The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-19 00:00:00

COURT OF SEWERS, WESTMIN-

STER.-(THIS DAY.)

A Special General Court of Sewers Was this cl:.y held
et ten o'clock, at the Office of the Commissioners, in
Greek-street, Soho, T. L. DONALDSON, Esq., in the
Chair, for the purpose of signing the precept to the She-
riff, to summon a jury for the purpose of trying the tra-
verses made to the presentment of the last jury.
The precept having been presented fur signature,
Mr. LESI.IE said, that according to the wording of the
precept to which he objected, the Sheriff was merely re-
quired to summon a jury ; now, he would summon a jury
under Peel's Act, whereas the precept ought to state that
the jury was to be summoned under the Act of Henry
Eighth. At a subsequent period of the day, after the pre-
cept had been signed, Mr. Lesete again alluded to the
subject, and stated that the case to which ho had previously
alluded occurred in the Tower Hamlets. The Sheriff had
been called on to summon a jury of persons resident iu the
district ; he did so ; they made their presentment ; the case
was moved by certiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench,
and the rule quashed, on the ground of the Commissioners
having exceeded their authority in issuing such a precept
Mr. Ariel: said that the informality of that presentment
consisted in its pointing out to the Sheriff that he must
summon, a jury from the district, instead of the county at
large.
The CHAIRMAN said that counsel had been consulted on
the subject, and they had given the form of thy precept.
Mr. LESLIE said that the" Act of Henry VIII. required
such juryman to be a 40s. freeholder; now, under l'eel's
Act, persons might be summoned who were not qualified
under the Act of Henry VIII., and on that ground the
rate might he quashed, perhaps.
Mr. ADEY said the question was whether the Act of
Elenry VIII. was repealed by Peel's Act or not. It was
he opinion of the majority of the Court and the counsel,
:hat the Sheriff might summon all persons qualified to act
35 jurors.

Mr. LESLIE thought they ought not to limit the Sheriff
under the operations of Peel's Act, as he might send a
jury of leaseholders.
In answer to a question, the SOLICITOR said that Peel's
Act did not mention the 23d Henry VIII.
The CHA►RMAN said it was dra►vn up in terms so large
as to include all the points.
Mr. ADEY contended that the Sewers' Jury was in-
cluded in the provisions of Peel's Act.
After a few words from the Chairman and the Solicitor
the subject was dropped, but Mr. Leslie, as we under-
stood, did not sign the precept.
An application was read from the traversers for th© as-
sistance of the Court in compelling the attendance of
witnesses, ac., by subpoena, and it was agreed that the
Court would grant the application.
Mr. ADEY moved that the solicitors to the Commission►
be instructed to prepare evidenca in support of the pre-
sentment.

Mr. LESLIE thought they had the power to procure al
the necessary evidence without incurring that expense
All they would want would be the parish books and the
surveyor's valuation, and he supposed they could compel
the attendance of the surveyors, without the assistance of
the solicitors.
The CHAIRMAN said they would be sure to attend.
Mr. LESLIE was of opinion, that in that case the in-
structng the solicitor to summon would be incurring a
useless expense.
The CHAIRMAN said it was impossible to tell what evi-
dence might be necessary, and that therefore it would be
better to instruct the solicitor.
The motion was then carried by 4 to I.
Mr. LESLIE said the effect produced by this resolution
would be a most unfortunate one, inasmuch as the Com-
missioners, who were the Judges, were making themselves
parties to the cause by directing
.the solicitor to support
the presentment.
Mr. ADEY said as Judges they must bear both sides,
which they could not do, unless some one were there to
cross examine the witnesses of the traversers and to sup-
port the interests of those rate-payers who were willing
to abide by the former presentment. Nothing was more
common than for the Magistrates in cases of appeal to in-
struct the clerks to support their convictions.
The SOLICITOR suggested the propriety of having a
previous view.
The CHAIRMAN concurred in the propriety of that sug-
gestion.
Mr. LESLIE said it would be impossible for the jury to
have a view previous to their being sworn ; how could they
ascertain that the person who had viewed, would ultimately
serve on the Jury ?
Mr. ADEY entirely concurred in the objection which
had just been taken. The traversers, as any of the Jury,
came up to the book to be sworn, might object to them,
and if they had a previous view, it might so happen that
of all those who had been present at the view not one might
serve on the Jury.
The CHAIRMAN said that a previous view should be
deemed necessary, which be for one thought would be the
case. The Jury might be summoned and sworn before the
day of trial, for the purpose of making the view.
The SOLICITOR suggested that instructions should be
given to write to the Solicitor for the traversers to give
Him notice of the intention to view, and to ask whether he
would bo at one moiety of the expense ; he was aware that
they could not compel him to du this, but still he might
be asked.
Mr. LESLIE doubted .whether the Commissioners had
the power to otter to defray one. half of the expense, which
ought to abide the issue.
It was ultimately arranged to leave the matter in the
hands of the Solicitor, to whom the precepts were handed.
An application was read from Mr. Hutt, the Vestry
Clerk to the parish of St. Giles's and St. .George's,
Bloomsbury, requesting to have access to certain legal
opinions.
The CHAIRMAN saw no objection to granting the applica-
tion, provided the approbation of Mr. Pemberton were pre-
viously obtained, as, without that, the Commissioners had
no power of granting the request.
There being no other business before the Court, it was
adjourned to Friday.