The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-11 00:00:00

NING, FEBRUARY 11, 1830.

it was with that view that it directed the serving
of the apprenticeship to a notary, or to a scrivener
being a notary, and rendered it indispensible
that they should be members of the Scriveners'
Company, in order to subject them to its rules
and regulations. But the service meant by the Act
evidently was a continued and real-service, and not
a mere nominal service, like that of the applicant,
who was in the service not of the notary, but the
banker; The service inten(!e,l rvn9 a bone fide ser•
vice to a notary, and such a service the applicant
had not rendered, and the Company was perfectly
justified in refusing to admit him, since he had
served neither notary nor scrivener. It was re-
quired of an attorney that he should have served
five years as an articled clerk to an attorney. But
Auppose a banker's clerk were to article himself to
an attorney, and rendered merely an occasional ser-
vice, in such case he had no doubt the. Court would
order him to be struck off the roll. This was a case
of a similar description, and he hoped the rule would
be discharged.
Mr. DENMAN, on the same side, said that the
subject had been exhausted, and he would not take
up the time of the Court by adding any thing.
Mr. PLATT, on the same side, pointed the atten-
tion of the Court to a case entitled " In the matter
of Taylor," S Barn. and Ald., in which it was held
that service as an articled clerk to an attorney, while
the clerk was at the same time a Surveyor of Stamps,
was not sufficient to entitle him to be admitted as an

attorney.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in support of the rule,
contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to exa-
mine the applicant as to his service as a notary.
This was the business of those to whom he applied
for his faculty, and the Company had no right to
examine on that point, and the Act was imperative
on them to admit. The object of the Act was
merely to make notaries subject to the rules and re-
gulations of the Scriveners' Company, and for that
purpose the Company were bound to admit such
persons as intended to apply for their faculties.
Lord TENTERDEN • was of opinion that the rule
ought to be discharged. It could not be supposed
that it was meant to be imperative on the Company
to admit all who might apply for admission. They
were hound to admit only such persons as had per-
formed the services required by the Act of Parlia-
ment. The applicant in the present case had not
performed a regular service to a notary, his principal
business being that of a banker's clerk. A notary
had much more to do than to present bills in the
evening, and to protest them when not paid. Nota-
ries, as appeared in a late trial at Guildhall, had often
to prepare charter parties, and put them into form
from the notes of the ship-broker. They had also
to prepare the affidavits of mariners and shipmasters,
and draw up their protests, which might be pro-
duced in evidence in the foreign Courts, though not
in the Courts of this country. It was necessary,
therefore, that the service of the apprenticeship to
the notary should be a real and regular service, which
in this case it was not.

The other Judges concurred.—Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 10.
TRIMMER V. LORD lIUNTINGTOWER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
clergyman, who resided in Leicestershire, where he
kept a few private pupils, to recover compensation
for the injury which he had received, in consequence
of the injurious conduct of the defendant in erecting
a nuisance near the residence of the plaintiff, and
also in causing certain defamatory letters to be
published concerning him, whereby he had lost
some of his pupils. The case was tried at the last
assizes, before the Chief Baron, at Leicester, when
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with
damages 2,0001. A rule for a new trial was ob-
tained
in the last term, on the grounds of excessive
damages, and the admission of improper evidence.
The COMMON SERJEANT appeared this day to
show cause against the rule.
Before the cause had been entered upon,
Mr. Baron GARROW observed, that it had been
often stated by Judges in Law and Equity Courts,
that to write letters to them respecting proceedings
which should come before them with a view to bias
their judgment, was contrary to law, and a high mis-
demeanour, as having a tendency subversive of
justice. He had been led to make these observa-
tions in consequence of some persons having dared
to send to him some papers, which appeared to be
scraps taken out of newspapers, accusing this Court
of impropriety in not making the rule absolute, with-
out reflecting on the character of a respectable indi-
vidual. He (Baron Garrow) returned the letter to
the post-office, having written on it " not taken in,"
with his own name signed to it. He should be
happy to assist in prosecuting the party who wrote
it, for attempting to interfere with the Courts of
Justice.
The CHIEF BARON and Mr. Baron VAUGHAN said
that they had received similar letters, but they had
treated them with contempt.
The COMMON-SERJEANT, in opposing the rule,
felt convinced that it would be the interest of his
client to have a new trial, as he had no doubt but
that he should get larger damages. But his client
was anxious to relieve his name from the contamina-
lion of that detestable and abominable case, and
therefore wished that the trial should stand.

Mr. CLARK, with wllom was Mr. HUMPHREY,
were heard in support. of the rule.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion that the
evidence had been properly admitted.
The rule was accordingly discharged.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, FEE. 10.

Edward Matthews, a master in the Royal navy,
was opposed by Mr. COOKE, on behalf of Mr. Webb,
a creditor, for 30/. for meat and money lent.
The insolvent had been in the Royal navy for 38
years, and ranked as a master since 1807. His
half-pay, after deductions, was about 100/. a-year.
About two years ago he took the benefit of the Act
at Haverfordwest, and since that time he had con-
tracted debts to the amount of 136/. 195., prin-
cipally with persons at Roydon, in Essex, where he
had since resided. He attributed his present insol-
vency to the expence attending the illness of his
wife, who had undergone an operation for a com-
plaint for which Martin Van Butchell was deemed
famous doctor. Red port and bark were pre-
scribed for her sustenance. He vas certain of the
wine, but not so positive of the bark.—(Laughter.)
With regard to the books of account, he had a few
memorandums, but whenever he heard the word
book" mentioned, he thought only of the log-book.
___(Laughter.)
Mr. Comm—When did you leave Rovdon ?—I
stayed until I had notice to quit.—(Laughter.)
AlrMooDnoFFE—Have you contracted nnydebts
since you left Roydon ?-0h ! I always managed
to square the yards since.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WOODROFFE—Now, tell the Court how you
were arrested.

The insolvent went by appointment to Mr.
Spencer, of Boswell•court, attorney for Mr. Webb,
to offer 21. 10s. per month out of his half-pay, when
he was met by an officer with " Good morning, Mr.
Matthews."

Mr. WOODROFFE—And you were arrested ?—ln-
deed I was.

The insolvent further stated, that his wife had not
been " sound wind or limb" for the last three years;
that he had been endeavouring to get a situation in
the St. Katharine Docks, but being above 35 years

PRICE 7D.

of age, he was not received. Indeed, with all his
attempts at economy, he had, much to his misfor-
tune, been obliged to " cast anchor," for the second
time, in this Court.—(Laughter.)—However,
had just entered on a commercial situation, when he
was arrested.

The COURT said that if the insolvent would con-
sent that 201. a year should be given to his creditors
out of his half-pay, the Court Nv ould discharge him,
without his going back to prison to obtain the con-
sent.

This was agreed to on the part of the insolvent,
and he was then declared entitled to the benefit of
the Act.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-MOUSE.

The Inspector of the Watch of the Gambill dis-
trict waited upon the Lon' MaYon., in consequence
of the account of a robbery which had taken place
at the door of the London Tavern on the preceding
day. He stated, that at the time the transaction
took place, the Cornhill watch and officers were all
at their posts ready for active duty, but Ito applica-
tion whatever was made to them for assistance.
They saw the crowd advancing, but as their assist-
ance was not at all required, they remained as they
were. 1f the slightest intimation had been given to
them, they would not have hesitated to render all
necessary aid.
The LORD Mairon never heard of a more gross
outrage in the city of London in his life.
Perhaps nothing can give a better idea of the
total inadequacy of the City Police to the intended
object of their appointment, than the history of this
attack upon the company retiring from the enter-
tainment at the London Tavern. A most despe-
rate effort was made by an extensive gang of thieves
to plunder. The watchmen on their posts observed
the crowd and confusion, a robbery is committed
under their noses, and they know nothin!, at all, and
care nothing at all, about it, but " pad the hoof,"
as the thieves call the perambulations of the City
watchmen, and cry the hour, and are ready to act
when called upon. Alderman Wood has long since
spoken of the great contrast which the police at the
West end of the town exhibits to the public, and
the late Lord Mayor described the new plan as
fraught with peculiar advantages, it is to be hoped
that this occurrence will sharpen the memory of each
of those active members, and that immediate mea-
sures will be taken to improve the City system.
The account given of the ineffectual attempt to in-
duce the new Common Councilman, Mr. Scales, to
purchase for more than he considered to be its value
the gown of a defunct member, having excited a
considerable sensation in the City Parliament, the
new legislator addressed a letter to Sir Peter Laurie,
in which lie complained that Air. Perry, the late un-
successful candidate, exhibited the most comely side
of the garment, by which he practised upon the cre-
dulity of the worthy Knight. The letter added that
the other side should be duly exhibited in the pre-
sence of the Lord Mayor. Sir Peter attended at
the Justice-room, in order to hear the charge of un-
dignified conduct brought against Mr. Scales an-
swered.

Mr. Scales, in order to show that he was not
behind-hand in politeness, sent one of the most gen-
tlemanly of his slaughtermen to Mr. Perry, to in-
form him that he would enter into the necessary
explanation before the Chief Magistrate.
Sir PETER LAURIE Came to the Justice Room in
consequence of the respect he owed a Brother Le-
gislator, and for the purpose of hearing the two
sides of the question.
Mr. Scales
.was prevented by business, as well
as illness, from paying the necessary respect to Sir
Peter Laurie's message. He found it now incum-
bent upon him to come forward, as, wherever he
went, some reflection, either jocular or serious, was
passed upon him on account of the second-hand
garment for which he had refused to give an exorbi-
tant price ; but although in the afternoon of life, he
had no objection to be the cause of mirth to those
around him. All he required in return was the op-
portunity of retaliating, and he thought that would
be abundantly supplied to him amongst the Legis-
lators of whom he had the honour to be one.—
(Laughter.)—He assured the Lord Mayor that he
had never put on anything for which he had not
paid ; and although he thought he had concluded
the bargain about the gown, his only object was to
perform a benevolent act, and to apply the article as
a symbol of terror in his garden, and not to gratify
his vanity by hastily decorating his person with the
Corporation insignia.
The LORD MAYOR thought it rather extraordinary
that a man so independent in his circumstances
should have been satisfied with a gown which had
been worn by a predecessor.
Mr. Scales said, the gown happened to be so
short behind as not to cover a part which ought, as
little as possible, to be exposed.—(Laughter.)—
Besides, there were several stains upon it, which ap-
peared to have been produced by something of the
colour of wine. Indeed, this latter objection was
the thing which Mr. Peter Perry told him prevented
him from making a present of it to his wife; for,
however in character, it might be for a Common
Councilman's gown to be discoloured with the juice
of the grape, such an appearance would not at all
become a Common Councilman's lady; so that Mr.
Perry did not subject Mrs. Perry to any illiberal
observation of the kind.—(Much laughter.)
The LORD MAYOR did not consider it necessary
to go any further into the contest, singular as it was,
about the gown.
Mr. Scales stated that when he went to his friend
Peter Perry, he found him in the dumps at the loss
of his election, cursing the ingratitude of mankind
and the hypocrisy of friends. As he (Mr. Scales)
happened to be one of the Surveyors of the Roads,
and wished that the poor who worked at them
should receive pay for their labour, he called upon
his friend Perry, who had a large supply of old
clothes and shoes, in order to talk to him upon the
subject. It was then the old gown was shown to
him, and his friend actually thought the guinea he
offered adequate pay. When, however, he took it
home, and throwing it down, asked his daughters
what they thought of it? one of them lifted it with
the tongs, and, turning it round, begged to know
whether they were not to wipe their feet in it—
(Much laughter.)—This was the article about which
such a fuss had been made. For his part he should
be very sorry to " catch the mantle" from the gene-
ral run of his brethren, the Common-Councilmen,
as it was very seldom it could be said to cover com-
mon understanding.
Sir PETER LAURIE was much amused at this
statement, and thought that Mr. Scales was very
right in not giving more for the gown than he con-
sidered to be its value, whether it was intended as a
scare-crow in the county or in the city.