The Sun. — London, England, 1822-07-29 00:00:00

ng be int ler nal ;ht ut, at :e, , :ha .ed raS red ;he m re- ied ; ts- of nd It, e ey ive Jo if' (I rol j , eput op •••• .--- ( f - d,6 NUMBER 93371 VICTUe ILL ING-OFFIC E, July 23, 1822. , HE COMMISSIONERS for VICTUAL et. LLVG His AtzIJESTrS NA ,for do hereby give' Arc. I ") That on Tuesday, the 30th Instant, they will be ready 6 Tenders in Writing . (sealed up), and treat for One Hundred Tons of MUSCOVADO SUGAR; to be en 4 werable to samples of not less than two pounds weight „.,each, to be produced with the Tenders; rjfly Thousand Gallons of WEST INDIA RUNT; 0 Hundred Quarters of 'NEW_ENGLISH PEASE ; Thirty Tons of - VIRGINIA LEAF TOBACCO; Twenty Tons of OATMEAL; . One Thousand Sacks of BISCUIT MEAL; 'lnd Thirty Tons or MOTTLED SOAP; h alf within a Month, and the remainder' in a night For afte rwards. The Conditions of the Contracts may be seen at this Office. 4 . , Mach 7'ender must specify the Price in words at length, • a nd 4e delivered to the Board before One o'Clock on the ap aPpointed, and the Person who makes the Tender, or Person on hie behalf, attend to answer when called for.' 111/IT7IIEW WALLER CLIFTON. T I ESII most respectfully_ informs his best Friends the Public, that the TWO ~FittZES of keo,ooo Must both•be drama in the First Five Minutes, 111:144 . ORRO W. And the Wheel. independent of the-abure, contains 46104 • • 4 ,u) o , 1 //, MONDAY, JULY 29, 1822. Learned Friends wish. Gentlemen, what sort of evidence will be given to support this ? I apprehend . my Learned Friend will rely upon this aslkeing . the earlier part of what the testi tixnony will refer to, that there have:been many persons ap pointed to the office of .Mayor who resided in the Borough of Petersfield, but for the last 20 or 30 - years, I shall shew you there have been as many persons chosen who did not reside in the - Borough; as those who did reside; consequently, my Learned Friend's argument must be this:--that inasmuch as some time ago that appears to have - been the usual course with persons appointed to the office of Mayor, therefore, you are to conclude, that' they had their most usual domicile and places of residlnce - there. I shall submit that that is a mere circum stance, chewing that persons have been chosen who resided in the town. Unless it was the , undeviating, unvaried, and .un broken course, the evidence would not establish the general proposition for which my Learned Friend must contend. I apprehend that the only conclusion you could come to, from see ing that persons have been chosen Who were resident. in the Bo rough,.would be this, that persons resident iu the Borough may be yhosen, not that they must be resid e nt ; b ecause th e in stant I sheW that any individual has been chosen as' Mayor, who did not reside in tl4 'Borough (unless it could be shewn to be a fraudulent appointment, and that would alter any state of circumstances), 1 apprehend the proof that any one person has been chosen to rill the office of Mayor who did not reside within, the limits of the Bofough, would destrdy the conclusion• iriy Learned Friend asks you to come to—that the persons chosen must be residentin the town ; because all that ,you can infer 'from the fact of residence, unless it is unbroken in this, that persons may be chosen who have resided. Now, on the other hand it would be impossible ,that non-residents could be chosen, unless the custom of the porough permitted it. Gentlemen, although I haVe said ; pressing the argument to its fullest extent, that any one instance of a non-resident being elected would destroy my Learned Friend's conclusion [shall be able to shew yo u , hat by much the greater number who have been chosen within the last thirty years, have been chosen. from persons who did not reside in the Borough. if Ido that, I ask how is it possible for my Learned Friend to establish the conclosion he contends for, that it is a necessary qualification for a person to fill the office, to have his most usual place of residence there. Gentlemen, I have now stated very generally what the nature Of this case is, but before I leave this part of the case, I will state the particular quality of the Mayorof Petersfield. Peters field is no Corporation. 'lf ever there was one, it is now abso lutely gone. There remains nothing but the name of Mayor. The Mayor is no Magistrate, he exercises no official auty as an officer of the peace—the only public duty he discharges, and I suppose that is the one that has brought Mr. Atcheson here, is to return Members to Parliament. Gentlemen, I hear my Learned Friend say the secret is out at last ; if I had thought there had been any secret in it, I should have stated it in the first instance, but nobody could have supposed that an eminent Attorney, as Mr. Atcheson is, could have come down from, London: and investigated these matters, except for an electioneering purpose. Gentlemen, I really did not think. it could be' considered a secret—if it is so, you have my full consent to the disclosure—l did not con ceive it was necessary to state it in the outset—l should have thought there was no human being in this County who can be unacquainted with the politics of that-place. Nobody can doubt that if Mr. Atcheson thought it proper to spend his time and his money to unship the old interest of Peterstield, he was perfectly at liberty to do so—l thought it so notorious that ,I did not think it necessary to mention it. Gentlemen, tn-lake the points in order having stated gene rally the nature o f thia case, I shall be obliged in order to esta blish the election of - .111-Y,lolliffe, to shew in the terms of the issue, that a Court Leet has- been accustomed to be holden ; I must then shew' You that the Jury at that Court Leet have been accustomed to present the Mayas, and that the person so presented has executed the office; then 1-must shew you, that that particular right has been held accordiss to the usage ; I must then chew you that the Jurors of the t:ourt Leet in the month of January, 1822, were duly sworn in ; I net chew you that the Jury consisted of as many as the usage of the place required ; I must shew you that the Jury were duly nominated, which will depend upon that question, namely, whether the usage justifies the nomination by the Steward, or whether it was required by the usage that the Bailiff should nominate the Jury ? Gentlemen, it is necessary to inform you, .that the Bailiff was not accustomed to nominate the Jury, but that.' the Steward was—that I shall be- able to shew • you. - It has been said, that upon this occasion Mr. Hylton Jolliffe, the brother of the defendant, and Mr. Hector, who fills the office of Steward, colluded for the purpose of procur: ing the nomination of Mr. Jolliffe as Mayor. The allega tion is, that. whatever may be the course of proceeding pointed out by usage, and justified by Law, on this occasion, Mr. .Hylton Jolliffe and Mr. Hector combined together, and improperly procured the nomination of the defendant. I shall be curious to hear the course my Learned Friend will . take to establish that fact ; but I may venture to say, thus early in the discussion, that that is a point in which he must totally fail.— I must then shew you, that the Bailiff in question who executed that precept of the Steward was properly appointed. I do not. state the mode in which. that appointment took place ; I will not occupy your time by stating it. After this,. 1 am to shew you that though Mr. Hector remained with the Jury, he was justified in so doing. lam also to satisfy you, that Mr. Jolliffe is qualified for the office of Mayor. I shall shew -you that Mr. Joliffe was possessed of all the qualifications which . the others had, except that of residence, which I apprehend is not neces sary at all. _ _ 6entlemen, I have now enumerated all the issues necessary for us to prove, and .I have stated the questions you 'will have to determine. I shall abstain from those observations I should otherwise have thought it my duty to make, as to how the no mination of the :fury would effect the legality of Mr. Jolliffe's election, in consequence of the observation which has fallen from his Lordship. if it be necessary for me to advert to it again in consequence of the proof my Learned Friend may offer, I shall have an opportunity of doing then, what I • was about to do in• the first instance. Ihave stated the nature of the points you are to try, and , I will now proceetito . prove them. Mr. Justice Bunnoucx.—Will not this .ultimately turn upon some points knoWn to you both ? .• • Mr. Serjeant do not know what facts they will adduce in support of their case. When they have proved the facts, I shall submit a question of law to your Lordship. • , Mr. Justice BURRO UGH.—The point of law will go up to be decided: Mr. Serjcant PELL.—I have a little sort of curiosity to hear how they will prove their facts. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT. Mr. James Cannon sworn.—Examined by Mr. C. F. Wm- LIAIIIS. Q. You were formerly Clerk to Mr. Andrews, the late steward of the manor of Petersfield ?—A. I was for four or five years. • (A Paper waa handed to Witness.) Is that presentment in your hand writing Yes. Look at the Jurymen who have subscribed it, and tell me if you know the hand-writing of the majority of these Jury men ?—I do. I believe the date of that is 1802 PL-Yes it is. Mr. Justice Bunnouou.—What day of the month was it? Mr. ADAM.-January, 1802. Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—What is the date of it ?—The 18th of January, 1802. • . Mr. ADAm.—What is it ?—The presentment of the Jury at the Cuurt Leet. , . Mr. Serjt. PELL.—What it is will appear upon the face of it. Mr. ADAM.—Yes, certainly. 111 r. Justice BURROUGH.—The date is the 18th of January, 1802 ?-- Y es. Mr. C..F. WiLLiArns.—You were with Mr. Andrews as Clerk for four or five years when he was Steward, how far back is that ?--It was in 1798. What was the custom at that time of selecting the jury ? by whom was it done ?—lt was generally done by Mr. Andrews, the Steward. 'Was it so during the course of the time that you were with Mr. Andrews ?--Always. You say, Mr. Andrews was Steward of the Court. When the Jury retired to make their presentment, did Mr. Andrews retire with them or not ?=-Always. Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—After they were sworn ?--Yes. Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS. —You stated 'Just now that, during the time you were with Mr. Andrews, he selected the Jury, in what way did the selection appear on the precept ?—lie gave the precept with the names on it to the Bailiff. (Cross-examined by Mr. Scrjeant Q. I am about to ask you, whether 1 was correct in suppos ing you came to Mr. Andrews in 1798 ?—A. yes. When did Mr. Andrews die ?—ln 1802. You continued with him four years ?--Let me correct myself, I left him in 1802, he lived five or six yearn afterwards. TWO PRIZES of £30,000, &c. Consols and Money. li l w arranted Undrawn Tickets , and Shares are selling at I), S k ti , 'S Offices, 4, Coruhill, and fr, Charing Cross , and 1,;,„s Agents in the Country, where Three Capitals hare 'VI already sold in the present Lottery. n, re* K BISH'S ffic f will remain open until TWELVE C LOC TO-NOIGH's. CAItROLL informs his Friends and the h a Public that TO-MORROW, the Two First Prizes will 1 , Y wo XO,O too each. contain The p s resent Grand Wheel, with only aysDraw, WO PRIZES of £30,000, TWO of £20,000, &c. &c. ► Consols and Money. citelrets and Shares, Warranted "Undrawn, are . Selling by a rm it ßOLL, at his Duly fortunate Offices 19, CORNHILL, p„;; 2 fi. OXFORD-STREET, where he ' Sold a very large Ivi l iP k n rtion of all the Capitali in the recent Lotteries, among it iv F.? are ...... of .... k somo . I FIVE &c. &c. 40 in the LONDON GAL ETTE of July 27: Ex Foreign-Office, July 26. of a Dispatch from Brook Taylor, Esq. his Majesty's r 2v O Y Extr aor di nar y an d Minister Plenipotentiary to the , -- "ltrt of Bavaria, to the Marquis of Londonderm his Ma -I,t _Y's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated T t "". ll ave?', July 19, 1822 y ou __ is with.. the greatest satisfaction that I have to acquaint c,-Lordship with the safe delivery of her Royal Highness ?I I Duchess of Cambridge, at eight o'clock this morning, of a I,,LeeES, at th e P a l ace of Montbrillant, near Hanover. Your )1 0 “ 48 hip will b e h appy to learn at the same time, that both her Y 4 Highness and her child are doing well. 1„ it, BA..NKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. Iv. r eid, jun. Newc ast l e -pl ace , Cl er k en well-close, watch 1e L ~-Sir P. Baghott, L y pi at -p ar k, Gloucestershire, Knt . liAer--J. Bennett, C ree k moor , D orset- shire, merchant-J. 41 411 l imn, Ely , , mill er _.B. er-B. Bingham, Gosport, banker-A. rißate- BANKRUPTS. . en Rivers and J. Cl owes , Shelton, Staffordshire, manufac tts, of earthenware, Aug. 9, at four, 10, and Sept. 7, at eleven, Albion Inn, Hanley, Stoke-upon-Trent. Solicitors, 1, E4 7,_. Anderson and Co. Hanley ; and Mr. T. B. Pugh, 4uourn-Chambers, Fenchurch-street. Au g • Tomlinson, jun. Nantwich, Cheshire, money-scrivener, t a ,• at- two, 7, at ten, and Sept. 7, at twelve, at the Lamb toui.l.. a4u vich- Solicitors, Messrs. Sandys and Co., Crane ' T L-4,4,eLt:street ; and Mr. Broadhurst, Nantwich. Sept, 7 - " 5 ."., Cloughton, Yorkshire, dealer, Aug 6,7, and tor. at the Talbot Inn, Scarborough. Solicitors, to. id.n. o' enson, Scarborough ; and Messrs. Kearsey and Cheapside. ti Westfirle Sussex, farmer, Aug. 10, 12, and Sept. 7, nne rat at the New Inn, Sri hthelmstone. Solicitor, Mr. G. Le, s wes, Su w ssex. g Sept.ltYall, Ripple, Worcestershire, dealer, Aug. 7, 8, * ei 7, at eleven at the Red 'Lion Inn, Newport. eitors oa t, s o Mr. Hicks, _Grays Inn-square ; and Mr. Glover, `S hropshire. edgberro , Irmbl ton Worcestershire, grocer, Aug. 'lo a r t f° ur, 24, and vr Sept. ' 7, e at ' eleven, at the Unicorn Inn, 4Oa ,celster. Solicitors, Messrs. Williams and Co., Lincoln's j: and Mr. T. G. Curtler, Droitwich. AttAdennett, jun. Crickmoor, Dorsetshire, coal-merchant, • 20, and Sept. 7, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners 44 %, lir Ws, Basinghall-street. Solicitors, Mr. Wright, Hart % Goilisbury ; and Mr. Green, Poole. 4114 Cobinson, London-road, Surrey, coal-dealer, Aug. 3, 10, Pt s, t l t - 7, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners of Bank esing_hall-street. Solicitors, Messrs. Bethohne and Co. 4 H„n, Dolborn. 4. Se p e t tl V.,er, Hayling North, Hampshire, farmer Aug. 7, 8, ii °ll -se a 1, at eleven, at the Mitre Tavern, Old Rope-walk, ,* Solicitors, Mr. .1. A. Johnson, Portsea; and Mr. 17 1 '. g us ins, Old Broad-street. hd Q "es Whitechapel High-street, baker, August 10, t h 4 tlltr u , s ' e Pt. ' 7, and ten, at the Court of Commissioners of Basinghall-street. Solicitor, Mr. Baddeley, Le er. qua Goodman's-fields. tiilleNt 3 Whatley, Cheltenham, money-scrivener, July 30, ked September 7, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners C e "„Pts, Basingliall-street. Solicitors, Messrs. Clutton 4,44,4l,fligh:street, Southwark ; and Mr. J. C. Whatley, A robe, Cirencester. Iti a ll SkAst 2 4 The s, Wood -street, Cheapside, tea-dealer, July 30, 4e, and September 7, at one, at the Court of Commis 'TN °L Bankrurupts, B 's Inn asinghall-street. Solicitors, Messrs. 'NI Co. Fnival, Holborn. Jul il y 30 , DIVIDENDS. te l ! It. Day, Tovil, Maidstone, seed-crusher--Aug. th . 4„„. a Y„and T. A. Turner, Newcastle -street, Strand, prin- Vi e ' ll e, ill ba - n l e '' o l J. Carpenter and J. P. Wellington, Somerset ra--Aug 27, J. P. Carpenter and J. Webber, Someisetshire, drapers-Aug. 17, R. Maddock haatlf e ,rd, Rosemary-lane, timber-merchants--Aug. 26, 4,;') N o Chester, soap-boiler-Sept. 3, R. Lowes, Hex o a ', l • oia n unaberland. money-scrivener-Aul. 19, S. ICer- A, 4 1 b ahk uani, Lancashire, draper-Aug. 17, J. Clarke, Liver- V c ,R. 20, - 'er-July 30, B. Troughton, Coventry, banker -1!),`,1,?ee, p r vv : Palmer, Esling, Norfolk, miller-Aug. 20,.1. r ow et, s a pidence-row, Hackney, merehant-Aug. 19, J. Hill, 4,ribb, ' l er-Aug. 10, W. Lea and J. F. Lea, Paternoster c.et-`11(14, n-m anufacturers--Aug. 19, D. Burgess and M. Lord, ' ,-4 4.1:.F . .. t n-spinners--Aug. 30, J. Riley, Leicester, gro ,n. 44 , L. M. Fles, Bury-court, St. Mary-axe, merchant. " ~a i CERTIFICATES, Atm. 17. ° Ne '4uarn, St. Swithin, Worcestershire, hosier-J.' 1, C 4 neetham hill Manchester, hat-manufacturer-C. beal,iln en-draper-J. W. Wells, Hackney, m 3 o,_ Harman, L ower Th ames - s t ree t, merc h an t-R. Win e `, 4 ernent's-lane, broker-F. Willett, E. Willett, and taltle.stre'll Thetford, N or f o lk, b an k ers -J. P ara di se , New lsk(,2 b ro i e c t, S trand, ,jeweller-J. Collins, Vincent-place, City ‘er---Get"--13- Miller, Brimscombe-port, Gloucestershire, 4 A n'all, -Le amington, wine-merchant. " , ott PA RTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. 4 ' Jun. Mott and G. Watts, Wellington Brew 41p'; W' "ad. brewers -W. Moore and F. Martin, Brorns )4„. ,iorcestershire dealers in wines-J. Moore, F. Martin a,,,44,nr.e, Tewkesbury, dealers in wine-T. Challis, J. 'tip a nd s' e ?„ Dlunday, Newgate-market, meat salesmen-M. 1itn, 44 (1 L . `V• By, Lower Thames-street, lightermen-T. J Uppingham Rutlandshire, woolstaplers--T. tl e 4l te g lieighley and' G. Hirst, Leeds, merchants (so 'B44 o U ll theaShire' c°. 104 , 004 4 1% the said J Keghley)--j Bentley and L. Wilde, iv (); o 4 l. e A tt, tton i- -spinners-- . C. W. Benny and G. - "-str e ampton, grocers-T. Craig and J. Graham, 44 A % e,t, lin en-drapers -T. Craig, J. Graham and W. Crab Holborn, linen-drapers (so far as regards the f ate Rea W. W. Swan and H. Swan, Wallsend, ack grocers_j Roper and W. Keates, Skinner-street, Bishops latoi sell e , s _ s • ,Richardson and W. Richardson,. Br's. , • 'Willard and B. Vines, Redcliff-street, Cl mandlers-J. Howard and J. (heaves, Mickle "'re, clothiers. HANTS SUMMEIt ASSIZES. WINCHESTER, JULY 19, 1822. Before Mr. Justice BURROUGH. THE ICING V. WILLIAM JOHN JOLLIFFE, CLERE, MAYOR OF PETESFItE.D. The Information was opened by Mr. CARTER, but Mr. Ser jeant PELL gave way . to— Mr. ADAM.—Gentlemen, yon have heard from my Learned Friend, Mr Carter, the nature of the questions to be decided to-day. You have heard that one is, how the Mayor of Peters field is to be elected? and you have heard that you are to deter mine, whether all the material requisites that go to constitute a good election of that Officer, : have been regularly complied with or not ? Gentlemen, this is a question which certainly a few years ago one should not have expected to be decided in this Court, because a more uniform course of proceeding than has taken place with respect to the mode of,e/e.cting the - Mayor of Peterafield is not to be found in the history of any corporate town in Great Britain. Gentlemen, I believe till the year 1818 the peace of this Bo rough had never been disturbed by any inquiries of the nature now submitted . for your attention. In that-year Mr. Atche son, a very respectable friend' of mine, thought fit to try his powers in an attempt which r'bope will note succeed,, namely, to overturn that which had been the universal usage in this Borough. Till that attempt wq.i ;mile, .too notion. Could have been entertained that witch a question as that now before you could be raised. meanl do not mean the outset to make any reflection upon any thing that has occurred since. I pro pose upon my part to confine , myself strictly to the questions you have to try. I only mention this circumstance to shew, that there had been an uniform course of proceeding uninterrupt ed until the events took place to which 1 have alluded. Gentlemen, the way in which I submit to you, the Mayor of Petersfield ought to be chosen, according to the immemorial usage, is this—there is a Court f eet held in that Borough—at that Court Leet, of course, you know a Jury is to be assembled, and it is the province of that Jury to present a person to be Mayor for the year ensuing—upon.his presentment, and upon his being sworn in t in consequence of that presentment, he is entitled to fill the office of Mayor. The mode of electing the Mayor having been by presentment of the Jury, it becomes of course a material fact for' you to consider, whether that Jury has been properly appointed? Gentlemen, the uniform course has been for the Steward of the Manor, when he issues his precept to the bailiff of the place, to assemble the residents who owe suit and service to the Lord, to insert at the foot of the precept the names of those persons who are to fill the office of jurymen ; and,• Gentlemen, this is objected to on the part of Mr. Atcheson. Mr. Atche son, a gentleman well versed in the law no doubt, although Practising generally upon other subjects than those which re fer to Courts Leet, has thought he has discovered some'illega lity in this course of proceeding • and he calls upon you to decide whether he is right in the Objection he has taken to it, —he calls upon you to say whether all that has been done shall or not be declared valid ?-1-le is to contend to-day that, instead of the Steward of the Leet being the person to discharge that duty, it is the Bailiff whose duty it is to appoint the Jury, and that the Bailiff is to select the persons to make the 'present ments at the Courts Leet. That the custom which has pre vailed for the Steward to select the Jury will be proved to be good I have no doubt. I shall be able to shew you, not fur ther back than living memory, but as far back as that, that this has beeen the invariable custom. Let us pause for a moment, and it shall be but for a moment, to consider what objection can be made to this course of proceeding. You will allow me to say, that in deciding this question, _you are going to decide it not with reference to the Borough of Petersfield only, but with reference to the general law of the land. Now I shall ask you to say what, in the first place, there is that can constitute any illegality in this mode of chusing the Jurors? - Mr. Justice Bunitouon.—That will not be for the Jury, you know, whether the custom is illegal or not. M. ADAM.—Your Lordship will ete how that is. I appre hend it will not be for the Jury to find whether the custom is illegal, except under the direction of the Learned Judge who presides. One of the issues here stated is, whether Mr. Jol liffe is legally elected or not. I must shew whether Mr. Jol life has been chosen according to that form of proceeding which makes it a legal election. I cannot but express my sur prise, that such an issue as this should be offered for. your consideration. I should have thought when we had found the fact stated, instead of taking an issue upon that, and leaving it for the 'Jury, the correct mode would have been to have raised the question of law upon that, and to. have left it to be decided by that tribunal which you must agree with me must be more competent to try this question than any Jury can possibly be ; but however, that is a question which you are to try here ; that is one of the eighteen issues—the eigh teenth issue is, whether . Mr. Jolliffe was duly elected or not ? Mr. Justice By RROu GR.—They are all consequential upon the main point. Mr. ADAM.—Yes, they are; therefore, confining myself, at present atleast, to those points which I understand his Lordship to say are more peculiarly within your province, I shall abstain from making any observations upon this point further than as it shall be necessary to explain the course of proceeding. I shall Offer my evidence, and wait till I hear my Learned Friend's ease. Gentlemen, I have stated the course of proceeding hitherto as to the nomination of the Jury, but you will find that ano ther objection made to Mr. Jolliffe's Election is, that the Stew ard of the Court Leet having nominated the Jury, as I have described, and the Jury having retired to make their present ment, the Steward has been in the habit of attending the Jury while making that presentment—that that has been the usage, lam confident my Learned Friend cannot deny. The testi mony upon that subject will be so strong, valid, and clear, that nobody can doubt that the Steward has always retired with the Jury while they have been forming their determination, and when you consider what the nature of the presentment is, and who the persons are that must constitute that Jury, you will see it is most important that somebody, of more skill than the persons on the Jury, should be present to see that its pro ceedings are framed and couched in proper terms, and so correct that what they do shall be done effectually. Oen tlemen, what objection is to be stated to this (if this was' the proiler time to enter into the discussion), I cannot conceive; but as to the usage, I shall establish it beyond all question. Gentlemen, these are two of the main points Upon which Mr. Jolliffe's Election is to be disputed. Another ground is, that it is part of the usage of this Borough, that all Mayors must be resident in the Borough, that Mr. Jolliffe was not resident in the town, and consequently was not eligible. With respect to that proposition, Mr. Jolliffe was put to his election—the Law would not allow Mr. Jolliffe to join issue with the Crown upon both those propositions. Mr. Jolliffe could •not say that the custom did not require a residence ; and secondly, admit that he was resident. He was obliged to make his election upon that point, and it being of more importance to have the question settled first of all, than that should be any discussion up on his election, he thought the best course was to join issue upon the question, whether residence was necessary for a person who claimed the Office of Mayor ? You will have the goodness, Gentlemen, to attend to the terms of this issue ; because I ap prehend, that it is by no means in the usual course, and that the question of residence which you have to determine to-day, as it is shaped by the other side, is one of a new nature. It is to this effect, that the Jury have presented and appointed, from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, a fit and proper person to be Mayor, having his most usual place of residence in Petersfield. Therefore, to satisfy you that the prosecutor is entitled to a verdict upon this occasion, itl will not be sufficient for him to shew, that residence is a qualifica tion required, I mean such species of domicile and residing in the Borough as is sufficient to constitute a residence, but he must satisfy you in the terms of this issue, that the right is con fined to a person having his usual and accustomed domicile in the place. If, therefore, you should be of opinion, that the person should reside, that will not entitle the plaintiff to a ver dict, unless you should be of oninion that it must be his most usual place of residence. It will be necessary for my Learned Friend, to satisfy you that the usage of the Borough is, that the person should have resided in the Borough of Petersfield as his most usual residence. In a common case , it is sufficient to shew that the residence has been fair and bona fide, and quite open, and that sort of residence which a reasonable man might be expected to give in a place where he had a residence in the fair exercise of his discretion, residing where he pleased in the course of the year ' • but, in this case, you must be satisfied of a great deal more. You must be satisfied that he should make it the most usual and ordinary place of his residence. It has been decided not to be necessary, to reside any given number of days but such a residence as we have been in the habit of considering sufficient; if a person has resided a few days, if he has done it openly, he has done all that is requisite to consti tute a residence, and it is not necessary to go to the extent my I N. , You went to him in 1798, and lefthim in 1002, and he lived some years afterwards ?—Yes. Did you remain in. Petersfield after you left his employ ment ? Yes. Perhaps you lived there till the time of his death ?—Yes. And live there now ?—No. Row long have you left it ?—Five or six years. • You must know a good deal about Peterstield ?—I do. Do, you know the present Gentleman who calls himself the Mayor, Mr. Jolliffe ? —No, I do not know him. Do you know his brother, Mr. Hylton Jolliffe ?—Yes. Is he the lord of the manor ?—Yes. Mr. Hylton Jolliffe has considerable property in the Borough, has he not,?-Yes, he has. Mr. Andrews was his Steward P—He was. flow many inhabitants may Petersfield consist of, four or five hundred P—No, a couple of hundred. I-should not take the liberty of asking you, who have been an attorney's clerk, unless I thought you knew something of the business -, and as you have lived in Petersfield above nine years, I thought you might tell us how Many people it consists of ?—.l dare say there may be, I have told you at a raugh cal culation, 200 ; there may be more. know thatthere may be as many as' Lisbon holds, do you mean to say that Peterstield do es not con t a in mo re than 200 inhabitants ?—No, I do not think it does, householders ; there are little outlets where there are labouring men. You do not think a labouring man is an inhabitant of any place P—No, I do not think that; it is the suburbs. Is it a walled town P—No. Outlets ; there are a great rnany.courts in it ?—No. We will get back to the question I asked you.—How many , people may there be ? I'd° not ask you with great particula rity, but how many may it consist of in point of inhabitants ? I must calculate how many there are in a house. Do it in any way you please, but do -not be too long—set about it in any way you please. , Mr. Justice BOROUGH—Do you know any thing about it ? —I do not know ; there may be four or five hundred. Mr. Justice BURROUGH—Do you know any thing about it, if not say so? ' Mr. Serjeant PELL—There are two hundred houses ?—'l.'es. I dare say there are. And mere than one person in a house?—Yes. Mr. Jolliffe is the owner of a great part of 'the property in Petersfield believe he is. PlThaps you can give us some sort of notice how many houses Mr. Jolliffe may have an interest in there--eighty or ninety ? I dare say he has. Out of two hundred ?—Yes he may. The Leet Jury is taken from the householders, is it not ? Ye's. You say Mr,. Andrews generally selected the Jury ?—He did. Probably you assisted him in that useful office ?—No, I did not. You would have nothing to do with it ?—I was never asked to do it. You never were present, when Mr. Andrews and any body else fixed upon the Jury ?—No. ' Where was it done ?—Generally in his own office. Mr. ADAM—He has not said it was done, that Mr. Andrews and any body else selected the Jury. Mr. Serjeant PELL—Did any body assist Mr. Andrews in selecting the Jury ?-1 do not know ; he has often given me the list to copy. Stop, Mr. Cannon. Am Ito understand you that Mr. An drews was never assisted by any body ?—That I cannot say, one way or another. - All you know is that he handed you the list?—Yes. You have one of them in your hand ?—Yes. ' Just hand it over before you read it, that ,I may cross-ex amine you upon it.— ( It a-cm handed to Mr. Seljeant Pell.) You say you know the hand-writing of the greater part of these persons whose names appear to be in this presentment ?- -I do. Richard Eyles, foreman;. did you know him ? —Yes. You know him well ?—Yes. He was a householder ?—Edward Eyles, jun. was. •,Where did he live; was it in one of Mr. Jollilfe's houses ? I-do-got think it was. _ _ _ _ Do you know one way OT he other ?—I =mot say for certain whether 'it was or not. . - Do you happen to know whether he held any property under Mr. Jollifie P—l dare say he did. Mr. ADAM—Do not tell us what you dare say.—l do not know correctly. Mr. Serjeant PELL—Mr. Andrews was the steward of Mr. Jollifle es. And collected the rents ?—Yes. You assisted Mr. Andrews in that business ?—No, I never collected the rents. :Did you receive them P—No. Did you see .the.persons that came to the office to pay the rents ?—Yes. With those means of information, I ask you whether Mr. Eyles did hold' any land under Mr. Jolliffe P—l do not know that he did. What made you say you believed he did might do so. Do yoU know one way or the other ?-11e might, and in all probanility he 'did, but I cannot 'say. Mr. Justice BURROUGH—Do you know whether he rented any lands of Mr. Jolliffe ?=- , I cannot point out any particular lands that he did occupy. That is no answer at all. It is very likely he did. Do you know the fact that he did ?—No ;. I do not. Mr. Serjeant.PELL—Did you ever hear him say so ?—No. You never knew him pay any rent ?—No ; I never saw him pay any.. • Nor know that he did P—No. Now we come to Joseph Eyles ; Where did he live, in Pe tersfield ?—Yes. In whose house did he live ?-- , His own: Not in one of Mr. Jolliffe's ?.— , Not that I know of ; I cannot say that he did. see here thirteen names ?—There are. Do you know all of them ?—Yes. Did they all live-in Petersfield ? Do not look at that paper, look at this. Mr. Hector—That paper does not at all relate to that; it is the Jury paper.' Mr. Serjeant , PELL—Did you know the late Mr. Jolliffe the father of the present defendant ?—Yes. Did you know his hand-writing Look at this signature to this letter ; you' need not look at the letter—(lt was handed to the witness. )—I believe that to be his hand-writing. You mean the hand-writing of the father of the present Mr. Hylton Jolliffe ?—Yes. And the present gentleman, the Mayor?—Yes. And upon his death Mr. Hylton Jolliffe took the property ? Yes. Mr. -Justice au UR OUGH—M ark that paper. Mr. Serjeant PEEL—I• do not know that I shall want it. Did you ever see that gentleman at Mr. Andrews's office ? Yes I have. Indeed—Just about the time when the Lect Jury were to be summoned ?—No not particularly; I have seen him at various times there. He had nothing to do with the Leet Jury ?—I do not know that he had. Will you swear that?—No, I will not swear it—What do you allude to? Simply this, whether you will swear that Mr. William Jol liffe had nothing to do with the Jury in any way ?—What be did, I do not know. 111 r. Justice BURROUGH—Do you know it yourself?—No I do hot. Mr. Serjeant PELL—Have you ever had any .conversation with the present defendfult, the now Mayor of Peters&ld ?- 1",1 Never ?—No. I have seen him, but had no personalcommu nication with him whatever. Of any sort or kind ?—None whatever. Did you ever see his father at Mr. Andrews's (Ace. when the Leet Jury were to be summoned ?—No. You never did ; you are sure of that ?—Certain of it. Nor Mr. Ilylion Joni& ?—I have seen them both there, but not on any particular day. • I said about the time the Jury were summoned ?—I do not recollect he ever was there at that time. Mr. Justice Bunnouon—lt is a great many years since Mr. William Jolliffe lived at Petersfielti ?—,'Many years. Mr. Justice BliltilOUGH—All my time he has not lived there,—the house has been down many years ?—Yes. Mr. Justice BunitouGn—The house has been down a great number of years. Mr..erjeant YELL—Whois the present Member for Peters field?—Mr. Jolliffe. The brother of the present cicfeneatt ? Do you know Mr. Hylton Jolliffe ?—Yes. PRICE SEVENPENCE. Is he or not one of the present Members fer Petersfield ? I have said he is. Is he a brother of the present defendant ?—I have under.: stood he is ; there are sons. There are sons ?--No; not of old William Joni* ; he is deemtd. Do you know the present Mayor of Petersfaxld P--No, I do not. Is he a Clergyman ?—I believe he is And his name is William John ?—Yes. He is the brother of Hylton JOlliffe ?—Yes. And'Alr: Hylton Jol'life is one of the Members for Peters field ?—Y es. And' has been so for many years ? es ? And his father before him?—Yes. That is he whose name is to this Papert—Y6. And, that is the person who hid all this property ?—Yes; It must-hare been a busy time with you when the Mayor. was to be chosen ?— . Yes, a gala day for the people of the town. You could give a pretty good guess who was to be the Mayor before the election ?—No. No ! yoti could not. That is a very faint no. • I should like to hear it a little louder ?—I never put my memory in action. • Yon•made great preparation for this election of the Mayor that was to , be you got a room read for him ?—There was al ways a dinner. task you whether dtifing.Mr. Andrews' time,•at the time of the election Of the Mayor, whether it Vas not We'll understood who was to be the Mayor ?—No. It was not so P—No. • • You had no notion of it ?—No person knew, till the Jusy had finished their business, that he was appointed. He was not Mayor till thefhad chosen him?—No. But you could form a pretty good guess ?—No.. , You swear that ?—I do. . _ 14 .-- faras34;ill 7- inowledge extended, you had no reason to know who would be the Mayor ?—No one could form an idea till the Jury had declared it. You never did P—No, I never did. You never "could form any notion on the subject ?—No. Not the slightest in the world I , —No. Do you know the Mayor in 1801 ; Was it a gentleman of the name of Eyles?—According to that piesentment it was Joseph Eyles, jun. ; I believe it is of East Neon. 111 r. Justice BVIIROUGH.-ill 1801. Mr. Serjeant 1 3 ELL.—Yes, my Lord. You do not know who was Mayor in 1801,- whetheHt was young Eyles do not know without the paper. Mr. Serjeant PEl.L.—This is in 1802. Who was Joseph Eyles ?-He was Mayor the year before. St as he the brother of Richard Eyles ?—Yes. You produced this paper ?—Yes ; it was handed to me here. You have not had it in your possession before you came here ?—No. Mr. Serjeant PELL.-1 object to that being read; they must call some other person. Re-examined by Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS. Q. You said Mr. Eyles had been. Mar some years before; did not I hear you say Mr. Eyles, of West Neon ?—A. No, East Neon. Mr. Justice BURROVGII.—How long before had he been Mayor cannot speak to that at all. Before 1802?—Yes. Did he live at East Meon ?—Yes. And had no house in Petersfield ?—No ; no house in Peters field. James Seward sworn.—Examined by Mr. MEREwETIiza. Q. Are you the clerk of Mr. Hector ?—A. Yes. How long have you been his clerk ?—Fifteen years. He is Steward of the Court Leet of Peterstield ?—Ye4; and he has been ever since I have been with him. Look at that presentment ( handing a paper to the witness), and tell me whether you have ever seen that before ?—Yes, I have. Have you seen it in the custody of Mr. Hector, as Steward ? Mr. Serjeant PELL.—I C.I:.:CC( to that ; he says he has seen it in the possession of Hector. Mr. 111 z RENVE.riliElt.—Have you seen that _paper in the pos session of Mr. Hector, with other papers belonging to the Corporation ?—Yes. Mr. Serjeant PELL.—If you have no other evidence, I shall object to it at once. Mr. Justice Bun awn GH.—Where was it kept P—ln the of fice with the other Court papers. Have you had occasion to look at these papers frequently ? Often. And with the rest of the papers of the Court Leet you , found this ?—Yes. 31r.- Serjeant PELL.—My objection is, that y . ou cannot even talk of the nature of this paper without producing it. Mr. JuAtiee Bunnouosr.—You may say it was found with other deeds. Mr. Serjcant PeLL.—Certainly, was that the place of cus tody for them ? Yes, it was. Mr. Id EREWETHER.—Were other Court Leet papers kept there ?- Yes. Amongst those you saw this ?—Yes, I did. You have been with Mr. Hector 15 years ?—Yes. During that time have you been in the habit of attending Courts Leet ?—Yes, every year. . Have you seen papers like this carried to the Court Leet ? Yes, as many as four or five times ; they were not always taken. But when they were, they were the papers with which you have seen this paper ?—Yes. And that for the last 15 years ?—Yes. Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—You remember Mr. Andrews Yes. When did he die?—About five or six years ago. Did he continue Steward till his death ?—No. When did he cease to be Steward ?—I do not recollect ex actly. Mr. Serjeant PELL.—This paper you have been speaking of, you have seen in the possession of Mr. Hector ?—Yes. He is not dead ?—No, he is there. In Court ?—Yes. He, is the Steward of Mr. Jolliffe ?—Yes. And was at the time of which you speak ?—Yes. And he is now in COurt And Mr. Hector is Attorney for Mr. Jolliffe, the present de fendant ?—I do not know that he is ; • Messrs. lianrott and Met calfe are his Attornies. He is not concerned for the defendant as Attorney at all ? Yes ; as to any thing that takes place in the country. This is in the country ?—They are his usual A ttornia. • Is he concerned for the present defendant in this cause ? Yes, he is assisting. Mr. Justice BultitouGli.—ln this cause?—Yes. , Mr. Serjeant PELL—You have seen this paper in Mr. Rec tor's possession, with other papers belonging to the Borough ? —Yes, belonging to the Leet. Was there a particular place for the Court papers ?—Yes. A muniment room ?.—No, the Court book and the papers used to be tied up together, and put in Mr. Ilector's office. And kept with other papers belonging to Mr. Hector ? They were generally put in his own private drawer. But in his office ?—Yes. We will just have it ata fact that Mr. Heetnt is in Court.— Yes, .he is. Mr. MEREWETHER.-It was generally kept in Mr. Ilec tor's private drawer ?—Yes. Were they kept apart, or with the other papers ? Mr. Serjeant PELL.—You had better stop ; you shall have it your own way. When did you first see this precise present ment ?—I suppose as many as ten or eleven years ago. This very one?—Yes. In Mr. Hector's possession ?—Yes, Mr. Hector has been Steward ever since 1803. Mr. Serjeant PEJ.r..—Without troubling you, my Lord, with a long argument, I submit that Mr. Hector, appearing to be present, and to be the Steward, that it is not enough fo shew that Mr. Hector had these papers in his possession, and delivered these papers over to him ; but for the purpose of hav ing the best evidence, to shew the nature of the papers, and how they came into his possession, Mr. Hector ought to be called. Mr. Justice BURROUGH..--It is proved that Mr. Hector was_ Steward ; they ought to be in his hands ; they are to be traced to him; and therefore therare in the proper custody ; they nrs not bound to call him. Mr. GASELEE.—There is no proof they were ever in the Court. Mr. Justice BURROtIOII.—It is in the proper custody ; there was a much weaker case in Cornwall. The following Presentment was delivered in and read. Mr. ADAll.—it is signed by the Foreman and twelve others. Mr. Justice BußßOUoll.—Give iune. (It was handed to hi: Lordship.) Mr. MEREWETHEL—Q. Do you know where Sir Joseph Eyles lived ? A. No. [Turn.