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

TALLOW.

Our market still continues exceedingly heavy, at a
rurther reduction in the quotations. To-day, new
P. Y. C. on the spot is selling at 36s to 365 3d; and
Id 35s 6d to 35s 9d per cwt. Town Tallow, 365 6(1 to
36s Oct per cwt, net cash; Rough Fat, 2s ld per 81bs.
The imports aro on a liberal scale for the time of year,
but they are chiefly derived from our colonies.

1848.

1849. 1850.

1851.

Stack this day .• ...!

Price of Y. C. •• [

16,380
47s 6d

36,867 42,145
40s Od 39s Od
to 40s 6d to 398 6d
1,906 2,363
70,330 i 65,888

_ to 47s 9cl
Deliverylast week • • 3,221
Ditto from June 1.... 73,580
Arrivals last week •

Ditto from June 1 ... 81,9 C 9
Price of Town ...... 52s Od

851 2,066
f 99,385 82,560
43s Od 41s Od

1852.

49,632 59,244
37s 6d to 36s Od
37s 9d to36s ad
2,403 '2,643
65,652 73,056
4 1,355
89,766 95,766
39s 6d 39a 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 merely gave
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 bek‘tiven, 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. TirEsionn 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-law,
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 Railway Company, and ho 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
5591., but the defendant now disputed his liability, and
contended that the costs ought $o be paid out of the
funds of the company. It unfortunately happened,
however, that there were no funds, and the plaintiff
had, therefore, no alternative but to bring the present
action, and at the trial it was agreed that the matter of
fact to be determined by the jury should be the de-
fendant'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
5591. to 2001., which it was contended they had no autho-
rity to do.—Rule nisi granted.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

MILLER V. ALDERMAN SALOMONS, N 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 500/, 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 be did not owe the debt. Issue having 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 Channell and Mr. Macnamara now ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr.
A. Goldsmidt for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, after reading in detail the
questions reserved for 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. The 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 had
only to ascertain what the law was, and whether on the
one band 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 be 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 lengthened argument
upon it. The two great and important questions for
their Lordships would be as follows:—First, whether,
assuming that the defendant as a Jew was bound in one
shape .or other to take the oath of abjuration, that oath
could be properly sworn on the Old Testament. He
submitted that whatever right the Jew had to be sworn
as a witness or
oath of abjuration
a juror on the Old Testament, the
abjurat'on was a Christian oath, and could not
be sworn to on the
next e Old Testament on the ground of his
being a Jew. T
question was, assuming that the
defendant had been
properlyu sworn on the Old Testa-
ment, so as to raise
ihoteenbjection to the form of swear-
ing, whether, having
certain words—" On the true utteil.faiii h of a Christian"—he
and purposely omitted
had really taken the oath
heat
had not taken the oath in
He (Mr. Sergeant Chan -
thate
inferred that hehadomitted to
itsne 1 le)n t
irety contended
iit
must n
of statutes which take it at all. These two questions depended thehe
construction of a great number
should bring under the review of the Court. The,
assisted by authorities and re-
to some extent,_ be hnt_
atd mentioned. After
hose questions would
Courtpmainly
mightcrest
son the statutes possibly be h
some consideration he had deemed
statutes before their Lordships previous to proceeding
the duty on
with his argument. He would divide them into two
classes. First, statutes which imposed
Members of Parliament, and the public generally, of
taking the oath of abjuration and other oaths. These he
should call obligatory statutes. The next were those of
an exemptory character, and which as regarded some
purposes and some p
of taking the oaths at all, or of taking them
cer-
tain circumstances which were otherwise obligatory.
He should term these dispensing or exempting
statutes. This last class he would subdivide into sta-
tutes particularly affecting Jews themselves; and in the
next place, those which relieved quakers and Moravians
from swearing at all, or of affirming
to the words of the
oath. Some Acts relating to Quakers and Moravians, ap-
plied equally to Jews, and when that was so be 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 Boman Catholics, and Ist and