The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, MAY 22.
(Sittings in Error.)
VALIDITY OF THE CHARTER OF THE MANCHESTER CORM

RATION.
RUTTER V. CHAPMAN.
The Judges met again this morning in the Exchequer
Chamber for the purpose of hearing the appeal in this case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL entered one by one into the
objections of Mr. Cresswell, for the purpose of showing
that these objections could not invalidate the charter. He
contended that it could not be invalidated by the fact of
its having been granted to a smaller district than
that which had petitioned, and that it would have
been impossible that the charter should have followed
the mode in which formerly corporations were
started, but that the charter was a good one at common
law, and was one on which the power given by the Act
had been superinduced. The Learned Gentleman then
went on to show from the statute that rate-payers residing
within seven miles were not excluded from its operation,
and that the omission of a provision for a copy of the bur-
gess-roll was immaterial.
Having referred to the various cases referred to by Mr.
Creswell, the Learned Gentleman said he had now gone
through the various objections urged by his Honourable and
Learned Friend, and after hearing the reply from the other
side, it would be for their lordships to decide upon the
matter. He could not help stating, that he felt consider-
able anxiety upon the subject. He admitted that enormous
public inconvenience would arise from their Lordships
yielding to any of the objections that had been urged, but
he did not mean to say that that would relieve their Lord-
ships from giving due weight to them, if in
point of law they ought to prevail. At the same
time these inconveniences showed that it was
not the intention of the Legislature to subject any of
her Majesty's subjects to such multiplied mischiefs.
If these objections were maintainable, then all that had
been done under the Charter was void—the Coroner was
liable to be sued by any person he had committed by nt,
warrant—the Jury having found a verdict of murder or
manslaughter, the presentments were void, and all rates
are void, and the Recorder could have no jurisdiction.
lie would be liable to an action for false imprisonment,
from every person whom he had sentenced to transporta-
tion. He trusted, under all the circumstances, their
Lordships would come to the opinion that this was a
charter granted to the Crown according to its common
law prerogative. It was a charter on petition by advice of
the Privy Council, and if so, then it was a charter on which
the machinery he had referred to, might be erected, and statu-
tory power exercised, and, if so, then he submitted that
Mr. Chapman was well appointed, and that these objec-
tions could not prevail.
Mr. WinuTmANT, in the absence of Mr. Creswell re-
plied. He would o.bserve at starting that he had no ob-
jection to the praise his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Attorney-General had bestowed upon the Municipal Cor-
poration Act. It might be beneficial or it might not, but
at all events, it could not be said that it should be forced
upon the inhabitants of any borough against their
will. He would now come to the petition upon which
so much had been said on the other side. It appeared
that the number of signatures to the petition. out of
48,000 ieliabitant householders, was only 4,000, while
6,000 signed the counter-petition. Now it must be in-
ferred (notwithstanding the direction of the Learned
Judge) that a majority of the inhabitants petitioned, and
that must imply either a majority of all, or a majority of
those who took part in the proceedings.
Lord DENMAN—Suppose all the parties had previously
had notice?
Mr. Wieursteei would have a word to say upon the pub-
lic advertisement by and by. He contended, however,
that if a majority of the inhabitants were opposed to the
granting of the charter, her Majesty would have no power
to grant it.

Lord DENMAN—The Jury have determined that point,
Mr. Lord(
Jury had decided the question
under the direction of the Learned Judge, but to that di-
rection exception had been taken.
Chief Justice TINDAL—The evidence was that these
6,000 aro but a small portion of the 48,000 householders.
It assumes that the remainder were present or neuter.
Mr. WIORTMAN would take it at the highest, and assume
that the remainder were neuter, and, therefore, they could
not be taken as petitioners at all. The question was did
the 4,000 petitioners represent the whole body? He submitted
that the 8,000 counter petitioners might just as well be said
to represent the wishes and feelings of the inhabitants. It
was stated that the meeting was called by public advertise-
ment, but where or how that advertisement was published,
or whether it could be taken as a legal notice to all the
inhabitant householders, was not proved. In fact the legi-
timate way in which the sentiments of the householders
could. be obtained was, that parties should go round and
obtain the signatures of a majority of the householders.
That might be a troublesome mode, but it was one which
was frequently adopted. Now he contended that if the
charter was originally bad by reason of its not having been
granted at the prayer of the majority of the inhabitant
householders, no acceptance afterwards could have
made it valid. He submitted that the Learned
Judge had misdirected the Jerry in telling them that al.
though an apparent majority had petitioned against the
charter her Majesty had a right to grant it. On that part
of the case, therefore, for the reasons that had been
urged by his Learned Friend, Mr. Cresswell, and those
which he had now submitted, he contended that the Bill
of Exceptions ought to prevail. He then came to most
important objection which had been taken to the
charter itself, namely, that it was not granted to
the parties who had petitioned for it. Three of the
townships had been excluded from the charter, and
yet their Lordships might very well conceive a case
in which, although the benefits (if benefits they were)
of a charter might be advantageous to an entire district,
yet, that confining it to a particular district,
might be injurious to the interests of the great body of the
petitioners. Several objections were taken to the details
of the charter, and the manner of its working, and a rather
sweeping answer had teen given to them by the Attorney..
General, who said that the Municipal Corporation Act
was so framed that they could not grant a charter exactly
under its provisions. If that were the case, why had not
an Act of Parliament been passed to meet the case of
these new boroughs, instead of granting a charter in a way
which he must characterise as irregular and illegal. As
in the ease of the first elections under the Municipal Cor-
poration Act, when an infinite number of quo warrantos
were brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, and
which resulted in the passing of an Act for the amendment
of the Municipal Corporations Act, so there might be
difficulties which it was incumbent on the Crown to re-
move, in order to carry out the first time a charter under
the provisions of the 141st section. He came now to
another part of the question, the grant of a Quarter Ses-
sions. He contended that in their petition to the Privy
Council they should have set out the fact of whether or not a
gaol was established, and other matters connected therewith.
He contended that the charter must be invalid, because it
differed from the Corporation Act, inasmuch as those who
lived without the borough, although they might be rated,
they had no benefit from the charter. Also the charter
gave Mr. Rutter power to hold a Court for the revision
of the list of burgesses, he took evidence upon oath, and
the Crown had no right to give such a power. It was
not following the words of the Act—it was exceeding the
prerogative, and Mr. Rutter had no more power under
the charter to hold that Court, or to take evidence upon
oath, than he ( Mr. Wightman); on that ground alone he
submitted that the charter was invalid, and that the judg.
ment of the Court ought to be for the appellants. He had
troubled their Lordships long enough, and would then
with confidence leave the case in their Lordships' bands.
Lord DENMAN—We must take time to consider this case.
The ATTDRNEY-GENERAL—WiII your Lordships name
any time fo giving judgment, as the case presses ?
Lord DENMAN—We will lose no time, and will give the
earliest notice of the time we fix.

SALE OF A WIFE.—On Saturday last one of
those disgraceful exhibitions of a man selling his wife was about
to take place in this borough, but the same coming to the
knowledge of Air. Rust, sergeant of police, he, in company with
three other policemen, went to the parties just before the sale
was to have commenced A halter Was at hand, and everything
ready, when the police appeared, and, as far as regarded a pub-
lic safe, stopped the proceedings. We understand the woman
was afterwards sold for a guinea. The man who sold the wo •
man is named Charles Kisby, and the man who bought her
Thomas Foster, beer-shopkeeper, both of Wisbech High Fen.
Cambridge P-ess.