The Sun.
London, England, 1807-12-08 00:00:00

SMITH V. HEADNELL.

This was an aajon against the Defendant, wito
is principal Clerk in the house of Smith-, Payne, and
Smith, upon.theitat. & Geo. IL which enaets that
all persons who.shall have received any money or per,
sonal estate, from' or in trust for any Bankrupt, and
WhO shall not give an account .thereof. „to the QQm.,-,
missiotters or Assignees of 'such Bankrupt, wijhiu
forty-tvva days -after the 'bankruptcy is publist.'
ed in the Gazette, Shall frirfeit i,OOl. and also.,
double the sum, or double the valued the proper.
ty so received... The. Plaintiff was? Assignee of
perSon,Of the natne cif Parquet, a reelifier. Of spirits,
and the Defendant, who had some acqnaintance
,had received from • him 1501: and also
2001. upon trust to transmit it to Madame Parquet,
-kis mother, 'at. Asque, nett; Lisle, in Flanders. Par-
quet becoming a bankrupt, it was some time betore
he disclosed this fad, and upon • being., applied to,
Mr.'Beadnell immediately rendered an account, and
paid 'the :money over to the..4ssig,nees.
Lord ELLFINHOROUGH said, he should be sorry it
shotild gt, abrOad that any'persun shotild remain un-
punished fur conniving at a concealment of a Ltni•-
•rupt's etteds, an& therefore be would prupbse
that a verdia shOuld be taken for the I°4)l'
penalty, with it: nominal penalty for ,the double.
amount of the sum received. Tois case, be observ-
ed, was an extraordinary one, and there cobld.not
be ale, 'Slightest supposition that the Defendant
meant to connive at any trawl, but. nevertheless he
had incurred the penalty of , , .
Mr. GAuttow, for the Plaintiff, readily acquiesced,
and stated, that it roust not be understood, that he
meant ie:insinuate a»y fraud on'the part ut the De-
fend:nu. Thii is the first klion_ ever brought upon
the Statute.---Verdict for the. Plaintiff.
•
Ditcotiau# x•
•

THE LORD MAYOR AND'ecHiPORATION OF LONDON V.
MAT ON LONG, ZSQ. TREASURIR Ol THE LON-

DON DOCK COMPANY.--
' Ti ii iw a ; cis .1,1 i dn: brought by the, Corporation Of
Loildon iwaitist the LandOn Doelo'Obtrtpittry; dalin-
Mg, in various eolints, the • privilege'•Of optiointing
iln officer to fulfil thy' oectip:ition-of' glinger of all
4.ities, oik, and oiher gisng(-able articles,-rioting.
‘vjihin the Ciiy of London, the Port ,of' said City,
d'ol6.liberties tifereof, alledging that the said •1111:1(
Cbitilflitly l'ild takh fri)ny them this their tight i -;:fiyr
this deplivatidn' they claimed nominiti.-darnkiteh;•in
order to entitte t he'll' Yl, fort hey recoftipense' from
die Coininissioners• ot'Compensatioth : ''• '
Air_ 'AvronNE:t:-Gi.:NvitAt,, Mr. GAlutoly', Mr:
NNOWLYs (the (;ciiiiinoty Serjeani), and 1V1r,..-DAnf-
,' Olin 'argried the ease on,' behalf of-the Pittitnitt's ;r
171r,ISerjensit ilr.Tri Mr.lFloutoNifil,'4and Mr.-E-I•Aii-
ritio:;; -,Afppoiled tt rights'of4iie'DefendantS ; nod
3 fatinn the multio a' ty tkatic*,'
iiand the exainitin-
thin of :in t,T 4 eieti 1•t tit ii'itillMfi•ot-Parliatiteut, the
Court it.ve re' Oiaillied In titis; iiiireAtAtlon 'ft-din 'Milo
iit the morning till twciiif the nfternSoti: ' ' !'
Lord ' Et;r:r, NE 0 1106 Glfil in ' lidditiW rttg• the 'ltityv
OW:erred' the Plaintiff,' • fileaCWsifrtlint ' theiri rigthu
t he' ex e cation of this offree'w4t fotifyil elf-Ay pon 4 Chs rt-
ter .u,ranteit ttf them in the -time• of itclw int the IVtlt;
When thetorporatiorfot 'London iPaid the 'midi Of
I'oool. :Wiiir;ll, no - doubt, in former times'. VkiaS.
ibCkOrii:d very Colisidirable; for that ' and ,'ether
iifiyilttes, all contained in ,the same- charter': j'lle
worth of that Charter certainly only mentioned the
Office of gauger " within the City of Landonf but
Other piiiits of it expressed dick intended privileges
in different ways, such as '' the libertie3 ;hid 'fon-
ehiSeS of the City of. London," withotit mentiWing
the City itself, and soinezirnes " the City, and Port
'of the City," without mentioning the liberties and
franchises; the question, therefore; *as, wl.ether
I - the Crown, by these different phraies, meant one and
Ithe same thing ? . Under these cirelithigatiCei, it wzts
important to consider what' had been the usage and
t custom in reg4rd to the execution of the office Li

Lti ; Tinted y ItscoAip Hivalis, of No. 4, Mattlott.court, tioW.stfeet; 4
At the StIN-Oritiert No. 112", Strand; where 4dver tisements, Orders

question, since the time of-granting that Charter,
either by written documents, or by the testimony-oft
those who had long executed these duties, i'irbe oath,.
of office which these gangers Were accustomed 'to
take expressed that they were ' td'give a true ae-
c nint of forfeitures on all tuns or pipes of wine,
honey, oil, &u. imported within the City Of Lyndon
and Liberties a the sante.- It was, to be suppo'ied,
therefore, that this oath had been originally impo:fed
at the time of the creation or the office, so that it
was. a contemporary exposition tea the part of the
Crown, who granted that office, and tended to skew
what they meant-in the Charter. Then, as to the
usage; it had, perhaps, gone 'rather further than
,their right was maintainable, but .it was material to
,consider it in regard to their various :privileges, in
order to sheW the distinoliOn between those to
be exercised Only within London, and those
within London and the liberties thereof In re-
gard td one of their rights, that of package of
woollen cloth, skins, &c. which was extended to the
Liberties, franchises, and suburbs of the City, no
particular extent was assigned 'to those liberties,
and therefore they were left to suppose that it was
Co-extensive with the functions of those offices, not
only without the walls of the City, but even beyond
the place in question, where the Docks were ereCled.
No argumeet could' be drawn from the 141st clause,
'in the Compensation Aa, saving all the rights of
the City of London ; the words of which were cer-
tainly drawn up very,generally,'and did not allude
to the right in question along with others ; but in-
i deed it might be deemed unnecessary to look' for saving
words, in an ACt, ito part of, which divested them
, of their right. t'hi'st'hi'sappointment to the office of gall-
ger seemed neter to have meant by the, AO to have
been, taken away, for it would have trade particular
mention of it, as well as other offices, such as that of
tackle-porter,. ticket-porter, &e. The ,firat.witeess
(Mr. Fowler) had produced the oath of office, which
he had been long accustomed to take, and which ap:-
peered, contemporary with the creation of the otlice
itself in the time of Edward IV. and seemed to giVe
the grant a larger construCiion than the charter; but
he (Lord Ellenborough) ' thought it was not suscep-
tible of that broad constrnetion. It was true that-
the 4,:t of the Uth of James gave ikdescription of the
beuedaries elate city, and also described the boun-
daries of the port 'as extending from Yelden to
Staines, but the Liberties of the city bad yet no dis-
find boundaries assigned them. Another witness
(Mr. Strickland) had told them he had been employ:-
ed as city gauger at the• Greenland Docks for thirty
years, ar.d no person had ever claimed that•privilege,
or obje6ted to his officiating in that capacity. An-
other witness had said, he had been in the custom
orgauging for many ycat% between Blnekti kirs-
bridge and Greenland-, Dock, on both aides of the
river; without ever experiencing any
interruption.—
Anothpr witness had known goods gauged as low
.doWnaS beTtford; AVhiehlwei certainly even beyond
st-Veshtt toniiigyh to bi eottliewermevtilt-rieteisesleisbehrtitdiessoi
vfetilheecgitt?r. oiy,
ex-
tensive boundaries to the liberties, and the charter,
irtipeaking of the privilege of Weighing'coalS, !had
alla.:exteede(l it from the-Bridge of Staineki,.to.wards
the west, to the Bridge of London, and theece.to
Veit* towards the sea.----On the part of the De-
felaiht, izitiny observations had been made that we're
lit tor Consideration, such as that the Docit3 vere not
itteindol in• theb, extenis i'tkia"oriheat by tißprelkarte.r.,---
Tfeit the Ai:t of Henry 111. I)lnited the privilege tot be
gauging wines and Oils hidtight tó the eityof London
' for axle; and itsucli a 'r'o'wer as that elMmed had '•
been granted by, the Crown, it would entirely Oeteitt
t he.oltie6ts 'of itubsoluc_nt Aa,„ which went to alio
securing of private property two, melestation and in-
trusions by ereaing these Docks, atidintosn'tdther
ree,elatiOns. It.waa true that the.Char.t, r. did nIA giVe'
more extensive words than applied to such goods as
were bought' Within the city
.but then the eon
teMporary oath and th,:- subsequent usage seemed to
eXtend the pia% iLge to 'the liberties- Of the:eh); ;
which liheilies were proved to Comprehend the place
in question. . Although the statute of tjett,.:-pnly
'went to oils and wines, yet the grant ext,.ended„to all
gangable articles, and there did tint ileent to exist any
impediment iti ihri ertala4l:td. replete the Custam-
Jennie and Excise-44P0 in this Nowa% whei.e,,lta
poweritad never been questioned. As to the power
of the Gown to interfere thus with private property,
it might Ikia said that the Cro—wn ••• a1a9.011
. •
in-
aerest.in that property, had the priVilege,.tn Ace that
itio fraud , was commuted, and theretne. it mess
sary-they should bite a right to appoint per:4ollS to -
o.lter into. all..aicks ',arid legal Quays, In under to
igange all gaugable corutnedities.. 11, however,. they
were of opittiou that the office in question becaMe
extintruistred I the suriseqnent ACfsbf Parlitireent,.
thieu the Raint moonlit lose their right Of coMpun-
sande-. Nnthing its the Dock Act seemed to militate'
against then :existing right ; and :therefore it' they
(the .Fiery) milted with him in thia'.Ppioloo.. 441 as
It, what he had stated regarding the contemporary::
oath, and the prole evidencelhr theetinstradien of
the contradietory clauses of the-Charter, they Urould.
tint' a'verdia in tavnitt c,f the' P1;611013, for :as, as
nominal damages, .with,costs.
Verdict for the Plaintilf, damages 1)1:,,,q905,495.
which entitles them to lay claim to ednaPensation
under'the bock. 44, . • • ; -
' . iiNtr.rnA:v ttimPsosr.-_ •. •

This witi an action against the ptioprietor of one of
the Metingham stagecoaches to London, to recover
eutopeosation for an injury onstined by the Plaintiff
by reason of the coach .oVertnrniug.
Mr, to,tixa.-for the Defcndant, .made two objec-
tions ,toright o
I?litintiff's f nelion,Tirst, that he had
uot OfticieptlY pfovcd the. accidr..l4 tool place duo'
fiat negligent:o.pr inattcntion of the drier and.
tilat,thy':Delettdatit baci Already paid 7001.,pn
account of lhis accident. .

Jury, hOwev,er,jotiod a- verdict of 1.501 da-
magces for the Plaint& ,

Bank 'Stock, 22,5
Navy S per Cent.
iier Cent. 1797,
resit '5 per Cent.
4 per Cent. Soli
3 per Cent. Keit. 62i
3 per:.t. Con.
Bank L. Ann. t 7
Ditto Short Ann.

QUEENIS-SQUA it E.—Yesterday three young men,
belonging to the Chimick Volunteers, were sum-
moned by ,their Commanding Officer, before P.
CoLourtoult, Esq. for negle6t of duty in the said
coups ; when they were fined the sum of is. lid.
tbr each of their non-attendance, ,according to the
regulations amongst them, and the penalty besides.
f_T:; H N ALL.;—Yesterday a person, tytnied Glad- I
win, was bro,iJii before the Sitting Magistrate's, I
h irged With 'fobbing his 1118$1Qr, Jameii Stars, a