The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-10 00:00:00

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
LICHFIELD.
Nov. 9.—Major Butler Morgan, Esq. (a Conservative),
was this day unanimously chosen Mayor for the ensu-
ing year, and. Joseph Pitt, Esq., High Sheriff. The
citizens entertain his worship at a public dinner at the
swan Hotel this evening.
BIRMINGHAM.
Yesterday Robert Martineau, Esq.,brass-cock founder,
was unanimously elected Mayor of Birmingham. Mr.
Martineau is brother to Harriet Martineau, the celebrated
writer.

NORWICH.
Nov. 9.—The town council met this day, of which
forty Whigs and ten Tories were present,. for the
purpose of electing the Mayor, Sher, and other
officers, for the year ensuing. The choice of Mayor fell
upon our late Sheriff, Jeremiah Colman, Esq., of New-
market-road, in this city, and also of that respected firm
of J. and J. Colman, of Dowgate hill, London; he was
proposed by Sir Wm. Foster, Bart., and carried unani-
mously; and that of Sheriff upon Charles Winter, Esq.,
who was proposed by S. S. Beare, Esq., and also carried
unanimously. The meeting was a very full one, and
after other appointments broke up, and appeared to have
given general satisfaction to the public in such appoint.
ments. Both gentlemen aro Whigs.—From a Corre-
spondent.

POST-OFFICE MONEY ORDERS

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SlR,—Convinced it will be saving much disappoint-
ment and inconvenience when more generally known
and correctly adopteJ, will you permit me through your
columns to remind parties remitting by Post-office
orders, the necessity of strictly regarding the regulation
in respect to the " Christian and surname of those in
whose favour the order is obtained." For want of this
accuracy it not unfrequently happens that a money order
(however small the sum) may have to be presented two
or three times.—Your obedient servant,
121, Holborn-hill, Nov. 9. A. K. GIFFORD.

THE CITY OF LONDON STOCK-

BROKER'S' BOND.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—I see by a copy of " The Broker's Bond" in The
Sun of yesterday, that the stockbroker is licensed by
the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the city of London
to be " a sworn broker in public stock, funds, shares,
and other securities for money," and that by the bond
on admission as a broker he binds himself in the penalty
of one thousand pounds to fultil certain conditions
therein named. If such bond can be enforced in a
court of law it will be found to be a great protection to
the public in purchasing or selling "public stock, funds,
shares and, other securities for money;" but as to the
probability of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen recovering
the penalty from Mr. Mochas, I leave you and your
readers to judge, after having read the two following
extracts. The first I shall take from the same paper
wherein is the copy of " The Broker's Bond," viz., The
Sun of yesterday's date, folio 3, column 4:—
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
KNIGHT V. BARBER.

This case was tried at Liverpool before Mr. Justice
Cresswell, the plaintiff was nonsuited upon the ground
that a certain document was not stamped, purporting
to be an agreement between the parties for the pur-
chase and sale of certain railway scrip or shares.
Mr. BAINES moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted;
he contended that the contract did not require a stamp,
inasmuch as it was an agreement for the sale of an
article which he contended came under the head of
merchandise, which, with goods and wares were specially
exempted from the operation of the Stamp Act.
The LORD CHIEF BARON stated it was his opinion
that the documet in question should have been stamped,
because it was impossible to suppose that scrip could be
considered as merchandise. The sale of scrip was
nothing more than an agreement made between himself
and some company or companies ; it could not, there-
fore, be goods or merchandise, and not coming under the
exception contained in the Stamp Act, ought, therefore,
to have been stamped.
Mr. Baron PARKE was of the same opinion.
The rule for a new trial refused.

Now observe, the Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Baron
Parke both held that railway scrip was neither goods,
wares, nor merchandise. The second extract I take fro,u
my common-place book, which itself was extracted from
The Sun, December 16th, 1840:

OLD BAILEY.-NEW COURT.

TRIAL OF THOMAS PILGRIM FOR FORGERY.—A
witnesi, who described himself as a. stockbroker, was
asked if he was a licensed broker. He replied, " No."

Sir FREDERICK PonLocx addressed the Court—There
is no doubt in the profession that the stockbroker need
not take out a license from the City, as the public funds
are not goods, wares, or merchandise over which the
City has any control.
When we find Sir Frederick Pollock in open Court
declaring the opinion of his profession generally to be
that the Lord Mayor and Aldermen have only a right
to grant brokers' licenses for the purpose of buying and
selling goods, wares, and merchandise, and the Lord
Chief Baron and Mr. Baron Parke ruling that railway
scrip is neither goods, wares, nor merchandise, where is
the probability of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the
city of London recovering the penalty of one thousand
pounds from Mr. Rochas on the bond given by him on
his admission as a stockbroker, he being licensed as a
broker in public stack, funds, shares, and other securities
for money, uver which Sir Frederick Pollock says the
City has no control?
By the report on Mr. Rochas' case we find one of the
points on which the penalty of the bond is sought to be
recovered is, that Mr. R. allowed his son to act for him
as broker without having been duly admitted; ;but I do
not find that any prosecution of Mr. Rochas, jun., was
ordered for acting as a stockbroker, not being duly ad-
mitted and licensed by the Court of Lord Mayor and
Aldermen of the City of London. How did this hap-
pen? If the City authorities have no power to prose-
cute Mr. Rochas, jun., how can they reasonably expect
to recover the penalty under Mr. Rochas, sen,'s bond,
he having allowed his son to act as a broker in a way
those authorities have no power to forbid?

In the observations I have made I have no wish or
desire to be considered either as the apologist or
advocate of the Messrs. Rochas, and in point•
ing out the probability of the failure of the
City prosecution, I do so under the hope that the
members of the Stock Exchange will come forward and
assist the City authorities, in case of need, to procure
Legislative sanction to the City bond and license, which
have hitherto tended to place in public confidence and
give respectability to the stockbroker of the city of
London; and perhaps it would be desirable that a ge-
neral measure should be adopted to license all share-
brokers in the kingdom. Why should they escape more
than bankers or auctioneers?