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

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 does not contain more 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 ?—Yes.
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;ill7-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 13ELL.—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.

190 you know whether he lived in Petersfield ? No, he did
not. - •

Mr. Serjeant PE LL.—You first ask him a general question,
he said he did not know ; now you ask him you do not know
that he lived in Petersfield.
Mr. .515 nEWETHER.-11 asked him whether he knew if 'he
lived in Petersfied.
Mr. Serjeant PE I. submit that is not a proper question.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH.-1 believehedia not; we all know
that.

Mr. ADA M.—We will call back Mr. Cannon, to ask him
whether he knows where he lived.
Mr. James Cannon called again.
:111 ADA 31.—D0 you know where Sir Joseph Eyles lived ?
A. I do not know.
Did he live in the town of
,Petersfield ?—No.
Mr. Justice Bu RROU G H.—Every 'body in the county knows
• that, they are facts that every body knows.
Mr. NIEREWETIIII.—(To Seward.) You have been in
thelabit of attending Courts beet since 1805 ?—Yes.
• Look at these papers (handing some papers to the witness)
and tell me whether those are the presentments from 4805,
down to the present time; what is the date of the earliest ?
18(13 is the latest.
Do those come from the same.place as the others come from ?
Ves, they do.
' Deliver them in.—( They were handed in.)
Q. To what period do they go down ?—A. 1822
The Presentment, dated 17th January, 1803, was read,
Mr. G.AsELEE.—Are not those presentments entered in a
book ?—A. Yes.
Mr. ME RE WE,TiI E R.—Copied in a book ? —Yes ; those are
the originals.
Mr. Justice Buffuoudn.—The originals are the best cer-
.
tainly.
Mr. attEELEE.-I apprehend those are hardly the original
igesentments ; they are merely a minute of who was presented.
Mr. Justice 1311 RROUGIL—They are the.presentments of the
jury of the Court beet.
Mr: A-DAst.Signed with their own names.
Mr. Justice BURRO uGri.—And they sign their names.
GAsELEE.-LThere should•be a caption ; it should • ap-
pear that the Court was held, and the Jury sworn.
Mr. Justice Bunuouott,—This is at a Court holden ; it is
an act of the Court.
Mr. GASELEE.--Lit is signed by certain persons, but there is
no signature of the Steward to authenticate it.
Mr. Justice Ho oIT Gri—Nor need there .be.
Mr. qasELEE--Nor does it appear that the Jury were
sworn.

Mr.. Justice Burtn out-ill—That must be proved. .
3lr. G.ASE does not appear that, the Court was
holden.

Mr. Justice EU 121101:011—Do you mean to prove that the
,Court was 'holden.
Mr. ADAM—I submit to your Lordship that that paper is
evidence.
,Mr. Justice BunnouGH—lt is evidence no. doubt what it
proves is another matter; did you use to attend the. Courts ?
Yes..

'—As early
.as 1806 or

How early did you atteeld the Courts ?
-1807.
Did you attend them afterwards ?--Yes.
• When were they held ?—On the 17th of January.
That was the time they,were always holden
Mr. Serjeant PELL.—IIIy own opinion is, that they are evi-
dence,.valeat quantum.
Mr. AIEREWETHER.—We need not have them put in.
Mr. Serjeant PELT —Have you done with the witness ?
Mr. ADAM—We have not half done with him.
. Mr. Justice BURROUGII—,Why do you fight matters that
are as clear as day-light, why do not you come to the point at
once, you know this is all buckram.
Mr. GASE LEE—We are bound to make these objections.
Mr. Serjeant PELL-1 should be very glad to do it, it must
come to that ultimately.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH—You must come to the real point
at last.
Mr. GASELEE—If they will only give us buckram we can-
ect help it.
Mr. ADAM—We are giving you good broad cloth.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH—Why do you prove those formal
matters.
Mr. ADAM—Are there any of these formal issues to which I.
_reed direct my attention.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—I want to know how you get the
. Mayor.
.Mr. ADAM—I shall not tell you—l get my Mayor by the
presntrnent of a Jury.
Mr. -NI CREWET HER—( Seward)—Dop this paper come
'from among -the papers, of the Court ?—Yes.
LOA at it, the name of it (handing it to the witness), and tell
• .me whether it is Mr.-Hector's hand writing ?—Yes it
Mr. Justice Etranorroir—What is this ?
Mr. M EnruirTnEn— It is the precept signed by Mr. Hec-
'_tor,- nominating the Jury at the botrorsa of the precept.—( The
razre :vas delivered in and read.)
Mr: MEnEwr rirrn—Have you other piesentulents there
_that come from the same custody ?—Yes.
And precepts annexed to them ?—Yes.
-Down to waat time ?-1822.
Serjeant PE L L—Let us have them ?
. Mr. ADAM---You shall have them, and do what you like
with them.

. You have.stated you have been at the Court regularly from
-123C6 to' the present time ?—Yes.
Were you at the Court in January, 1322 ?—Yes.
Were the proceedings at that Court like the proceedings at
.all the preceding Courts ?—Yes.
Have you got the presentment for I3ll?—Yes.
Turn to.it and, see.whether Mr. William John Joiiiffe was
presented Mayor at that Court ?—Yes' he was.-.
Have you got the precept there also ?—Yes.
See if it corresponds with the one put in before ?-,-( The wit-
,veer compared them.)—They correspond.
They are in the same form ?—Yes,,it is in the same form.
With Mr: Hector's hand writing to them ?—Yes, to the
precept.' t. -
During the time 'ou have attended this Court, has it been
the custom for the'Steward of the Court to nominate the Jury ?
--=Yes, it has, been.
After the _Jury have been ,sworn, and are.to consider their
presentment,bas it been the custom for the Steward to remain
with the Jury.—Alway§ ?
Ir.
JUSTIC BUIIROUGH—You have not asked whether
the Mayor was sworn.
Mr. IV/ErtEwETHER—When you were at the Court in Janu-
ary, 1822; did you see Mr. Jolliffe.sworn?—Yes.
Mr. JUSTICE BURROUGII.—Were the Jurors sworn at
vacao Court ?=Yes.
Do you recollect the Oath ? —Not exactly, I cannot say.
-They were all sworn ?—Yes.
Although you cannot recollect the particular terms, you can
recollect the substance ?-=They were to make true present,
iments. ,

That was the effect of it?—Yes.
Were they so s,worry in January, 1822 ?—Yes.
Was Mr. Jolliffe swcrn•as Mayor at that time ?—Yes.
During the time yoil have known the Court, has the Mayor
'been sworn in Court before the, Steward ?—Yes, he has.
Mr. ADAM—I do not know whether you put,:me to prove
that the person sworn has exercised the office.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—O no, •we will admit that.
Cross-examined Mr.GASELEE.

-Yon-do not exactly recollect the-oath ?—No.
It was to make true-presentments?—Yes.
Perhaps it was that the King's Counsel, their fellows, and
their own, they should keep secret "?,-Yes, it was.
'Mr. AnAm. —That is a question for the Judge.
Mr. Serjeant PELL.--It is a question we ask your own wit-
mess ; if it is not true you can prove the-contrary.
Mr. GAsELEE—After the Jury have been. sworn, and the
charge delivered, every body is turned out of the room ?
Yes, the by-standers.
Air. Justice Buitgou&st—Turned: out of what room ?
The Hall, while the Jury were preparing their presentment.
The Jury made their presentment in the Cdurt ?—Yes.
.And the Jury remained in the Court?—Yes.
'And the Steward remained in the Cotirt ?—Fes.
Mr. GASELEE—Is there any adjournment of the Court while
that is going on ; is there a proclamation that it is adjourned ?
—There is a proclamation that the people are to retire while the
Jury aro considering their presentment.
And then the Court is opened again and the persons arc ad-
mitted ?—Yes.
Does the Steward then ask' the jury whether these are their
,presentments?—Yes, he does.
Does he put the same question to them as the Clerk of Assize
does that they are content that they shall be altered as to mat-
• ter of form is presented to the Steward by the Foreman. •
Does the Steward say, are these Our presentments, and you.
agree that, the Court shall alter 'them as to form receives
-the Presentment, and asks, them, is this Our presentment ? or
• warns to that 'effect.
Does he go on to say,—they are your presentments, and are you
,content that the Court shall alter them in point of form ?-1
do not recollect that.
Haveyou attended-regularly ?—Yes.
I observe, upon looking at some of these presentments, the
names are filled up afterwards ; the names are in a dill rent
. hand-writing ?—Yes.
So that the presentments are prepared in blank before-the
Court is held.?..--Yes.
In whose Office is that prepared ?—ln Mr. Nectar's.
In the Office of the Steward ?,-It has been settled before the
--Court ha:s. assembled.
What do you mean by saying they are prepared in blank,—we
~,present so and so to be MMlayort such a one to be Constable,

blank tote tithing man, and we present so and so Bailiff ?
All the Officers.

They are in blank ?—Yes.
All that the Jury have to do is to fill up the names that have
been left in blank ?—Yes.

And th;se.liefilledWby Mr. Hector, the steward ?-They
are generally tilled up by him-; I have sometimes filled them
up.
Have you attended The Jary ?—Yes, for some years when I
first attended the Court.

'When you have attended, have you remained with the Jury ?
—Yes; I and 3lr. Hector wt re the only, two persons that re-
mained ; I have been there as many as four or five times.

The Mayor is the returning officer of the Borough ?—Yes.
You were clerk to Mr. Hector fifteen years P—l es.
Did you know. Petersfield before ?—\ es.
How long have you known Peterstield P—l suppose four or
five and twenty years. "
Did you know Mr. William Jolliffe ?—I do not know whe-
ther he was alive then or nit.

,1)o you remember his being Member for the Borough ?—I
dd not.
Mr. Hylton Jolliffe his been Member for it ever since you
remember it ? Yes.

And the other Member some person recommended by him ?
Mr. ADAm.—llow can that question be asked?
Mr. Justice gURROIT GII.—ThAt is not'the way to put it.

Mr. GASELEE.—Upon cross-examination I have a right to
plait in that way.
Mr. Justice BuitnouGn.—No; you have not.
Mr. GASELEE.—IIas not the other Memberbeen a •person
recommended, by him, do you know that ?—No, I do not.
Mr. Justice ItunitouGili—He does not know it, it is very
likely ; suppose it was so, how does that affect the choice of,
Mayor? _ ,

Mr. Serjeant PELL.—We will only ask a question about
the Jury.

Mr. UXasr•.LEE.—The person summoned ,upon the Jury in
1822, Ore " John ENleeres ' do you know whether he held any
property of Mr. Jollifte ?--I know he pays .a quit rent on a
lease.

Does William Blunt hold any property, or pay any quit
rent to Mr: Jolliffe,?—Yes, he does.

Which ?—He rents land of Mr. Jollife.

Mr. Thomas Sewell; does he rent any land under Mr.
Jolliffe ?--Nes ; in the same way as Mr. Meeres ; he pays rent.
Is it leasehold or freehold ?,—Leasehold•
Mr. John Small; has he any property ?—His house is lease-
hold; he pays a rent to Mr. Jolliffe; the house belongs to his
father;

Mr. Serjeant PELL.—They live together.
Mr. GASE LEE.—Mr. Francis Bartlett; has he any proper.
ty ?—lle rents a house of Mr. Jollifre.
Mr. Thomas Holland ?-His father rents a house and lands.
Does he live with his father ? —No.

Mr. Thomas Williams ?—Not any ; his house belongs to
himself.

Does he rent -any thing of Mr. Hector ?--He does rent a
small house, a tenement of Mr. Hector.-
Robert Parsons ?—Not any thing at all.
Mi. Henry Linton ?—Not, any thing at all.
Mr. Richard Eames ?—He lives in a house of Mr. Jolliffe's.
Mr. .ADA3l.—lie did not attend,
Mr. GAsELEE.—:He was summoned, but did not attend.
Mr. Justice Bu RR 0 U Gli.—These,a.re the persons summoned.
Mr. GASEL EE.—Ves ; Christopher John James Creswaller ;
does. he hold any thing under Mr. Jolliffe ?—He holds by lease,
and pays a small quit rent.
Mr. William Monday ?—He holds a house of Mr. Jolliffe.
Mr. Justice BunP.ountr.—At a rack rent ?—Yes. _

Mr. flAsEirr..—Thomas Neave ?—He does not hold any.
Mr. Thomas Figg ?-11e rents a house.
Henry Baker, son of Thomas ?—He lives in part of a house
belonging to Mr. Jolliffe.
James Moore ?-lle lives in his own house.

Does he pay any thing to Mr. Jolliffe ?—A small quit rent.
He has a leasehold and pays a quit rent ?—Yes.
Mr. Justice BURROUGIL—Upon lease ?—Yes ; for nice
hundred years.
Mr. Serjeant PELL.—We do not put this as a species of in-
terest that would warp their judgment, but it is an ingredient
in the case, and must form part of it. .
Mr. Justice Bultll oil oll.—lt cannot go to the right.
Mr. GASELEE.—WiIIiam Ashford ?—He rents a small field
of Mr. Jollitte:

Re-exami nod by Mr. MEREWETHER.
Q. We have heard before that Mr. Joni& has a great deal
of property at Peterslield :—A. Yes.
Is there scarcely a person there that does not pay a quit-rent
to him in some way or other?—Very few.

Anti many of those are held upon long leases ?—Yes, nine
hundred years, or something like that.
You have stated, that Baker holds something ; I understand
that is a mistake ?—He lives in the end of a house belonging to
somebody else. .
You have stated that as to the officers to be presented the
presentment was in blank ?—Yes.
The Jury presented other things besides the officers?-=Yes.
And those would be added to the others ?—Yes.

Mr. Serjcant PEI.J.--Yoti,do not mean to ask that serious-
ly— here are the presentments.
Mr. Justice Bu u ROUGH.—They may present any thing they
please : they may present a gutter out of repair : they may pre-
sent night-walkers, if they.like.
Mr. ADAM.—Any thing in the nature of a nuisance.
.Mr. GASELF.E.—Is Mr. Jolliffe at all resident at
Petersfield ?--Ile has a house in Petersfield.

•
Does he live in it ever ?-1-re keeps a servant there.
• - - _

When he came down to Peterlield to the election, did he live
there or sleeii at the inn ?-:-.He slept at the inn, I believe.
'When lie came down to be elected ?—Yes.

Does not he live at Merstham, in the county of Surrey ?—Yes,
Merstham or Ryegate.
You say he has a,house in which he has a servant, did he
ever reside there ?—He has, never slept there to my knowledge.
I have seen him there ; but I do not know that he ever slept there.
Have you seerNahn there ?—Yes.
Once or more ?—Half a dozen times.

Mr ADAK.—IIe never slept there that he knows.
Mr. GASELEE.—Do_you knot; whether he took his meals
there ?---i do not know as to that ; I have seen him there. '
What have you seen him doing ?—Sorting his writings, and
doing such sort of things ; I have seen him doing that.
Mr. Thomas Shoell sworn.—Examined by Mr. ADAM.
Q. How old are you ?—A. Sixty-eight..
How long have you known Petersfield ?—I was brought up
there ever since I was six months old.

Have you known it all your life ? Yes.
Did you ever serve the office of Mayor ?—No.
Did your father ?—Yes.
Have you ever been upon the Leet-Jury?—Yes, often.
How tar back were you upon the Leet-Jury P—Five-and-
forty years ago.
When you first knew Petersfield, who used to summon the
Jury to the Leet`?—The same as it is now.
Mr. Serjeant PE LL.—Then it is of course in writing--; they
cannot shew what is done without producing the precept.
Mr. ADA3I.—Is your father dead ?—Yes.
Did you ever hear your father say who warned the Leet-
Jury ?—No, not particularly.
Have you ever heard any other person say so ?
Mr. Serjeant PELL.—That will not do.
Mr. Justice Bu RROUGH.—What day was the Court holden ?
—The seventeenth of January.
In every year ?
Mr. Serjeant PELL.—There is no dispute upon that.
Mr. Justice BURRO UGH.—You admit that?

Mr. Serjeant PELL,—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BtatitouGH.—The Jury were sworn.
Mr. Serjeant PELL.—I have got sufficient now to raise the
question of law; Islia.ll give my Learned Friend very little
trouble. , .

Mr.,Anam.—When you were summoned to serve upon the
Jury was any paper sliewn to you ?—The list of the Bailiff.
Mr. Justice Buaßouctz.—lt comes to nothing—it proves
nothing; you have got the presentments since the year 1803.
Mr. ADAM.—I want to carry it back to 1763.
Mr. Justice BURROiTGH.—The 'Jury may presume that.

Mr. ADAM.—That is our case.

Mr. Serjeant PELL.-..-Gentlemen of the Jury—. This will be
a question of law after you shall have decided upon the facts,
and a most important one it is I will venture to say that
there has not been tried at these' Assizes, nor will there be
round this, Circuit, nor has there been during many Assizes, a
more important case than the one which is now before you. I
conceive it to be so important a question that I shall seek, with
iny Lord's leave and yours, to put it. upon the Record in the
most formal,shape imaginable, that it may be ultimately de-
cided by the highest Tribunals ; and although, Gentlemen, the
course has been sometimes to treat with an air of levity a ques-
tion of this description, because to some persons it is not a very
agreeable topic, I shall take leave to say, that it is impossi-
ble to' discuss a subject of more general interest, and involving
in it more important consequences. Gentlemen, I think my
Learned Friend a little wandered out of his course when he in-
troduced the name of the .respectable Gentleman who, as he
states, is the prosecutor of the present information, Mr. Atehe-
son. If any of you happen to know him, you will go along
with me in agreeing that a more respectable man cannot be
found. My Learned Friend says, that till the year 1318 the
peace of this Borough had not been disturbed, when Mr. Atche-
son came down for an electioneering purpose. This is .the sort
of observation that we are constantly in the habit of hearing
at the present day. Let any man attempt to set that right
which he considers wrong, and which is in fact wrong, lie is,
however absurd and illegal the object of his attack may be,
immediately stigmatized as a digturber of the public peace, and
invader of privatz rights. Gentlemen, we all hear so muc
• h

of tbis sort of observation that we cannot be surprised that
men are to be found in this kingdom to support a system in-
consistent with the first principles of the Constitution under
which we live ; no man would more strenuously oppose inno-
vation than myself ; but, in my opinion, he is the best benefac-
tor of his country who brings back as faras he can, in a peace-
able and legitimate manner, things to that original state,
whereby law and justice, and above all constitutional law, are
to be maintained. Gentlemen, I am not one of those who would
wish to break in upon the law of the land.- I am contending
for the law of the land, and the difference between me and my
Learned Friend upon This subject is, that he is endeavouring to
support, in opposition to the law of the land, what I observed
with great point my Learned Friend Mr. Merewether calls a
custom,—as if the word custom would carry this question. It
is not because the witness chose to speak of the custom of the
Borough, that therefore it became a custom in the legal Sen,se
of that word. I will venture to say, that there is nothing which
has done more mischief in this kingdom, and introduced greater
confusion, than the perverting that which is mere usage into
that which is called. custom., There is another principle that
has been pressed heretofore to an extent, that has done as much
mischief; namely, that a Jury may presume that, because a
thing has been done for a few years, it has therefore always
been done. Gentlemen, there is nothing in the administration
of justice-more dangerous than the confounding of terms. If
I speak of a custom, I speak of that which is supposed to have
its origin infinitely beyond the time of any living witness, and
running back into a remote period of antiquity. I speak of
that which is reasonable in its nature, and consistent with the
circumstances and legal principles of early times. 'lf it can be
shewn, that that which I call custom is not consistent
with the principles of law or equity prevalent at any time,
it is not custom, but usurpation and illegal usage. Al-
though I do not mean to fatigue my Lord or you with going'
into authorities at any great length, I have now lying before
me, in verylate eases, the opinions and judgmentsof the Judges
of the land with reference to this doctrine of presumption, and
it is now admitted that the Courts of Law have gone hitherto
very far upon that supposed principle of presumption in favour
of practice ; and in the last case in which that point was
touched upon, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench
expressly stated, that in his opinion the doctrine of presump-
tion had gone a great deal too far.
Now, Gentlemen, let me apply these principles to the pre-
sent case. The questions you will have to decide are these—first,
What is the custom of the Borough of Petersfield as to the
mode in which the beet Jury is constituted ? the second will
be, What is the custom of the Borough of Petersfield as to the
manner in which that Jury has discharged its several duties—
in other *orris, can the Steward, or the clerk of the Steward,
be shut up with the Leet Jury when they are exercising their
functions ?

Gentlemen, let ree take the first question. The proposition
on the other side is, that the mode of constituting the Leet Jury
is by precept issued to the Bailiff of the Borough, and the Bailiff
of the Borough is to return—what ? a certain number of per-
sons mentioned by the Steward of the Lord of the Manor.
They say, by the custom of the Borough, that is the mode by
which, under which, and through which. the Jury is to be con-
stituted.; there we are at issue. I say that is not the custom ;
for I say that that is not law, and 1 contend that that which is,
not legal cannot, in any shape be custom. Gentlemen, I ant
not meaning to argue that, or pushing it beyond the length ne-
cesiary to enable you to give your verdict upon the facts of the
case, but I must make myself understood. You cannot apply
your minds to the facts of the case with the view 1 have, unless
I impress upon you the distinct view I have of the case. You
ate to be satisfied of this, that there is that custom. The first
'requisite of a custom is, that it should be reasonable, because a
custom rests upon legal principles ; and if it is not reasonable it
cannot, I apprehend, speaking as a Lawyer, it cannot be a
custom; the law will not tolerate any thing that is unreason-
able,—that is quitetlear. Now, what is the next requisite ? it
must have a reference back to time ; I will mention hundreds
of years, but it rests upon the presumption that the constitu-
tion of the place from its earliest period was governed by it.
Now, what is the custorn-here ? they conceive that the custom
here is, that the Steward of the Lord of the Manor of Peters-
field is to issue his
:precept to the Bailiff of the Borough of
Petersfield, and by that precept he is to summon a certain num-
ber of persons to form the Leet Jury, and then they go on and
say, that by the custom of Petersfield the Steward May tiomi-
nate the very persons whom the Bailiff: is tusummon. Now, I
do say that this involves in it a' manifest. contradiction—that it
is absurd end' illegal—that it is contrary to the first principles
of law—that if, instead of a usage of twenty years, it had been'
supported by a usage of eight hundred years, that still would
not have done. Only see what 'this is, and what the conse-
quences are, and I shall trouble you with nothing more upon
the subject; the Jur yinet solely for the purpose of appointin
a Mayor—that is the admission of my Learned Friend—and
that the Mayor, when chosen, has nothing to do but to execute
the office el Returning Officer at the Election for the Borough
of Petersfield. What an absurdity all this is--Petersfield
that has a Mayor and no Corporation—you see that every
stage and step. of this .business involves in it that which
is contradictory to the principles of that branch of the law.
My Learnd Friend states there is a Mayor, but there is
no Corporation. I see Mr. Merewether smiling, and I
will not forget a very excellent treatise of his now lying
before me, and whichl shall use as part of my address to you.
I am always happy to have the rays of his smiles upon me—l
see how he is struck, as if I had pronounced the greatest pos-
sible absurdity—a Corporation and -no Mayor, or a Mayor and
no Corporation; but here is Petersfield governed by a Mayor,
chosen at a Court Leet, having no residence there, no duty
to discharge except that which Mr. Jolliffe-thinks the most
valuable, making the return of Members to serve in ParliaMent
—ve'ry valuable no doubt it is. lam not surprised to find my
Learned Friend contending so Rarnestly for this very valuable
private right. It is a valuable righteand every body who dis-
turbs it, whether Mr. Ateheson or any other Gentleman, is a
disturber of the peace. Mr. Jolliffe having had the returning
of the Members ever since 1793 is alarmed that any body should
attempt to take it from him. As Mr. Jolliffe -is anxious to
preserve all-his other private rights, no doubt he is anxious to
maintain this which is his most valuable right, but what an ab-
solute absurdity itis,—one should almost blush in a Court of Law
tts speak on such a subject. The Jury, who are sworn to dis-
charge a public duty, and yet nominated and selected by the
individual who has a private interest to preserve—an interest in-
consistent with the only duty which the person who is to be se-
lected by the Jury has, as it is said by them, to perform. It is
a perfect mockery.
Aft.. ADAM—Your Lordship hinted to me that these were
considerations that were not fit for the Jury, and therefore I
rather feel myself aggrieved that my learned Friend should
enter into them now.

Mr. Justice BURROUGH—The question was the "point of
fact, and it is upon the record.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—My argument is, that there is no
custom in point of fact.
. Mr. Justice By RROUGH—You allege that it is an illegal
custom in point of fact, you want a special verdict. '
Mr. Setjeant PELL—That is what wish.
Mr. ADAM—There is no objection to that.
Mr. GASELEE—We want something more than that single
fact; we want the fact whether it could ever have existed.

Mr. ADAN—I had no opportunity of stating my view of the
subject to the Jury.
Mr. Justice BETRIIOUGii—I must tell the Jury my opinion
upon the facts proved.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—I know how this has happened ; my
Learned Friend has had no opportunity of expatiating upon it,
because he expected I should call witnesses.
Mr. ADAst—l ask the Gentlemen of the Jury whether his
Lordship did not stop me and say it was for the Court above to
decide those points. . . .

Mr. Serje;nt PELL-1 have no objection to hearing my
Learned Friend.

Mr. Justice BURRO UGH—Make your observations now.
Mr. ADAM—It is hardly possible for me to do that.
Mr. Justice BußnoupH-1 thought both of you had agreed
that it was fit it should be a question of Law, you may move
the Court and have afterwards a special verdict.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—I could never be supposed to admit
there was a custom.

Mr. Justice BURROUGH—You may move the Court upon
the facts, and if the Court think .it right you shall have a special
verdict. •

Mr. Serjeant PELL—There is something tbr the Jury to do;
I cannot give up the advantage 1 have of addressing the Jury
again.
Mr. ADAM—Then see the disadvantage under which I shall
labour. Gentlemen, it is with very great relinctance I present
myself to you again, but you will recollect'that the opinion of
his Lordship stopped me in the course of the observations I was
about to pursue ; and again, you will also recollect, that from
another intimation from the Learned Judge, sanctioned as I
also understood by my Learned Friend, that the course of evi-
dence carried back to 1801 was sucient, if uncontradicted, to
authorize any Jury to say that what had existed for 20 years
uncontradicted by any evidence on the other side, had existed
from the earliest time. In this part of the case I need do no
more than refer to the ordinary findings of Juries upon ques-
tions of right alleged to have existed from the time of legal
memory. You are daily instructed to find that the evidence
of twenty years is sufficient to say that what has existed for
twenty years uncontradicted must have existed from the time
of legal memory. Gentlemen, as far as I can make my obser-
vations consistent with the course followed by my Learned
Friend, I shall e ideavour to satisfy you that this custom, this
usage, has not only prevailed in the Borough of Petersfield in
all times, but that it is a reasonable and laudable custom. Let
us see the absurdities my Learned Friend relies tipon as
being sufficient to shew that this course cannot be pursued :
but film is one point upon which I must set myself right.

I never stated this was a private right ' I ask you if
this, which my Learned Friend repeated over and over
again, was sanctioned by any thing I stated to you. I
stated that Mr. Atcheson had disturbed the peace of the
Borough • can any body sieny that the Borough of Peters-
field has been a scene of contention for two contested Elections ?
but does it follow that Mr. Atcheson, pursuing what he had% as
much right to do, as far as my opinion goes, as any man in Eng-
land, is it a fair conclusion, from my stating, that Mr.Atcheson
had disturbed the peace of the town, by what he had done and
given rise to this discussion, after the same cause had subsisted
for so long a time—is it fair to say, that I stated that Mr. At-
cheson was a disturber of Mr. Jolliffe's private rights--they are
not private rights, they are public rights, but whether they are as
important as my Learned Friend wishes you to take them, I will
not say,—no man can say I applied my observations to private
property. The first question to have recourse to is the legality
of the Steward nominating the Jury. My Learned Friend has
told you the opinion of the Judges ; but did he state the cir-
cumstances of the case ? did he enable any one ()fps to say how
the circumstances applied ? does my Learned Friend mean to say
that that was a rule laid down for all cases, and applicable to
every state of facts ? I say no man has ever denied this, that
from a uniform course of usage proved as far back as living
memory can go, and I should have proved it twenty years far-
ther back than I did.

Mr. Serjeant PELT.-I will not interrupt you, but do not let
it be supposed you have been stopped by me in proVing any
thing.
Mr. ADAM—His Lordship stopped me.
Mr. Justice BURROUGII—I certainly conceived it wonld
have been a question of law. I had no idea of this arising, in
this way. I thought it had been a question of law upon the
face of the record.

Mr. Serjeant PELL—No, my Lord ; that it would be ulti-
mately.
Mr. ADAM—Now let us see what is the evidence as to the
nomination of the Jury by the Steward. I admit there is no-
thing to be done in this case by the Mayor, except as the re-
turning officer. There is nothing here stated to shew that the
act of the returning officer is the act of the Sitting Member.
There is nothing ;that can enable him to infringe the vote of
one single person ; he must make a return of the Member
elected. If he is only to execute the office of returning
officer, where is the objection to the Jury being . named by ,
the Steward ? What is my Learned Friend's proposition on
the other side? He stated at one time there was an incon-
gruity, an inconsistency and absurdity upon the very face of
the precept by which the Bailiff was ordered to summon all
the resiants, and then that the particular names were given who'
were to be the Jury ? In ancient times the Steward was a man of
education; the Bailiff of the Manor is taken from the lowest
class of persons, and his judgment could be very little entitled
to that trust my Learned Friend wishes for. If we are to take
the plainest mode of Election, would you have it made by the
Bailiff, Constable, or Tything-man, you would certainly have
it made by the higher man, and not the lower man. But is
there any absurdity in the Steward doing this, because he is
the Steward of the Lord ? the Leet was originally taken out
of the Sheriffs torn. Who chooses the Jury of the Sheriff ? The
Sheriff. Who presides ? the Sheriff: I submit that you are to
consider this as it is—the case of a 6ourt Leet ; it is a Court
'of Justice ; it is a Court that may decide upon very important
rights—rights not affecting Mr. Jolliffe any more than his te-
nants. My Learned Friend would have you suppose that this
Court Leet had nothing to do but to appoint the Mayor of Pe-
tersfield ; it is true the Mayor has nothing to do but to return
the Members to Parliament, but the Court Leet may have very
important functions. But they would have the Jury chosen
by the Bailiff. Who is the Bailiff ?—The Bailiff himself is cho-
sen by this very Court Leet ; so that my Learned Friend
wishes, for the purity of the Court Leet, the chocising of the
Jury to be put into the hands of the Bailiff, who himself has an
interest,that the Jury shall return him as Bailiff again ; if he
does not choose people who shall follow his own views, there is
an end to his existence as Bailiff. If there is no inference to be
drawn from that, I say the Steward is much the most fit person.
I say, somebody there must be to select the Jury.—The ques-
tion is, whether it is to be the Bailiff or the Steward. My rea-
son induces me to think, and to say, that the Steward should be
the person. and not the Bailiff. The only other point is the
propriety of the Steward remaining with the Jury.—My Learn-
ed Friend has not yet said any thing upon that subject : there-
fore I have not the advantage of knowing the way in which he
meant to argue the case ; but you will recollect in the course
of the examination some stress was laid upon this, that the pre-
sentm •nts were drawn up somewhere else, and blanks left for
the names of the Mayor and the other officers : therefore, I
presume the inference to be, that there is no occasion for the
Steward remaining with the Jury, because there is nothing to
be done. That is a very great mistake. It may be that no
circumstances have occurred in a particular year, upon which it
is necessary for the Jury to come to a presentment ; but we
know this, that they do, and may, make presentments, which,
if they be not traversed at the time the Court is sitting, cannot
be traversed at ail; therefore, I submit there is quite a's much
occasion for the Steward to attend the Jury, although the pre-
sentment may have been prepared in blank,—it is prepared out
of Court to save the time of the Jury, not supposing any thing
out of the common way will happen. If there is any thing that
does happen, the Steward is there to render them that assist-
ance which is necessary. But now I want to know where there
is any thing illegal in this—supposing they are sworn t 3 keep
their own and the King's counsel: I want to know where there
is any thing illegal in the presence of the Steward—the officer
of the court—the Judge, who is afterwards to preside in the
Court,—is there any thing illegal in that? I submit to you,
that the presence of the officer is a matter of no importance
whatever—that the security of the public is the security which
the inhabitants, within the jurisdiction of the Court-Leet, have,
for that being done which ought to be done, and no more,—
that punishment is sure to follow if an officer exceeds the bounds
of his duty,—that his being present there to assist the Jury in
matters of form, not interfering with their deliberations upon
matters of fact, is not illegal, and is attended with very great
convenience. I have only this other observation to make : I
know not how my Learned Friend will shape his case, but I
state to you, that there can be nothing illegal in that being done
here which is done elsewhere—there can be no improper con-
duct which would not be brought to punishment. Upon these
grounds, I hope you are satisfied that such has been the usage,
by the evidence we have laid before you, and what I shall ad-
duce, if his Lordship thinks it necessary,—that it has been pur-
sued so long, and that there is nothing that can justify you in
saying it is illegal or unreasonable, or a custom which ought not
to be allowed. I am sorry that this misunderstanding has made
it necessary for me to address you again. I was in hopes this
cause would have been finished 'ere now. If it was my fault, I
am sorry for it ; but 1 am sure you will not Allow that to pre-
judice the interests of my client.
Mr. Serjeant YELL.—Gentlemen of the Jurv—
Mr. ADAM.-4 can carry back the evidence -for twenty years.
Thomas Shoell called again..—Examined Mr MERE-
WETHER.

Q. You have lived in Peterfield all your lifetime, and have
been in the habit of attending the Courts-Lett ?—A. Yes.
When you have been on the Jury, has the Stewardxemained
with the Jury ?—Yes.
From the earliest time ?—Yes. •
Mr Justice punitquox.—He has said so before.
Mr. ADAM.—Now we have done.
Mr. GAST:LEE.—It must be in writing—we cannot take that
fact.
Mr. Justice Bymtouou.—What ? that the Steward retired
with the Jury ?
Mr. GASELEE.—No ; we do not dispute that.
Mr. Justice BURROUGII.-42. There was a Court-Leet in
those days, and the Jury made their presentments ?—A. Yes.
The Mayor was always elected at the Court-Lcet ?—Yes.
Mr. GASELEE.—We do not deny that.
Mr. Serjeant PELL.—Gentlemen, Mr. Jolliffe cannot com-
plain that he has not had every opportunity afforded him that
Justice required. He cannot complain that there has been any
misunderstanding by which he has been deprived of any ad-
vantage. My Learned Friend. has been heard after I had in
part addressed you, and has called witnesses back again—and
he may call, as many more as he likes. He has now a declared
opportunity of calling any more witnesses he pleases, if my
Lord thinks it rig it. Do not let me be told hereafter, at any
thing has been left out which Mr. Jolliffe could have proved.
I now come to the point at which I left off when 1 last ad-
dressed you ; I thought I was right that the issue is whether
this, which they now contend ought to be, the Law of Pe-
tersiield, has been so from time immemorial ; you will there-
fore have to say by your. verdict whether, upon this evidence,
you are satisfied of that. My Learned Friend has stated his
reasons why he thinks that you have had evidence before you
sufficient to warrant it. I meet'him upon these premises—they
are what I was arguing, for nothing is more improper than to
throw a'cause away by words when facts alone ought to guide
your judgment; what is it to tell me, that because a practice
has obtained for• eighteen years, that therefore it warrants the
conclusion that it has been so from time immemorial. I ask
you, and I put it to you, whether in your consciences you are
satisfied that it amounts to proof of that fact ? there is no law
which says it amounts to that proof. It is for you to say, whe-
ther it is so. My Learned Friend says, if he carshow that it
his prevailed for 20 years, you are to presume it has always
existed ; I deny that, it is a legal impossibility, except under
certain modifications, one of which is that there is nothing upon
the face of the right claimed that repels that presumption. I
say there is more than enough to repel it k here is a thing so un-
reasonable, I can only refer it to the practice of 'modern
times that the thing has prevailed at all. Now let us see
his argument, that twenty years' possession will give a
man a right. Will it ? What is it in the case of a modus
for instance, which from itself is unreasonable—a pay-
ment given in respect of tithes ? We shall be told that proof of

that having taken place for 100 years is sufficient. Is the Pree
that it has taken place for 100 years legal evidence to repel s;
contrary presumption, and to enable you to say that it hag eof
isted from the time of Richard the First, which is the datess
all custom or immemorial usage ? My Learned Friend leil°;,
as well as I do, and both my Learned Friends with him kn',
that it is the common argument against that species of Pan,
ment, that it is from the payment itself of a nature unktasevi
able, and therefore it is not to be presumed that it has aln,
prevaileds I speak of, the case of a rank modus; and why iS,If
presumption against it? Why, because the thing is in crest
unreasonable, and therefore r illy we are not at times like tnel
to be carried away with this general and sweeping prinsiFle*
f
take leave to say that, because a. thing has prevailed for 11'3
years, if the Jury are to infer it has always prevailed, there
an end of some of the best established rights in the Kingdom,
We all know, in the History of our Country, how far this .te,
been pressed. Ido not want to go into a parade of Corist:i
tional or legal history. We know that it has been atternPu'hes
all times to establish this preposterous rule—preposterous ,e 5,
carried to the length I sometimes see it attempted. I will fedi
Lure to say, without the slightest hesitation, if there be norief
positive rule against this, there never was in the History of sefi
Body Corporate, with respect to a right of this description, 5° $
evidence as this offered to prove an
O immemorial usage or
custom in the mere legtimate sense f the word.
Gentlemen, what is it
we have presented to us ? a questi°rit'
resting simply upon what has been done in the last twerli,
years. My Learned Friend cannot complain that he has heed
deprived of an opportunity of calling any witness ; you have,
Mr. Cannon, and Mr. Seward, the clerk of the present. 'hat
ward : and what do those witnesses prove ? They tell yea "rile
that, which now• they say is to prevail, has prevailed from
year .1802. Good GOD, I never heard any ; and I will so,n,stert
to say, there never was heard of such a case as this in a
of Justice to prove an immemorial usage. My Liarned
was afraid he should not have an opportunity again ofdssi
ducing Mr. Atcheson's name ; I know my Learned Frien ,
not mean to say any thing unpleasant of Mr. Atcheso9 'sa
know he respects that Gentleman ; nothing on earth, he visits
say, could be supposed to be offensii e to him ; but let it t.,1
remembered, as he has introduced the subject of two conte'la
Elections—(he has mentioned it, otherwise I should not)-ss
it be known, that in consequence of what Mr. Atcheson, ses
done that right which has been supposed to *be 'the establiis
right •
Mr. ADAM.—I must object to this.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH.—Itis not a fair argument. .4
Mr. ADAM —I have said nothing, which in any construclss
can be offensive to Mr. Atcheson ; he is one of the last per'
I can suppose to have done wrong.
Mr. Serjeant PELT..—What I was saying is, that in tso
sequence of Mr. Atcheson's interference there have been r
contested Elections ; my Learned Friend has said it, °,,s
should not have talked about them ; and I forbear t° he,
what I was about to say, as to, the result • of them, or ILo
ther the town has or not obtained' any benefit frog)
But I ask you upon what principle are you to deterT
that the immemorial usage has been for the Stoent"sse
nominate the Jury ? Upon what has been done, since ale
year 1802, you have nothing more produced to you hYesse
management of the able Gentleman who condu.ts this re•
on behalf of the Lord of the Borough; than merely these ll) of
' sentments • the papers offered in evidence by the Cler,asS
the Steward, who is now dead. He carries it down to s 0
and the Steward, who is now alive and in Court, theloi,
not dare to call as a witness before you to shew the ecihire
tution of' the Borough. Why? 'What is the reason ?,,weg•
is Mr. Hector ? in court. Not callicL—why ? There lorsstot
thing or other that would have been obtained from ?Ir. .-ssi•
if he had been put into the box, that renders it in point po
dente and, discretion right, he should not' be presented bora
you. Did any men in their susses ever hear of the serose
being called to prove a fact of which the master was the, die
competent witness? Gentlemen, that is not all ; where o'seisS
Court Rolls before the year 1802 ? where are the presentTriat•
before the year 1802 ? All locked up in Mr. Hector's 7 of
or, perhaps, at this moment in Mr. Hector's bag he'll!' aese
Learned Friend. Where are these mighty instruments to sp.
this usage? We have heard of a green bag; I dare saY•O it
Hector's is a very large one ; but he has not any thing is,:
that can shew any thing beyond these wretched presentillApoo
the earliest of which is 1802. Why is this scheme played o this
us ? :Now let me see what this notable paper is, upon whiciAalet
presumption is to rest.. " The Court Lest of Hylton Jq:b 01
Esq. of the Manor of the Borough, Township •and
Petersfield"—first, they present all former Byes Laws and 0
nances—then they direct, order, ai:d ordain, that no Perna so
persons shall hereafter drive any cart, timber waggon, theon, within this Borough, Towns'iip, or Parish, wllersea's
pitching thereof shall be injured, under the penalty En
to be paid to the Lord; then they present, order, and °est or
that no person or persons shall hereafter leave any fhe 10'
carriage on the King's highway in this Borough,' Under e
nalty of ss. to be paid to the Lord. So that now }which the,
that the Lord by his Steward is to appoint a Jury,
111,0'4
is:to make a Law, by which he is to be benefited, Nowge fir
thing be more monstrous than that—is it not against 00'
principle of Law ? Canyon conceive any thing ilwriage°'
ih
vagant ? See what the Office of Steward is—he is the St te
the Court.—What ! the Judge of the Court—to nonnna,
Jury ? Can my Learned Friend seriously suppose ;or .a leb,°
ment that such an' argnment can stand—that toe Stews 0y
may be consider,d a sensible man, (and Mr. Hector tit;ea
considered so not chusing to be examined toalay); i 9
more competent person to select aJury than an ignorant
_spe 0
—it may be so; but I shall take leave to say, that the g'rsd
Law of the Land is that the Bailiff is te
he proper
Yet ,ur
pthild
tIo shouldpo
sses
shumbly
i dc ogi7 e
enoughivetht f tolri thet
presumes he has enough to do that—to shew that it soso„,so
mention the case of the King versu; Bilighatn,
the
of East's Reports, 308 ; and I only mention it to prove tan°`s•
Bailiff of a Court Leet, being a prescriptive officer, has l"
to summon and select the Jury.
Mr. Justice BURROUGH—I know that case very
moved it. • e
slier In the
thl3aatdpitifirpisoses
particular instance Mr. Hector, the St ewa d of the Lord
• Mr. Serjeant PELL—The question here is,
Manor of the Borough of Petersfield, is, either from lugae'
nature, or the the nature of his work, supposed to be %eels'
more wise, that no.other person shall have, in that F.
place, a particular power.
Gentlemen, I was about to mention to Till, that I derl, jll
inw
h thesd yooif_
fi
knowledge from valuable books of the principle for whiciarsc.
now contending, that usage does not infer imimernotisti4
Lice where there is any thing to repel it, either front -the shice
of the thing itself or from direct proof. The treatise :1:15 is tlt,
I allude as part of my address to you was thuS :" if spec('
rule in the Courts of Common Law where the que,tion rr so
private rights between parties having conflicting intere'sressre
where the possession of one, if he has irot the right/ •arell°'
poses the exclusion of another who has the risht, pee:
supineness in claiming it affords the strongest possi basSla
sumption against him and in favour of the person wilt; $lOO,
sessed the matter in dispute, how much more stronglysaeSi
this rule prevail in questions as to the Elective franchise,
the conflict is between the public good and the comme°oo
therSe
on the one hand, and private interest and influence on the red th
I only wish that the Learned Gentleman who has faTsaelv'
public with his treatise, had added as a note to it, tha sive
tersfichl case is the strongest proof of the truth of du' r
sition ; but that is not all. 'sfier
Mr. Justice BURROUGH—What book is that? 't
Mr. Serjeant PELL—I am afraid almost to mention
this
Mr. Justice BunnotiGH-0 yes, state it. o°o'
Mr. Serjeant PELL—II is from Mr. Merewether's
of Mr. Jolliffe's Counsel. , at
Mr. Justice BURROUGU—He did not Send it to me aka
Mr. Serjeant PELL—It is wonderful how light '0 of tto
upon us: besides the insidious and cautious progreare 01:3;
intrigues which step by step eventually secure the e.,ril $
trol of a Borough, is often too well disguised to roue
tention of those who are finally diSpossessed by it." see 11,es
most sensible and excellent observation, and ri,l
strongly it applies to the case before you. Now, 6e stele,/
my Learned Friend calls upon you to presume that teatleE
makes a fair nomination ; I call upon you for a differalis
sumption ; 1 ask you, under all the circumstances of _tie tly
they not having ventured to call the very nun who to; 000,
selection, whether you do not believe the selection "tt,eaf°o
for those purposes which my Learned Friend puts Insfiestof
because, if they were not, why on earth did not Mr. P
I am willing to be put into the box.
F. WILLIAMS-80 he does. doej"
Mr. Serjeant PELL—My Learned Friend says " s°
Late in the day indeed st'
Mr. Hector—You might have called me. this o
Mr. Serjeant PELL—There is a little feeling 11P° tor ch
id
of the case. But do they imagine I will put Id r. neeises-ersslo
the box ; No, no, lam very much obliged to 600101
Friend. This is a case of presumption,—the prestopPtbis
tot
the object Mr. Hector had in view when he name", this, son
to elect Mr. Jolliffe, I leave you to draw ; but I kil°estion
if I put Mr. Hector into the box, the instant any elli.oiedio br
this point was put to him by me, it'would be said uses/J(o,oes
Mr. Hector, you are not bound answer that tl`vii 0141
cause if you did this, which Mr. Serjeant Pell IrrsejS; it t
you to have done, it would tend to criminate you re
be an illegal act if done, and you need not answer theeeteo._ol,
so that here we are on the one side and the other
tied Fri for a valuable private, no public right, and my Leads con°o4
who is to make out this case, resting upon gr•cnitliie dark' who
to the first principles of reason, is to leave you Steward'l
then complain that Ido not call his friend the ssiblY
you may be sure wado me as much harm as
lie P go onf
,Gentlemen, I was about to mention how these throbs