The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-26 00:00:00

Steck this day .... • .
Price of Y. C. .... t0474875t
Delivery last week .. 3,221
Ditto from June 1.... 73,580
Arrivals last week -

Ditto from June C... I 81,S C 9

Price of Town ......1 52s Od

1849. 1850.

36;867 42,145
405 Oct 39s Oct
to 40s 6c1t039s 6d
1,996 2,363
70,330 65,838
8M i 2,066
99,385 82,560
438 Od 418 Od

1851.

49,632 59,244
37s 6rl to 86s Od
37s 9d t 0363 3d
2,403 2,643
65,652 73,056
4 1,355
89,766 95,766

39s 6d 1 39s 6d

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

QUEEN V. 'HAMMOND.
In this case a quo warranto had been obtained, calling
upon the defendant to show by what right he held the
office of town-councillor for the borough of Yarmouth,
and the question was argued at great length some time
ago. It was objected that .several of the voting papers,
which were delivered in at the election in favour of the
defendant were bad, inasmuch as they did not specify
the place of residence of the candidate, but merelygave
his place of business. This objection, however, was met
by a statement that the defendant was better known by
his place of business than by his place of abode; but the
Municipal Corporation Act expressly provides that the
place of residence shall be given; and as the Court
thought it would lead to great confusion if they allowed
the place of business to be indiscriminately used as the
place of abode, they were constrained to construe the
Act of Parliament strictly, and therefore to pronounce
judgment against the defendant.
Rule absolute accordingly.
KEEN V. 'STUART.
Sir F. THESICER said this was an action of debt tried
at the last sittings in Westminster, before Lord Camp-
bell, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff, with
2001. damages, and he had now to move for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside
and a new trial had, or why the damages should not be
increased to 5591. The plaintiff was an attorney-at-late,
and the defendant a gentleman of property, residing in
Scotland. The defendant, it appeared, was one of the
provisional committeemen of the defunct Canterbury
and Herne Bay Bailway Company, and he was Sued
in that capacity. He was sued by several of the al-
lottees. These actions were defended by Keen, and after
they were disposed of his bill of costs was taxed at
559/., but the defendant now disputed his liability, and
contended that the goats ought to be paid out, of the
funds of the company. It unfortunately happened,
however, that there were 'no funds,, and tho plaintiff
had, therefore, no alternative but to bring the present
action, and at the trial it Was agreed that the matter of
fact to bo determined by the jury should be the de
fondant's liability. The jury decided this question in
the plaintiff's favour, but instead of stopping there, they
went further, and reduced the amount of his claim from
559/. to 2001., which it was contended they had no autho-
rity to do.—aule nisi granted.

EXCHEQUER.—(TUIS DAY.)
MILLER V. ALDERMAN SALOXONS, M P.
This case came before the court, upon a special ver-
dict. It will be recollected that the action was instituted
against Mr. Alderman Salomons, M.P. for Greenwich,
to recover three several penalties of 5001, for having
voted thrice in the House of Commons .without having
taken or subscribed, to the oath of abjuration, in the
form required: by the statute. The defendant pleaded
that he did not Owe the debt. Issue baying been
joined, the action came to trial before Mr. Baron Martin,
when the jury found a special verdict, setting forth all
the main facts which had been proved before them.
Mr. Sergeant Channel! and Mr. Macnams.ra now ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Sir Fitzroy.Relly and Mr.
A. Goldsmith for thO defendant.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, after reading in detail the
questions reserved tor the opinion of the Court, said he
should contend, in the course of his arguments, that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover the penalties he had
sued for. Tee main question for the decision of the
Court was whether the defendant, before he voted,
had taken the oath of abjuration as required by law.
It was impossible not to see that the subject involved
considerations of great public importance and interest,
but he thought he should best discharge his duty to his
client and their Lordships by treating the matter in
dispute simply as a question of law. Whether the
statute was conformable to the spirit of the times or
not was a matter they had nothing to do with; they bad
only to ascertain what the law was, and whether on the
one hand it had been respected and obeyed, or on the
other evaded or defeated. He submitted that one thing
was quite clear, viz., that an infringement of the law
was protected by statutes, which imposed penalties that
might he sued for as a debt in any of the superior
courts of law; therefore the power was not only con-.
ferred upon their Lordships of determining the present
question, but they could impose a penalty. It could
scarcely be disputed that the statutes which imposed
the oath of abjuration were still in force, or that
the defendant was not by reason of his being
a Jew exempted from the necessity of taking it in the
same form and shape as prescribed. Whatever might
have passed elsewhere, this point was too free from doubt
to warrant his entering
on any leugthened argument
upon it. The two great and important questions for
their Lordships would be as follows:—First, whether,
assuming
could that the defendant as a Jew was bound in one
s a
shape or other to take the oath of abjuration, that oath
be properly sworn on the Old Testament. He
abjurationt was a Christian cOaltdh
submitted
that whatever right the Jew had to be sworn
witness or
as a juror on the
defendant had been nextpr
properly
pqeurel
ys t isewn ,T Testament, m
coulden t
not, the
oath of
be sworn to on
The e Old Testament on the ground of his
being a Jew.
ingthTatesttlaie-
owrnas'onassuthme Old
ment, so as to raise
whether, having innot objection to the form of swear-
ing,catain words—a on
tottionally and purposely omitted
had really taken the oath atruaell.
faith of a Christian"—he
nell) contended that as ha hadEle (Mr Sergeant Chan-
its entirety it must be inferred thnaott:,aken the oath in
take it le, all. These two questions dependedhad omitted to
construction of at great number of
statutes upon the
should bring under the review of the ejnnwrht which bee
Court might possibly be assisted by authorities and re-
ported cases to some extentibut those questions would
mainly rest on the statutes he had mentioned. After
some consideration he had deemed it best to bring those
statutes before their Lordships previous to proceeding
with his argument. He would divide them into two
classes. First, statutes which imposed the duty on
Members of Parliament, and the public generally, of
taking the oath of abjuration end other oaths. These he
should call obligatory statutes. The next were those of
an exemptory character, and which as regarded some
purposes and some persons dispensed with the necessity
of taking &the oaths at all, or of taking them under cer li
-
tain circumstances which were otherwise obligatory.
He should or exempting
term these dispensing
statutes. This last class ho would subdivide into sta-
tutes particularly affecting; Jews themselves; and in the
next place, those which relieved quakers and Illorasi2lin
from swearing at all, or of affirming to the words of the
oath. Some Acts relating to
Quakers and Moravianc, aP-
plied equally to Jews, and when that was so he would in-
clude them under the head of Jews. The Learned Coun-
sel then gave an elaborate summary in the above order, of
the various statutes which had been passed, commencing
with the Ist of Elizabeth, chap. 1, which restored to
the Crown its ancient jurisdiction over the State, ecclesi-
astical and spiritual, abolished all foreign power relating
to the same, and compelled certain persons to take the
oath of supremacy, and ending with the 10th of George
IV., which emancipated Boma Catholics,- and Ist and