Sir Edward Sugden.-The Irish Bar.-Anecdote.-The following story is told in some of the late English papers. The circumstance occurred in the Dublin Chancery Court, before the Lord Chancellor Sugden.

'On the calling of the Lord Chancellor's list of bankruptcy motions, Mr. Woulfe, K. C., opened the case of a poor trader of Galway, one of whose relatives had, as Mr. Woulfe stated, issued a commission of bankruptcy against him, on the evidence of the creditor's sister, who had called on the poor man, as if to warn him that her brother had issued a writ, and was about to arrest him, through the fear of which, it was stated, the trader had himself denied, when the creditor called. Mr. W. was, with his usual abilities, commenting on the suspicious conduct of the creditor, and characterising the issuing of a commission of bankruptcy under the circumstances, as founded on trick and fraud, when, on a sudden, the learned gentleman stopped, and was observed as if consulting with Mr.Hatchell, K. C. The Chancellor, whose quick manner of doing business is so remarkable, appeared surprised at the delay; when Mr. Woulfe stated he was placed in the most embarrassing situation-he had, in fact, been advocating a case against the interest of his own client. The bar and all in court here became apparently convulsed with laughter. On a calm ensuing, Mr. Woulfe explained that Mr. O'Coghlen, K. C., had, before his departure for Parliament, left the brief he (Mr. Woulfe) was stating the case from, with him, and in the hurry of business he had quite overlooked the circumstances in which he had been placed. The Chancellor, who, during the laughter of the auditory, had appeared most anxious to address Mr. Woulfe, in the kindest and most handsome manner said, "I myself was placed in a similar situation as Mr. Woulfe. I stated a case in England against my own client, and, it appeared, so effectually that the court decided with me. The matter afterwards came before two other tribunals, and my client was unfortunate. A story is also told, I think of Lord Mansfield, his having stated a case very strongly for a party, and, on about concluding, discovering that he was speaking on the wrong side, continued, 'This, my Lord, is the case that will, no doubt, be stated on the other side; but now let me state my client's case,'" &c. Lord Chancellor Sugden's kind observations were very remarkable, and well-timed. Mr. Hatchell, K. C., proceeded with the case, which his Lordship finally arranged by ordering an issue to be tried as to the extraordinary circumstances under which this commission issued—at the same time recommending whatever party was wrong to beware, and withdraw in time, otherwise, when he ascertained who was wrong, he would know how to deal with them.'

The celebrated Irish advocate Curran is said to have fallen into the

same dilemma with Mr. Woulfe and Sir Edward Sugden. The anecdote of Lord Mansfield we never met before.

The late Sir John Leach.-In our last number we noticed the death of Sir John Leach, Master of the Rolls. The following are the best authenticated particulars of his career, extracted from the London Law Magazine for November last. The same Journal contains a view of his judicial character.

'He was the son of a shopkeeper at Bedford, and was educated at the grammar school of that place. On leaving school he was placed in a merchant's counting-house, and afterwards in the office of Sir Robert Taylor (the father of the late Michael Angelo Taylor) to learn the profession of architecture. He subsequently betook himself to the study of the law, by the advice, it is said, of the late Mr. Cockerell, and became the pupil of Sir William Alexander (lately Chief Baron of the Exchequer) then practising as an equity draftsman. He was called to the bar by the Middle Temple in 1790, and for some time attended the Home circuit and Surrey sessions. In 1800, however, he gave up all the common law practice, and devoted himself exclusively to the equity courts and the Cockpit, where he was much employed in West Indian appeals. His subsequent success is well known; in 1807 he received a patent of precedence, and the same year he was returned for the borough of Seaford, where he had purchased property and established an interest. His principal parliamentary exploits were a defence of the Duke of York against Colonel Wardell, and an attack upon the bill creating the office of Vice-Chancellor, an office which he was, notwithstanding, the second to fill. He succeeded Sir Thomas Plumer as Vice-Chancellor in 1817, and received the honor of knighthood upon the occasion. He succeeded Lord Lyndhurst as Master of the Rolls in May, 1827. He died at Edinburgh, September 16th, 1834, at the age of 74.

Barnardiston's Reports.-Mr. Preston, in arguing on a case before the Lord Chancellor lately, had occasion to cite the case of Elliott v Merryman, in the above Reporter. We come now, my lord, to the important case of Elliott v. Merryman, a case, my lord, on which conveyancers have at all times relied, as very material to the law affecting the case now before the court, which is in Barnardiston's Reports.' Lord Lyndhurst Barnardiston, Mr. Preston! I fear that is a book of

no great authority; I recollect, in my younger days, it was said of Barnardiston, that he was accustomed to slumber over his note-book, and the wags in his rear took the opportunity of scribbling nonsense in it.' Mr. Preston-There are some cases in Barnardiston which, in my experience, and having had frequent occasion to compare that reporter's cases with the same cases elsewhere, I have found to be the only sensible and intelligent reports, and I trust I shall show your lordship that it may be said of Barnardiston, non omnibus dormio?

Legal Intelligence from France.-A Prospectus has been issued in France, by a number of distinguished jurists, of a new Law Journal, to be published from the 25th to the 30th of each month, and to be entitled, Revue de Législation et de Jurisprudence. The objects, proposed by the learned editors, are to compare foreign laws with the French, to mark the changes which are effected in the latter, to discuss the most important questions which arise in the administration of the law, and to communicate a knowledge of the new publications and their various merits. The most important cases (arrets) that have been decided in the preceding month, will be given in an Analytical Table to each number. It is intended to revive, with some modifications in its plan, the Themis, a journal which lived to the tenth volume only, and which was justly admired while its publication was continued, and is now resorted to by the student of the Roman and the Foreign law, as an invaluable source of information. The editors of the proposed publication promise to save it from the charge, said to have been brought against the Themis, of indulging in discussions rather curious than useful. In treating of foreign legislation, they will find themselves on the ground already so ably occupied by M. Fœlix in his Revue Etrangere; but they will undertake to compare the institutions of other countries with those at home, and notice the reforms of which the latter are susceptible. They, therefore, think that their Journal will resemble that of M. Fœlix only in the desire, common to both, to behold the study of jurisprudence again revived, and the well-being of all advanced under wise, just, clear and certain laws.

The first number of this Journal was to have appeared, according to the Prospectus, on the 30th October 1834. We heartily wish it that success, which, from the names of the editors, we cannot doubt it will attain. The following is the list of editors:

MM. ISAMBERT, Conseiller à la Cour de Cassation; TROPLONG, Président à la Cour de Nancy; V. FOUCHER, Avocat général à Rennes;

Renouard, VivIEN, Conseillers d'état; CORMENIN, Député; BLONDEAU, BOITARD, BRAVARD, PELLAT, PONCELET, ROYER-COLLARD, VALETTE, Professeurs à la Faculté de Droit de Paris; FOUCART, Professeur à la Faculté de Poitiers; Hube, KunatT, anciens Professeurs à la Faculté de Droit de Varsovic; Dalloz, Parrot, Avocats à l Cour de Cassation; F. WoLowski, ancien Avocat à la Cour de Cassation; et Conseiller d'état polonais; H. BADIN, C. Comte, P. DUPIN, Jamet, Legras, Marie, Mermilliod, Odilon-Barrot, PlougouLM, PONT, SACAZE, Vatimesnil, L. WOLOWSKI, Directeur de la REVUE, Avocats à la Cour royale; BONNIer, Julien, Pistor, Rodiere, Docteurs en droit.

We have not received any number of the Revue Etrangere, by M. Felix, since our last number.

Reports of the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.— General Duff Green, having made arrangements to print the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a cheap form, has engaged Mr. Coxe, of the Washington bar, to superintend their publication. This interference with the regular Reports of Mr. Peters, has given occasion to the following Correspondence:

DEAR SIR,-The terms upon which we have long associated, appear to require that I should communicate to you circumstances which have occurred, bearing more or less directly upon your interests.

General Green has called upon me, and made a proposition to aid him in preparing for publication the Decisions of the Supreme Court. I had heard nothing of any intention or design to procure any action by Congress affecting this matter, until my attention was drawn to a clause in the appropriation bill, after it was passed. The communication from General Green was wholly voluntary on his part.

He informs me that he designs printing the Decisions of the preceding term, at least, and has made arrangements to have copies of all the opinions delivered during the present term furnished to him. My agency is desired in preparing abstracts of the cases from the records, and of the arguments of Counsel. That such a publication will be made is now certain: to me such an occupation would be peculiarly desirable.

Should the arrangements be completed by which I shall undertake the task, I wish it to be distinctly understood between us, how I have become connected with it, and that we may pursue our several labors without any estrangements or misunderstanding between us.

Very respectfully yours, &c. RICHARD PETERS, Esq.

RICHARD S. COXE.

March 10, 1835.

WASHINGTON, Wednesday Evening, March 11, 1835. RICHARD S. CoxE, Esq.

SIR,-I found on my table, on my return from Court, your letter of yesterday.

I consider the purpose of interfering with the official Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, by the publication you mention in your letter, as an unwarrantable proceeding.

Whether the certainty that the publication will be made, is a sufficient sanction for your being the agent for its preparation, is for yourself, not for me, to determine. It is to me a matter of entire indifference who undertakes it.

By the relations heretofore existing between us, and from the fact that you are a member of the bar of the Court, the reports of whose actions and decisions by their selected reporter are to be interfered with, I might be influenced to suggest, that to the consideration of the Court, the purpose you have under consideration might be submitted before you undertake it. But I have too frequently, and often painfally, heard you so strongly express your opinion on the opinions and decisions of that tribunal, when it differed from your own, to believe you would be influenced by any views the Court may have of the

measure.

I do not, however, claim to know what those views are, or that they would allow the subject to be submitted. I am, your obedient servant, RICHARD PETERS.

March 16, 1835.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL.

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1835.

MY DEAR SIR,-You are aware that a publication of the opinions of the Supreme Court, to be printed from copies of the copies of those opinions as recorded by the Clerk, under the act of Congress, under the pretended form of 'Reports of the Decisions of the Court,' is proposed to be made in this city. This work is intended to be, and will be, an interference with the official Reports of the cases and decisions of the Court.

It has never become known to me that any defects or insufficiency in the official Reports, or any dissatisfaction in the Court, the profession, or the community, have called for such a publication. So far as the demand for my Reports, by the profession and others, authorizes a contrary belief, they have been entirely satisfactory and acceptable. But, Sir, if this measure is carried into execution, as no doubt it will be, there may prevail opinions of a character which will involve the respectability and authority of the official Reports, and thus diminish their usefulness. As I may be personally affected by this state of things, I have less, but yet I have considerable solicitude.