The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, illAr 21.
(Sittings in Error.)
VALIDITY OF THE CHARTER OF TIIE MANCHESTER CORN.

RATION.

RUTTER V. CHAPMAN.
( Continued from The Sun of yesterday.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then spoke in defence of the
charter, going at great detail into all the points of objec-
tion which had been stated by Mr. Creswell. He said it
was admitted on the record that the councillors had been
elected in conformity with the Charter and the Act. The
plea also stated the appointment of the Quarter Sessions,
Mr. Justice PATTESON said the plea was that it was ac-
cepted by the inhabitants of the district, and the traverse
that it was not accepted by the inhabitants of the borough.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said the word "borough"
meant the municipal borough, and it not being able to be
denied the charter was accepted by the borough it was
struck out of the replication. All the plea had to do on
the part' of the defendant was to state that the inhabi-
tants of Manchester accepted it, The petition on
which the charter was granted was the petition of
the inhabitants of Manchester, and, except the
counter petition, there was no evidence adduced
on the part of the plaintiff, and on this by the sth and 6th
Wm. 4, there was nothing to prevent a charter being
granted on the petition. That an advertisement was is.
sued, and a public meeting held, was evidence for the
Jury. Evidence was given of the :requisition, the ad-
vertisement, the meeting being held, and that all the rate.
payers who chose had access to the meeting—that a reso-
lution was agreed to after discussion; by a large majority,
that a petition should be presented for a charter for the said
borough, and ether resolutions were adopted—that a Com-
mittee should be appointed to frame the petition. This
was evidence which no Jury could hesitate to accept.
It then went on to aver that a petition was presented,
and that petition was duly presented to her Majesty, and by
her Majesty referred to her Privy Council, and a charter
being granted, was accepted by the said inhabitants.
Now what evidence was adduced on the part of the plain.
tiff to show that her Majesty had not power to grant
the charter ? that after the presentation of the said peti-
tion a counter-petition was presented, praying her Majesty
not to grant the said charter. This counter-petition was
not signed by a majority of the inhabitant householders, yet
it was averred the Crown had not this power. His Learned
Friend said there was to be a very rigid construction in this
case, and that he should consider the sth and 6th Wm. I V. as
a sort of penal statute. It was convenient for his Learned
Friend to prefer that system, but their Lordships were sitting
to construe an Act of Parliament, and would desire to know
what were the intentions of the Legislature. The fallacy
of his Learned Friend's argument was that this charter
was granted under the sth and 6th William, and Ist and
2d Victoria ; but the Crown had the power without these
Acts, though not of imposing, by the provisions of the charter,
a borough-rate on the inhabitants. Instead of being a penal
statute, lie said this was a remedial statute, and he appre-
hended their Lordships would desire to give every effect
to the intentions of the Legislature, and he called upon
them to put a Liberal construction upon this Act of Par-
liament. He now came to the exception to the Charter
—the only one being that the Crown had not the power of
granting it in consequence of the counter petition. The
direction given by Mr. Baron Maule to the Jury was,
that he was of opinion, notwithstanding the counter peti-
tion, her Majesty, by the advice of the Privy Council, had
the power of granting this charter. Then the exception
was, this ought not to have been left to the Jury, that
nothing ought to have been left to the Jury, and that a
complete point of law had been made out for the plain-
tiff's case. But this counter petition, though con-
taining a majority of signatures, did not con-
tain a majority of signatures of inhabitant house-
holders. The Crown had, by Common Law, the
power of granting a charter, and the statute only conferred
the power which did not belong to it by Common Law of
extending to the inhabitants of the borough all the powers
conferred by the statute. What proof was there such a
counter petition prevented the Crown from exercising the
power granted by this statute ? It would be idle to con-
tend that one more signature in the counter petition would
take away the power, because at the time the petition was
presented it might have been signed by the majority; but
between the presentation of the petition and the counter
petition there might have been a great influx of inhabi.
tants, and whether the latter contained one more or a
hundred more than the former mattered not ; the petition
contained a majority of signatures of the inhabitant house.
holders at the time of its presentation. If it
were not to be a majority of inhabitant 'householders
were women, or minors, or convicts to sign? He did not
think their Lordships would put a construction on the sta-
tute leading to such consequences. It must be proved to
the Privy Council by law, that the petition contained a
bona fide majority of signatures of inhabitants and house-
holders, and upon their responsibility they would have to
advise the Crown. A good deal of what his Learned
Friend had said might be urged with more effect, if he
should move an impeachment of Lord John Russell. The
second condition required by the statute was a petition of
a majority of the inhabitant-householders; this gave the
Privy Council jurisdiction, and then the Privy Council
had upon their responsibility to advise the Crown. Un-
less the Privy Council were to decide what would happen,
he would suppose two petitions came up the same day, either
equally signed, or one of them having a majority, a majority
of three. How were they to know if theso petitions were
genuine, and must they institute a scrutiny? This seemed
to him doubtful, whether a majority was necessary for the
existence of the charter; the authorities were doubtful. But
at all events, it was not necessary a majority should join in
accepting it. After citing several cases, the Learned Gent.
said it was clear that if there were a public meeting, the
majority of such meeting bound the remainder of those who
might have attended. That was laid down in cases where
Churchwardens themselves had made rates, they being the
only parties who attended the vestry after due notice of
the holding of the vestry had been given. In this case
the Charter had been granted, and acted upon for a num.
her of years. It had never been repudiated by any public
meeting. The charter was granted upon petition, upon
advice from the Privy Council, granted by the Crown, and
accepted by those to whom it was directed. It was then,
to all intents and purposes, a valid charter, and he con-
tended that it was much too late for any one to object that
the petition was not numerously signed. The petition was
agreed upon at a public meeting, where a majo-
rity passed the resolution upon which it was founded,
that gave the Privy Council jurisdiction ; and he contended
that that jurisdiction having been put in motion, its act was
a valid one. Let the matter be pursued to the bottom and
the grant of Quarter Sessions must be void, for to obtain
a Quarter Sessions there must be a Town Council, and
how could there be a Town Council if there was no Cor-
poration, and there could be no Corporation without a valid
charter ? The Quarter Sessions for Manchester had acted
in their capacity, and if the arguments of his Learned
Friend were to prevail all its acts must be void. If such a
case was at all one to come before a jury, let him suppose
that it was alleged that some thousands of the signatures to
the petition were forgeries, they must call witnesses to
prove the handwriting—then witnesses on the other side--
which was too absurd an argument to stand for a moment.
It was clear that the Legislature never intended that a
charter properly granted and accepted should ever be ques-
tioned through the means of what was done under it before
a jury. He had now finished that part of the case, and, as
the hour was late, probably their Lordships would then ad-
journ the bearing of the case, as ho could not well com-
press what he had yet to address to their Lordships into
such a compass as would enable him to finish in anything
like a reasonable hour, although he promised he would oc-
cupy as little time as possible.
Adjourned till to-morrow (this day.)

CASE OF MURDER.

lIIGII COURT OP JUSTICIARY--EDINBURGIL

James Dalrymple was placed at the bar, charged
with the murder of Donald Fraser, a labourer, by dis-
charging a loaded gun or fowling-piece at the deceased
on the evening of Sunday, 23d February, 1840, on the
road leading from Linlithgow to Queensferry, by the
Burghmuir and Hopetoun Wood toll-bars, in the county
or Linlithgow.
Robert Ross, labourer, was at work on the Edinburgh
and Glasgow Railway in February last. Was in com-
pany with six or seven others on the evening of Sun-
day, 23d February, and, while returning from Philips-
town to Linlithgow, passed a place called Champany
about the gloaming. He and two others were in front,
and, when passing the house where the prisoner resided,
a dog began to bark. He went towards the dog with
the intention of striking it, when a man issued from
the house, who was afterwards joined by his
brother, Alexander Fraser. One of witness's
companions struck the man who came from
the house, who thereupon cried to his brother,
" Jamie, Jamie, fetch out the gun." The witness
did not attempt to strike either of the men. 'When the
rest of his companions came up, he said that they had
better make off, as a gun was to be brought, upon which
they all ran away towards Linlithgow. They got as far
as Burghmuir Toll-bar ; and as they were going through
the toll-bar they heard a noise as if a stone or stick had
been thrown at the door or shutters of the toll-house.
On hearing the noise they stopped. Donald Fraser was
with the witness. He then heard the report of a gun-
cap at the toll-bar. At this time saw a number of
people coming up, and among them some women, who
were endeavouring to keep the men back. A little
after this a shot was tired ; but before the witness heard
the shot he did not perceive anybody struck. Donald
Fraser was in the middle of the road, and witness was
about a foot frcm him. When the gun was fired
Donald Fraser fell down, and seemed to be dead. When
lifting up Fraser two men came up with sticks and
struck witness on the head, upo❑ which he let Fraser
down. On going towards the toll-bar he observed the
tollman with a pistol in his hand, and said, " You are,
probably, the man who shot Fraser." Witness seized
hold of him, and told him he must go with him to Lin-
lithgow. Whenever witness's companions heard the
shot they ran off ; but in coming back they assisted
witness in lifting Donald Fraser.
Two witnesses stated that they saw the prisoner
fire the gun in the direction of deceased, and one of
them saw him fall immediately after the shot.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent cha-
rActer.

Sir James Dalyeil was also called, and said that the
prisoner's family had resided on his estate about 000
years, and that he had never beard anything against the
prisoner's character, but quite the contrary.
Lord AfEADOWBANK, the presiding Judge, having
summed up the evidence,
The Jury retired, and after some consultation, re-
turned a verdict, finding the prisoner guilty 118 libelled,
by a majority of nine to six ; but unanimously, and in
the strongest manner, recommend:ng him to the mercy
of the Crown.
The Court then stated that flair request would be