return an indictment into the Court of Queen's Bench. Sir Frede- rick Pollock proWsted that a more groundless accusation had never been made— The learned Baron had referred Mr. Newton to Mr. Bayley, who, as well as being the Clerk of Assize, was one of the Quorum Com;nissioners on the Northern Circuit. Mr. Bayley therefiwe was the proper person to return the writ. Now he had it right to refuse to return it until the fees for which he had the account haul been paid. They Were not paid ; and it was, therefore, the fault of the prosecutor himself that the certiorari Lad not been obeyed. Mr. Baron Alderson had never intended any disrespect to the Court, and had only expressed himself with some degree of irritation at what he considered the vexatious proceeding of the prosecutor.

Mr. Newton, on the other hand, contended that the proper forms had been observed— It was the bounden duty of Mr. Baron Alderson, as the Judge of Assize, to direct the return of the writ of certiorari ; and lie ought to have required obedience from 3Er. Bayley, as his officer. As he had nct done so, he had subjected himself to this motion for an attachment. 31r. Bayley was also liable, because the claim of fees was no exen,e fir a disobodience of writ. The course of justice was not to be stopped in that manner. lie had never intended, and nrvc.":12.2L'n guilty of any diiresp..et to lb... learned Baron—whose talents, learning, and judgment lie had. hi:filly admired ; but the course of jus- tice required this proceeding, and it was solely with a view to the advancement of justice that he hail brought this matter before the Court.

The Court decided, that the rule against Baron Alderson must be discharged, with costs ; for if all the facts now stated had been men- tioned when the application was made, the rule would not have been granted: but the decision of the question whether an officer could refuse obedience to a writ, upon the plea of the fees not having been paid, was postponed. [It seems an absurd mode of proceeding to issue a writ of certiorari against Baron Alderson, if he was under no obligation to obey that writ or to direct the officer of his court to obey it. The common sense of the ease appears to be contained in Mr. Newton's reply. But the Judges stand by one another, and there was little risk of Baron Alder- son being committed for contempt by his brethren on the bench.] In the Bail Court, on time same day, the Attorney-General applied for a mandamus to the Commissioners of the Birmingham Court of Requests, commanding them to proceed to the election of a Clerk, on the ground that an election of that officer recently made in the following manner was void— It appeared that uran time occasion in question there were eleven candidates for time office, nod that, in conformity with a resolution previously adopted by the Commissioner, eleven ballots took place. Iii the brat ballot, the person who had the least number of VW (.!; was removed from the contest, which was then confined to the remaining ten. The person who had the smallest number of votes in his &your upon the second trial was disposed of in the same way, until at last, by the repetition of time same process, the question come to lie between the two persons wlr I had escaped the extreme minorities of the nine preceding attempts at election ; and of these two survivors tie one who had the majority was appointed. The A t torn ey - ; cue rot submitted, that such a mode of election was void upon the time of it ; and I hat the proper course to pursue would he to propose all the candidates at once, and declare duly elected the individual who should then have the greatett number of votes in his favour.

Mr. Justice Coleridge granted the rule.

[The objection taken to the mode of election appears to be frivolous, since a fairer way could scarcely be suggested, it' the electors chose to submit to the trouble of so many ballots. The application probably proceeded from the party who had most votes on the first ballot, though a very large majority of the whole voters might nevertheless have been against him.] In the Sheriffs' Court, on Thursday, a Jury was summoned to assess the damages in the case of Stoehedeic versus Hansard; and after speeches for the plaintiff by Mr. Carrington and Mr. Curwood, and a charge from the Under Sheriff, who told the Jury they had no concern with the question of tine House of Commons privileges, the sum of 1001. damages was awarded to Stockdale.