The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-02 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE LORD MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
LONDON V. THE HONOURABLE THE COMMISSIONERS

OF THE CUSTOMS.

In this case Mr. ADAMS last term obtained a rule,
calling upon the Commissioners of Customs to shew cause
why a mandamus should not issue, directing them to pay
over to the Lord Mayo: and Corporation of London cer-
tain sums of money received by them (the Commissioners)
as scarage on goods belonging to foreigners, imported and
exported into and from the city of London.
This morning Sir JAMES SCARLETT (assisted by Mr.
GURNEY) chewed cause against the rule. He said that
the question in this case was whether the city was en-
titled to levy scarage dues on all goods belonging to
foreigner», or only on such as belonged to foreigners
residing in the British dominions. He stated that in 1819
the dues in question amounted to 1,143/. ; and in 1827
they had increased to the sum of 6,4151. As this
increase was without any corresponding increase of trade,
the Commissioners of Customs were induced to look into
the charters under which the city claimed these dues, and
they were advised that the charters of the city were not
intended to give them the right which is now claimed,
but clearly confined their right to levy on the goods of
those foreigners residing in Britain, who were the only
persons to whom the term alien properly applied. At
the same time when this charter was granted, the trade
of this country was principally carried on by foreigners,
even the revenue was farmed out by King John to a com-
pany of foreign merchants, and in all Acts of Parliament
at that time, the foreigners residing in Britain only
had the word alien applied to them, and in
no case was it ever applied generally to foreigners.
Sir James said that the Commissioners were very anxious
to have the case investigated ; and he contended that all
the Acts of Parliament, and the charters themselves, pro-
perly construed, were in favour of his argument,—that the
city were only entitled to the dues in question on goods
belonging t 9 aliens, that is, foreigners residing in the Bri-

tish dominions. If it were decided that the city were
entitled to this duty upon the goods of all foreigners, +tom,
additional enactments would be rendered necessary—for,
by the treaties recently entered into with America and
Portugal, mmy duties were repe:ded ; but it would cans,
.iue surprise to the subjects of these Governments, if they
wet e called upon to pay much more than formerly, and that
in a way not well understood by them.
Mr. ADAMS, in support of the rule, contended that the
city was sanctioned in their demand by their charters,
and also by usage, for since the year 1783 no alteration
,n these dues had been made. He would contend that
there was no ground for saying that the city were to be
confined to levying these dues only on the goods of alien•
residing in Britain, for the charter which originally gave
the dues gave them from all goods belonging to strangers.

Lord TENTERDEN interrupted the Learned Counsel, and
said, the Court were of opinion that the claim of the
city was well founded, and the rule must be made abso-
!me, but the question might be further investigated, if the
Commissioners would make such a return as would raise
the question.

THE KING V. THOMPSON.

In this case the ATTORNEY• GENERAL, obtained a rule
for a criminal information against the defendant, as prin.
ter and publisher of the Satirist newspaper, for a wicked
and scandalous libel on Lady Caroline Neeld, the daughter
of Earl Shaftesbury, who was married a short time ago to
the wealthy Mr. Neeld, the inheritor of the late Mr.
Ilundell's fortune.

The libel implied that the lady had brought a son into
the world soon after her marriage, and, i❑ eonsequerce
that a separation had taken place between her and her
husband.

Mr. CAMPBELL, this morning, appeared on the part of
the defendant, and admitted that the paragraph in question
was libellous in a very gross degree, and that he would
not in any way attempt to justify it. In his affidavit he
says that he received no notice of the paragraph till the
rule was served on him, when he made every reparation
in his power, namely, by stopping the circulation of the
sale of the number in which the libel appeared, and in the
next week's Paper, in the leading article, he stated that a
mistake had occurred relative to the lady in question, and
expressing his deep regret that he had been led into such
an error, calculated to give pain to the lady and her most
respectable relatives. The article concluded by hoping
that the explanation would give satisfaction to all parties,
and be considered a sufficient atonement for the mistake
into which the editor had unintentionally fallen. The
Learned Gentleman said he had shortly laid betore the
Court the facts as he had been instructed, and a'l he had
further to say was, that the defendant was willing to make
any further reparation for the injury which should be con-
sidered necessary.
The ATTORNEY-GEN:tiRAL in reply said, the gentleman
for whom he appeared, viz. the husband of the lady who
had been so grossly libelled, felt it would be quite impos-
sible to enter into any terms with the defendant.
Lord TEN-MI-JEN-Then Mr. Campbell, the rule must
be made absolute. Rule made absolute accordingly.

BAIL COURT.
CHARGE OF USURY.--.-0001):11.1 N V. WATTS.

This was an action on a bill of eachangs, drawn by
Joseph Manning on, and accepted by, the defendant,
,for
100/, and indorsed to the plaintiff.
Mr. HUTCHINSON stated the plaintiff's case, and called
witnesses to prove the defendant's hand-writing to the bill,
and his subsequent acknowledgment of it.
Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, stated that he
would be able to prove that the plaintiff had taken usurious
interest, which prevented his recovering the amount of the
bill. In November last the defendant being desirous of
purchasing a house of a person named Manning (who has
since left the country), at a price of about 7001., it was
agreed to advance Manning 100/. to complete the building.
Accordingly the 100/. bill was given by the defendant to
Manning, who applied to a respectable professional gentleman
named Kent to get him cash for it; Mr. Kent got the
plaintiff to discount it by submitting to allow the plaintiff
51; by way of interest. The bill was only to run three
months, and consequently 51. was considerably more than
the legal interest. Besides this bill, the plaintiff had an
assignment of the premises as a further security. The
defendant had, therefore, owing to Manning's leaving the
country, and the plaintiff's being in possession of the as-
signment, now the additional hardship of having this
action brought against him. The Learned Counsel, how-
ever, hoped that if he proved the plaintiff had taken more
interest than he was allowed by law, the Jury would, as
they were bound to do, give a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. John King Kent, a conveyancer, stated that in
November last Mr. Manning, the drawer of the bill, ap-
plied to him to get it discounted ; he applied to Mr. Good-
man, the plaintiff, who agreed to cash it on conditions of
receiving M. This was acceded to, and he paid witness
95/. for the bill. Witness afterwards banded the money
(minus his bill of costs, which Manning owed him) over
to Manning. The deed of assignment of the premises
was also handed to the plaintiff as a further security.
Cross. examined—Witness was a member of Gray's-Inn,
and a certificated conveyancer. His office was in Salis-
bury-street, Strand, and he resided on Lansdowne-terrace,
Lambeth. Had been a conveyancer two or three years ;
before that had been in several attorneys' offices, during a
space of two or three years. Manning applied to witness,
understanding that he could get bills discounted. Before
he was an attorney's clerk, he was a land agent at Chelms-
ford, for two or three years, and left there because the
business did not succeed. Had no recollection when he
was a bankrupt or insolvent debtor. Could not recollect
(hates. Had only been once a binkrupt. Before he lived
at Chelmsford he kept a boarding-school at Royston,
which he supposed was twelve years ago. The principal
part of his debts at Royston and Chelmsford were paid.
Before he was at Royston he was teacher in a school at
Harlow, in Essex. He had been once a bankrupt, once
an insolvent debtor, and twice in prison for debt. He
could not recollect whether it was only twice. Could not
recollect how long it was since any of those events hap-
pened, nor did he know anything about any dividend that
had been paid under his bankruptcy or insolvency.
Mr. HirrcatiNsola, in reply, hoped the Jury would not
put' any faith on the testimony of a person who had no
recollection of any one fact, except of the one he had come
to swear to. He had not even a recollection respecting
those circumstances which every honest man would have
strongly engraved on his memory.
Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up the evidence, ob-
serving that the verdict would entirely depend upon the
credit given to the testimony of Mr. Kent. If they be-
lieved that the plaintiff had only received 951. for the bill,
the transaction was usurious and the defendant was entitled
to their verdict. If they did not believe Mr. Kent, then
the verdict must be for the plaintiff.
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff
for the principal and interest, amounting to 101/. ss.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
A great number of causes were called on this morning.
En many of them the proceedings have not been followed
up since last term, and they were dismissed.

WESTWOOD V. BURKE AND ANOTHER.
This was a
question on the admission of an exceptive
which the testimony of certain witnesses ex-
amined in the cause was impugned.
i
allegation, in
Dr. LUSIIINGTON prayed that the document be allowed.
The NG's ADVOCATE mitended that the exceptive libel
was onlylrought forward to delay the proceeding. The
question was as to tie validity of the last will and codicil
of the late William S. Chancey, opposition being given on
the gr,-,la that the deceased was insane and incompetent
to execute a testementary paper. In all ninety witnesses
had been examined, and he contended that the evidence in
objection to the witnesses brought before the Court in the
exceptive allegation ought to have been before adduced, and
l before '
A
publication had pas,e'l.
Dr, nnAlkiswas heard on the same side. He thought
the
exceptive allegation could no: be admitted.

A Ware, the Property of Mr. MATHEWS, of
iVeinbury, produced a foal, on Wednesday, having only
two legs, which in a perfect horse would be called hind
leggy. There is no semblance of legs in the fore part, and
consequently the animal cannot stand. It is fed with the
hand, and appears healthy.—Plymmall Herald.

The Horticultural Fete, Chiswick, is expected
this season to be on a most splendid scale. An expecta-
tion, which appears to have some foundation, prevails,
that their MAJESTIES will honour the entertainment with
their presence. The preparations are already in active
forwardness, and the banquet will be under the superin-
tendence of Messrs. GUNTER.

Oo Tuesday se'nnight there were caught in a
small net, near the mouth of the Almond, 67 pikes at one
draught, each having in its stomach from one to five
smelts. This is a species of
poachers which we suspect
Mr. KENNEDY'S Bill did not contemplate, although we
have no doubt they do more damage than all the other
poachers together.—Perth Advertiser.
Major WEYLAND, having been elected both
for Oxfordshire and Weymouth, has notified his intention
of sitting for the former place; in consequence of which a
meeting has been held at Weymouth, at which a dispo-
sition was manifested to support Mr. PnExDanowsT.

LEICESTER,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR,—Your correspondent "Utilitarian," in speaking of
die division of the county of Worce.ter, says that " York
Leicester, and ()flier immetoe counties may suffer divisior
without harm." This 1 take the I.lhtty of correcting ;
any division of the county of Leicester must give to the
houe of Rutland the power of returning two Members,
as effectual and certain as a dale borough ttotild be. That
Noble family can command and bring to the poll, like sr
many oxen, from 6 to 800 voters, who dare not say them
nay; of this we had ample proof in the election of 1830
when out of 734 voters from the hundred of Framlarul
660 polled for Lord R. Manners, and 74 only for Mr.
Paget. I remain yours, &c.
Leicester, June 1. A CONSTANT READER.