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

Elegant pocket edition, price Is., by post Is. 6d.
R. CULVER WELL ON MARRIAGE,
its HINDRANCES and OBLIGATIONS.
" To be or not to be, that is the question."—Shakspe.
Contents : —On Matrimonial Eligibility and Fitness—er Laws et
Paternity—Phenomena of Gestation—On Maternal Influence—On
Infelicitous and unproductive Unions—Curiosities of Medical Experi-
ence, Cases, &c., &c.
Also, companion to the same, price Is., by post Is. 6d.,
CHASTITY; its ABUSES and DISEASES (72 Engravings.)
These two interesting little volumes are not Intended for idle or In-
discriminate perusal, but they are earnestly offered to the attentive
consideration of those who may be more legitimately and perhaps
painildly interested.

Sher Wood, 23, Paternoster-row; Carvalho, 147, Fleet-street;
Mann, 39, Cornhill ; and all Booksellers, or direct from the Author,
21, Arundel-street, Strand. At home daily till 2 ; Evenings 7 till 9.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
(Before the REcoßDzw.)

THE FREEMEN AND NON-FREEMBH OF THE CITY OF LONDON .
-THE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE CITY OF LONDON V. STURT

AND OT ERN.

The proceedings in this important case, which was before
the Court on Monday last, were resumed to-day. Our readers
will recollect that the case came before the Court upon an
action brought by the Chamberlain of the City against the
defendant, who is a wholesale warehouseman, carrying on
business in Fore-street, to obtain certain penalties to which
he had subjected himself by reason of his carrying on his
business in the City without taking up his freedom. The
whole of last Monday was occupied by objections taken by
the counsel for the defendant to the jurisdiction of the judge,
the manner of summoning the jury, &c. This morning, on
the Recorder taking his seat,
Sir THOMAS WILDE said, that on consideration the plain-
tiff had deemed it prudent to put in a counter plea, stating
under what circumstances the jury panel had been returned,
and it would be for his Learned Friend, the eounsel for the
defendant,' to take issue, if he chose, upon the statements
contained in it, and the facts must be tried ; or if an objection
were made as to the legality of the proceedings, that might
be argued as a demurrer on the point of law. But he did not
anticipate that his Learned Friend would do so4upon any one
of the facts stated in the counter plea,because:he believed that
they wereall duly and.correctly stated. If, however, bis Learned
Friend chose to demur, the point might be argued, and his
Lordship having given his judgment thereupon, they might
proceed with the trial of the merits of the question. He (Sir
Thomas Wilde) wouldltherefore counter plead to the:challenge
of his Learned Friend, and would contend that the panel of
the jury was a true, perfect, and impartial one, and that the
jurors who had been returned had not been inserted in the
panel with any reference to the present or any par-
ticular case, but generally. to try all cases that might
arise during the period in which they were liable
to sit as jurors in this Court. He would
contend that the list was regularly made out in pursuance of
a bye-law passedby the Court of Common Council of London,
the validity of which bye-law he apprehended would not be
gainsaid. If his Learned Friend objected to the validity of
that bye-law, the point would have to be argued on demur-
rer elsewhere. lie concluded by handing in his counter plea
on parchment, and by giving expression to a hope that his
Learned Friend would state what course he intended to
pursue.
The Soramton-Gnivintaz.said, he presumed that the coun-
ter plea contained a correct statement ofthe manner in which
the panels were returned. He would of course demur to the
counter plea; his Lordship would have to say whether that
demurrer was a good one, and if he decided in the affirmative,
that fact would appear upon the record, and they would then
proceed to the merits of the case.
The Clerk of Arraigns then read the counter plea, which
averred the points mentioned above in the remarks of Sir
Thomas Wilde; after which
The Sotacrron-GnifEnAL said there must be an error in
the counter plea with reference to the number of individuals
qualified to serve as jurors in this Court. The counter plea
averred that the names of all parties in the ward of Cripple-
gate who were qualified to serve had been duly returned, but
the number of those persons wasonly twenty-four, which he
apprehended was far from being the entire number of gen-
tlemen qualified to serve in the ward in question. He had
no doabt that, as far as the impartiality of the case was con-
cerned, the averment was strictly true ; but the question
was, whether, in accordance with the supposed custom, the
whole of the names qualified to serve had been returned ? He
found that for the two branches ofthis ward, viz., Cripplegate
Without and Cripplegate Within, only 44 were returned as
being the entire list of individuals qualified to sit in the
ury -box of this Court. He apprehended that the averment
was not in accordance with the fact.
Sir T. WILDE—That is our belief.
The SoLacrron-Gnxnnarr—Well, I should think that that
cannot be.

The RECORDER, was also inclined to doubt the truth of
the averment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know what was the
qualification necessary to act in the capacity of juror in this
Court ; for he assured his Lordship that he was as ignorant
of the proceedings of the Court as he was on the day when
they last met. Cripplegate Without was much larger than
Cripplegate Within, and yet twenty-four jurors bad been
returned for each branch. The counter plea stated that all
the parties that had been qualified in the Ward of Cripple-
gate had been returned to serve in this case. Now he very
much doubted whether that document could be true, and he
would, therefore, demur to the counter plea. Perhaps Mr.
Alderman Challis (who then happened to be sitting on the
bench) would inform him whether there were no more than
twenty-four qualified to serve in Cripplegate Ward.
The RECORDER—His mouth is shut at this moment, be-
cause, although this stated to be the Lord Mayor's Court,
yet the proceedings are carried on before his deputy, and it
is not customary for the Lord Mayor or the Aldermen to
take part in the proceedings.
The SoLicrron.GminnAL—They say in the counter plea
that they have conformed to custom, and did return the
" several persons qualified to serve as jurors in the said ward,"
but we say they did not.
The RECORDER said, even in the event of all the persons
so qualified to serve as jurors having been returned, it was
possible there might have been some who would have been
unable to serve from various causes. The plaintiffs might
have said " the several persons so returned to serve as jurors,"
and so have got rid of any ambiguity in the wording of the
plea; or " the several persons returned in obedience to the
Act of Common Council."

The Soracrron-GErnaaAL said, if this were done by an Act
of Common Council, as he maintained it was, then the par-
ties returning the said jury, and the jury theaiselvea, were
" unindifferent."

The RECOXIAER—Tha,.. ..,.. another maafj,,nwrad. IP:
Learned Solicitor-General would no doubt rgthis
would
give
Act of Common Council was legal ? But Thenas
the state of the
rise to another question—namely, what
wasf
passedthe Council, and did not come
It was, however,
an
"at'? bye-law."
under the definition of
mut—
There might have been a bye-
lawThe SOLICITOR. GEN
law when this bye-law
forth that the persons to serve
of the Council, setting
turned by persons who were not
should only be re
by thew Common Council?
on juries shou
..t
his duty to make would not have been
which he had felt i However, the objections and demurrers,
made if it had been
City. However,
clearly set forth that no portion of the
penalty sought
recovery, go into the pockets of theCorpo-
:obe recovered from the :defendant would,
of London.
ration of h
reminded the Solicitor-General that the
The RECORDER
in freement
he e
voetfnttehoecfiCityti
City had the government of its local matters in its own hands,
Count, however, was not
and that the Common Council were empowered to pass laws
for its better government. This
simply one for the trial of matters solely relating to the City,
y, not unlike the old Court
of Exchequer, with but this difference, that it was not com-
petenta court of equit
The SamecTrou-GENEBAL said, no doubt,the old Court was
of an original and public character, but he • maintained that
the Court was exclusively a City tribunal, presided over by
l i ut ac t
fuoa lr 1
it
yt
wtoasgrant injunctions. -
a City officer, and a jury. composed of freemen of the City.
His Learned Friend had intimated to him that he abided by
the counter plea, and did not intend to amend it in accord.
ante with the arguments he (the Solicitor-General) had ad-
in preparing the
vanced. He should take issue on that plea, and hand in a
replication. During the interval occupied
replication
Mr. RAIMALL read the prec9pt issued by the Lord Mayor
to the Aldermen of the various wards for electing the
various officers and juries for the year, which set forth that
they should return all the names—. surnames truly written"
—of such persons competent to serve as petty juries. By
these precepts, it appeared that the Aldermen were required
The RECORD= said the Aldermen did not make the return.
to return the nameasoofatimiptertaohnens soprqoueaeleidfieedd
tt:
Mr. RARDALI,--131,1t he summons the inquest who make
sreerpvley. t o the
the return.
The SOLICITOR--
counter plea, on which he should take issue. He then read
the replication, which set i forth " that the names and sur-
names of all persons dwe ling in the said ward of Cripple..
gate, qualified to serve as jurors M the said ward,
therefore, the defendant puts himself on the
have not been annually returned in proper manner and form,
and that the names of the
.Jurors in the said challenge were
not returned fairly and impially in the said manner
Sir TROXAs WILDE demurred to the replication, the sub-
panelthatthe
of
which was, had not been returned
stance
the custom set out in the counter plea. After
aecording to .
in order to •
avoid any ambiguity, he said
reading the replication,
that
that the defendant alleged the names of the jurors in the
saidchallenge were not returned fairly and impartially accord-
ci tom as in manner and form set forth in the,
alleged, and,
lea lie demurred to this—lie demurred to it be-
p •
counteroit
Ras a
departure; and an Attempt to put in st-dittbrent
ing to the sal cus 2