The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-29 00:00:00

POLICE.

GUILDHALL.
An application was made to Slr James Shaw on Tuesday, for
summonses against three tradesmen, resident in the Ward of
Queenhithe, for carrying on business on the Sabbath-day. The
worthy Alderman declined issuing the summonses. because the
conduct of the parties, who were acknowledged to be very poor,
had not been of a very flagrant nature. Mr. Alderman Venable'
on the following day waited upon Mr. Alderman Scholey, who
presided for Sir James Shaw, and stated that he feared some mis-
understanding had taken plate, or the summonses would have been
granted. After a great deal of conversation Mr. Alderman Scholey
refused to grant the summonses, observing, that Sir James Shaw
must have had some cogent reason for objecting, and he did not
conceive it would be quite proper for him to issue what had been
previously refused by one Alderman, who had had the case fully
stated to him in the first instance; however Mr. Alderman Ve-
nable' eventually left the office, upon the understanding of his
making another application on Friday, when it was probable Sir
James Shaw would be present. Accordingly, upon Sir James
Shaw's taking his seat yesterday morning, Mr. Alderman Ye-
nables made his appearance, and said, one of the beadles of his
Ward had applied toe three summonses, and which application had
been refused. He considered the offence for which the summonses
had been requested, via. keeping shops open on Sundays, and
daring divine service, was one that ought to be stopped, and the
only means of so doing was by putting the law in force.
Sir J. SHAW wanted to know what sort of articles were exposed
for sale, and whether the parties were not very poor
Smith, the beadle, said they were poor persons, and the goods,
were wood, herrings, hearth-stones, matches, and such like.
Sir J. SHAW observed, that there would be great difficulty in
proceeding, and which could not be done on a summons; it must
be by an information, and a written one, stating the nature and all
the particulars of the case; and upon that a summons would be
issued against the parties, who will then, having been made ac-
quainted with the complaint, come to the Office, fully prepared to
meet the charge: this not having been clone, he refused to grant
the summonses. The worthy Baronet then commented at some
length upon what had taken place between Mr. Alderman Scholey
and 31r. Alderman Venables. . .

31r. Alderman '.ww.ant.ss then said, the penalty incurred
was five shillings.
Sir J. SHAW said, post certainly not, for they were not liable
under the Act. And arother reason for his refusal was, on account
of the offenders being very poor, anti most probably unacquainted
with the laws of the country; and, indeed, this law was almost
obsolete—he had thought he had only six or secen complaints under
it during the period of hisllagistracy; and had the beadle come
prepared agreeably to the Act, he (Sir J. Shaw) should have ad.
vised him not to press the matter. The Act rendred it necessary
to identify the articles exposed for sale; and he should like to
know the possibility of goods of this description, and which must
be taken upon a warrant, being sworn to; and upon that being
done, they were forfeited. The Alderman issues a warrant for the
seizure of the goods, sod at all times the seizure must ht made at
peril, and should the identity not be proved, then the party
seizing will be liable to an action fur trespass.
Mr. Alderman VEWATILES wished to know whether it was not
optional ?
Sir J. SNAw—No, it is not; from the nature of 'our applica.
lion the whole complaint becomes :1 : )ou should not have
gone upon the Act.
Mr. Alderman Vzsaings thought that the Act 29:h Charles If.
was in their favour.

Sir J. Straw—The Act is 29th Charles 11. cap. 7, and which
renders the exercising of a person's calling, or working, liable to a
penalty of U.; but in this instance, where it is only exposing for
sale, the goods are liable, upon identity, to be forfeited.
Mr. Alderman VEHAHLES asked Smith whether the beadles had
not frequently complained to the parties?
Smith said they had. several Sundays.
Sir J. SIIAW said, the only and the proper method to proceed
upon was, to produce a written information, upon which a sum.
mons could be granted. lie then read the Act of 2Vth Charles 11.
which having concluded, he remarked, that the goods must be
sworn to, otherwise a trespass was committed. An information
must be duly produced, upon which a summons would be granted,
and which summons not being satisfied, the Magistrate grants a
warrant to seize the goads, but the identical goods, and not any
that may he in the limpet the period of executing the warrant.
Sir J. SHAW said be should sit there to-morrow, and if the writ-
ten information wasiliegralaril brought before him, he would issue
a summens. •, • mi..
Mr. Alderman V.ithridefirtha observed, he drew a very different
inference from the Act than Sir James Shaw ; but if the law was
deficient, he thought it high time the legislature should be made
acquainted with it. and that it should be rectilicd.
The Alderman then withdrew.

Before the conclusion of the busincu of the day, Mr. Alderman
Venable; returned to the Justice-room. and informed Sir James
Shaw that he had consulted his Ward Clerk, who held a different
opinion upon the Statute than that which had been expressed there,
and that he still thought that exposing goods to sale, especially if
there were any sold, must certainly be considered as exercising the
business of a person's ordinary calling ; but he had determined not
to pursue the complaint against these persons in the present in-
stance, and they had been cautioned that if they continued to offend
in future, proceedings would be taken against diem.

C 044 CO Kr.d/V/ES.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRESS.
Sta—l beg yea will call the attention of the public to
the existence of the 48th Gee. 111. cap. 53, prohibiting
" any number of persons uniting in covenants or partner-
ships, or in any way whatsoever, consisting of more than
five persona, for the purchasing of coals for sale, or for
making regulations shit respect to the manner of carrying
on the said trade in coals, shall be deemed and adjudged
to be an unlawful combination to advance the price of coals,
and every person coneetned therein shall be liable to be
punished b 7 indictment, or information for the same, in
his Majesty a Court of King's Bench at Westminster."
I am, &c.
47th Jan. 1825. X. Y. Z.