§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a decision recently given in the Southwark County Court of Surrey, in the case of Baxter v. Freeman, in which the Plaintiff having claimed payment for the insertion of advertisements in twenty-three different newspapers, was non-suited by the Judge, after consultation with the Board of Inland Revenue, on the ground that only two of the whole number of newspapers had complied with the Registration and Security Laws; and, whether the Attorney General has advised the Board of Inland Revenue 1493 that the Plaintiff in the above case had no right of action?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied, that his attention had not been called to the case until the hon. Member had placed his Question on the Paper. On inquiry at the Inland Revenue Office he found that no communication had been made between the Judge of the County Court and the Board of Inland Revenue; but it appeared that the solicitor to the defendant in the action searched in the Office for information as to the papers being registered, and made inquiries for himself as to how many papers had been registered, and how many had not. No other communication of any kind had taken place between the parties to that action and the Board of Inland Revenue. It is not in a general way usual to say whether the Attorney General had been consulted by a Department; but of course it followed from what he had already stated that no advice was given by him in the present instance.