The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-28 00:00:00

sense it was a violation of the statutes. He therefore sub-
mitted that on those three several accounts the statute ex-
pressly went to restrain retail dealers, but not to wholesale
dealers.
Sir. T. Wilde was about to address the Court, when the
Solicitor-General interrupted, and a discussion ensued upon
the question as to whether the plaintiffs had a right to speak
upon Waggoner's case in the statute of Henry VII.
The RECORDER decided that new matter having been in-
troduced, the plaintiffs might be heard.
Sir T. WILDE said, out of respect to the Court, he should
be extremely short. As to the statute of Richard 11.
it referred to certain kinds of goods, as merchant strangers
might sell corn and other victuals spices and small wares,
to whom they pleased, whether the King's subjects or other-
wise. But this was only to be done by freeman, for whom it
was alone lawful to undo and cut parcels, and this showed
the selling of entire parcels as imported, and it was evi-
dent that the reference was first to small wares,
and then it came to great wares, which the citizens only were
able to break and sell in small quantities. When they con-
sidered counterpanes, and curtains, the peculiar features of the
case would be evident. Then as to the statute of Henry IV.,
which repealed part of this statute which authorised the
selling, when his Lordship recollected the state of the
times under those reigns, this would be still more evident.
The Learned Gentleman then read other portions of the
statute to prove his case, and to show the custom was as he re-
presented it, especially stating that burgesses and citizens were
entitled to sell in gross as well as retail. So they can abolish
what was selling in gross, and he was quite read
by the exposition of the Act of Richard 11. bei as to abideto
Waggoner,s case, the statute was as distinct as it could
sibly be, particularly that part which said that no person
u
should keep a shop or other house for the p po
thing might be done covertly, so theoyfifrresetrraimele. poshseotullda
penalty, and then they laid down that nonn.
keep a shop or other place for the purpose of getting a living,
in the City at the cost or expense of the country. Then, as
if to inclu le everything, they used the term " art." His
Learned Friend had stated that he would not quote Coke—
but another edition, where,the matter was more distinct,
and well he might,
case, that no man wasf to
for
it
l''be as not in Coke— as to Waggoner's
allowed to follow any art, trade,
or mystery, which embraced everything. Thirdly, as to the
objection that the matter there referred to goods bought and
eold, and did not extend to tallow-chandlers or other arti-
ficers of similar kind within the realm, it was held by
the whole Parliament that the 7th of Henry IV., chap. 9,
which had been before explained, completely riled the whole
of the case. Having read several extracts from the amended
Act of the 9th of Henry IV., and commented upon it, he sub-
mitted that the defendant came within its province, and
held that the jury must so decide.
The RECORDER then proceeded to charge the jury.
He said the Chamberlain of London, in virtue of
his office, and in accordance with an act of Common Council,
passed so far back as 1606, in the fcurth year of the reign of
James 1., sought to recover penalties, because the defendant had
violated the Act in carrying on the trade of a warehouseman,
dealer, and chapman without being free, that he carried on
the art, trade, occupation, and mystery of a warehouseman.
by selling goods and merchandise without being free. The
question then which they would have to decide was, w
the occupation of a warehouseman brought him within the
act of the Common Council. He was of opinion that he
followed a trade, but that of a wholesale dealer did not come
within the province of this act. lle would not enter into
the right of the Council to pass the bye-law,ta because in his
official capacity he might have to defend t right elsewhere.
t
Having read the admissions of the deindan.,he said the pay-
ment for goods by acceptances at four months, or by cash at tw-o-
and-a-half per cent. discount, showed that his dealings were
of a more extensive character than those of a retail dealer,
the ordinary nature of whose dealings were, that he received
the money for the goods he sold across the counter. The
defendant further stated that he invariably supplied invoices
with the goods which he sold, thus showing that
his transactions were not of a retail character.
If they had been, it was possible, and in fact was generally
the case, that the goods so purchased by retail would have
been paid for on purchase, the purchaser being able to per-
ceive that he was properly supplied wit the goods he came
to buy. He further stated that he occupied premises at 90
and 91, Wood-street; that he received his goods in bales
from Manchester, and from various parts of Scotland and
Ireland, in the disposal of which he employed a number of
clerks and other persons. It was nifortunate that they had
not been informed of the size of the bales of cotton, woollen,
because they were unable to judge whether they con-
tained only a few or a number of yards. The jury were, no
doubt, conversant with the hnsiness of a warehouseman, and
if the defendant exposed his goods for sale in bulk, exhibit-
ing one bale and then another, and employing persons who
acted virtually in the capacity of shopmen, he should advise
them to find for the plaintiff. He put it to the jury as
traders in the City of London, and as men of experience,
to say whether the defendant came within the province of a
wholesale dealer or not. The facts were extremely meagre ;
he was unable, therefore, to direct them better, because his
personal experience of business in the City was not sufficient
to characterise the difference more distinctly. He considered
that the bye-law did not apply to wholesale dealings, and
that a warehouseman did not carry ma an art, mystery, or
handicraft within the meaning of the byelaw or act.
After considerable discussion between the Counsel and the
Recorder on mere points of form and exceptions, the jury
retired at half. past five o'clock to consider their verdict, and
returned into Court at six o'clock, with a verdict for' the
DEFENDANTS ON ALL THE COUNTS.
The Court then rose.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(YESTERDAY.)

GROUP VI.
This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Sir J. C. Ilobhouse,
tliCrman.

DTTI".---- DEE AND PEILTN.
Mr' ANDREws appeared for the promoters of the Bill, and after
addressing the Committee,
Mr. TALBOT said he appeared for the magistrates and town
council of Perth, to object to the line, inasmuch as it Was
intended by the promoters to have a general termini far all the rail-
ways running into the town at a plaee called the " Inch." His
clients objected to this ground being interfered with (amore patrice),
as it bad been the property of the public for the last three hundred
Years. It was a place which the inhabitants held in high veneration.
It was the ground on which " Henry of the Wind" perfor:ned
such wonders before one of the Kings of Scotland, and of which Sir
Walter Scott gives so glowing a description. The Learned Counsel
Went irk) the merits of the case at great length, and after some cross-
firing between the Learned Gentlemen engaged on both sides,
The Committee ordered the room to be cleared.
rpon readmission, the CILtIE,IAN said that the Committee had
%greed to hear the opponents by counsel and evidence.
The proceedings were then adjourned to twelve o'clock to-morrow,
When the case will be gone into in detail.

GROUP VII.
The Committee appointed upon this Group met this morning in
one of the new Committee-rooms of the new Houses of Parliament.
Th,.. Committee consisted of Mr. It. Palmer, chairman, Mr. Stanton,
Lord John Chichester, Mr. Seymer, and Colonel Powell.
the following BMA have been referred by the Committee of Selec-
tion to this Committee—namely, Eant of Fife ; Glasgow and Dundee
Junction ; Scottish Central (Alioa Branch) ; Edinburgh and Northern
(Newport Railway and St. Andrew's Branch); Edinburgh and
Northern (Kinross, Woodmill, and Newburgh Branch) ; Edinburgh
and Northern (Lochgelly and Leslie Extension); Edinburgh and
Northern (Dunfermline Branch); Edinburgh and Northern (Strath-
erne Deviation) ; Kinross Junction (1 and 2); Stirling and Dun-
fermline , Edinburgh and Perth; Scottish Central (Denny Branch) ;
and Edinburgh and Glasgow and Scottish Central Junction.