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

the London case, might also be quoted. It appeared from
Barnewall's report of the case, page 287, that the Recorder
of London, in giving his judgment, said it was clear
that a merchant who sold his goods entire was not compelled
to become a freeman of the City for the purpose of carrying on
his trade, but that those who sold by the yard or by retail
were liable to the operations of the bye-laws ; and, therefore,
that being so, there was no room left for argument in this
1 case. _
....

The REconDEß—Then you contend that you have brought
yourself within the description of the Act of Parliament.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL-NO, my Lord, I say they have
net brought us within the description of their bye-law;
and I submit to your Lordship it is incumbent on the plaintiff
to do so if he is to succeed in his prosecution.
The RECOADEK--118 shows that the defendant sells by
retail.

The SomaDm-GENERAL—Yes; it is not for me to enter
into the variety of the illustrations, and to consider whether
a pair of scissors, or a hat, or a knife, or any other article—
The REcormen—No; you have merely to show that your
client sells within the description of the statute so as to en-
title him to the privilege it confers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL did not wish to impose upon his
Learned Friend the duty of again addressing his Lordship or
the jury—(Laughter)—by referring to other Acts of which
his Lordship was no doubt already perfectly aware, but he
would again remark that they had here a bye-law which
sought to impose a penalty, which bye-law, he contended,
must be construed like all other penal enactments in the
most strict sense, and he submitted that it was incumbent
on the plaintiff, who sought to exact the penalty from the
defendant to show clearly and beyond all reasonable doubt,
to bring him within the meaning of that bye-law.
The RECORDER observed, that it appeared that the Solici-
tor-General was not quite so ignorant upon the merits of the
question and the laws of the Court as he at first professed to
be.—(Laughter.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, that he was
happy to say that his Learned Friend had been
kind enough to furnish him with information upon
the practice and laws of the Court, for which he was greatly
indebted to him. The plaintiff had given no evidence
whatever of what retail trading was at the time when this
bye-law was made, or what was the definition of wholesale
or retail trading at that particular time. They could there-
fore only judge by the light of their own reason, and he had
already referred his Lordship to the statement of Richard,
which was made pari materid with this bye-law. It appeared
that, although the plaintiff sought to recover penalties from
the, defendant, he at the same time admitted that in payment
of his goods he received acceptances for four months, or
cash with an allowance of two-and- a-half per cent.
Now, was that symptomatic of retail dealing ?
The mode of paying, namely by acceptances of four months,
OT 2% discount for cash, showed that it was dealing in gross,
and came within the category of wholesale dealing. There-
fore he held that the jury must decide in favour of the de-
fendant on the two last counts, those only which referred to
retail dealings. The meaning of the provisions with respect
to retail dealings was simply this, that no one should
expose goods for sale by retail. It was clear
that the defendant did not expose goods for
sale, and if the assumption of his being a retail dealer was
held to be good by the jury, solicitors, bankers, and others,
would be brought within the category and be liable to
hold the offices which were assigned to freemen.
After referring to a case decided by the Court of
Queen's Bench, namely, Clarke v. Denton, in which it was
maintained by Lord Tenterden that a person was not a retail
dealer unless he sold his goods by piece, he proceeded to say
that the defendant did not come within the definition of a
retail dealer, as set forth in the bye-law of the Common
Council. The Act of Richard 11. was amended in the
seventh year of the reign of Henry IV., and again
amended in the ninth year of the reign of the same
sovereign. The amendment of the law made in the 9th of
Henry IV. had not been printed, but was included in Lord
Coke's account of Waggoner's case. The 7th of Henry IV.
merely legalised the selling and buying of goods, and clearly
legalised the sale in gross, so that if it were now in force deal-
ings of that character would be perfectly legal in a non-free-
man, and could not be repealed without the intervention
of another Act of Parliament. Then the subsequent enact-
ments left all dealings in gross just as they were, except sel-
ling in gross by non-freemen to non-freemen to sell again
was forbidden, and that was r:ow the law within the City of
Landon, but within which he held the defendant did not come.
Then comes the subject of the bye-laws there being no Act
repealing them ; the effect of which was, that those two
Acts of Parliament clearly showed that it was legal for mer-
chant-dealers to sell to merchant-strangers, but not to sell
again. They denied the power of the bye-laws to defraud
the Act, and the question was whether they should put it in
the limited or in the enlarged sense. If in the former, the
law was conformable with the statutes, but in the other
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 plaintiff's had a right to speak
upon Waggoner's case, in the statute of Henry VII.
The RF.coxprat decided that new matter having been in-
troduced, the plaintiffs might be heard.
Sir T. WILDS 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 vices 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
nas 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 wat es, 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, to abide
by the exposition of the Act of Rickard 11. Then as to
Waggoner,s case, the statute was as distinct as it could pos
sibly be, particularly that part which said that no person
I should keep a shop or other house for the purpose. The
thing might be done covertly, so they first imposed a
penalty, and then they laid down that no non- freemen should
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 include everything, they used the term " art." His
Learned Friend had stated that he would not quote Coke—
hut another edition, where the matter was more distinct,
and well he might, for it was not in Coke---as to Waggoner's
case, that no man was to be 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
sold, 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 ruled 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 Glace, and in accordance with an act of Common Council,
passed so far back as 1806, in the fourth 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 f a warehouseman.
by selling goods and merchandise without being free. The
question then which they would have to decide was, whether
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. He would not enter into
the right of the Council to pass the bye-law, because in his
official capacity he might have to defend that right elsewhere.
Having read the admissions of the defendant,he saidthe pay-
ment for goods by acceptances at four months, or by cash at two-
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 with 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 unfortunate that they had
not been informed of the size of the bales of cotton, woollen,
&c., 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 bnsiness 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 surncient
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 on au art, mystery, or
handicraft within the meaning of the bye- law 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.

THE ALLEGED ATTEMPT AT
MURDER IN DRURY-LANE.
BOW STREET.
John Braham, the alleged assassin of the unfortunate man
Blewitt, was placed at the bar before the sitting magistrate,
Mr. Henry, to answer the charge made against him, shortly
after the night charges had been disposed of this morning.
There was, as usual, a great crowd assembled in Bow-
street from the time the various prisoners were led across the
street from the station to the court up to their final
removal in the prison van. There was, however, less ex-
citement and less interest shown in regard to this case than
in others of recent date, which were attended with more re-
volting circumstances.
The prisoner was placed in the dock at two o'clock, when
he appeared perfectly composed and self-possessed. He was
defended by Mr. Humphreys.
The charge on the police-sheet was for shooting and
wounding Thomas Blewitt, and thereby endangering his life.
The first witness called was
Louisa Cooke, who said—l live at No. 12, Great Earl-
street, Seven Dials, and am servant to a Mrs. Dowling. At
about five minutes past eight on Saturday night I was going
down Princes-street, Drury-lane, towards Clare market,
when I met the prisoner, whom I had never seen before, at
the corner of Princes-street. I accidentally pushed against him,
and he said, " You —, what made you do that ?" I
said, ~ You puppy, what made you call me that? could you
prove me one?" Ile tried to catch hold of me by the arm,
and I ran away. He followed me, caught me by the arm,
and used the same expression to me as before, adding, " If it
wasn't for one thing 1 would do fur you to-night"
Ile then took a pistol from under his arm, but I am fiat
sure whether it was the right or the left arm. I think igive him in charge, and
t
' "and he ran away. He appeared very
utrig"lii)to.licle, sa
aid I would
timid and wishful.
c"a'allsedt hoe
wishful " the term
she replying that it was, Mr. Henry she used ? and on her re
Mr. Hamphreys asked whether " was
Id and as if "he would do
that looked wild she meant he _ _.,,
in-
quired what the wanes]) idneaut by " wishful ?" She said
something to her if he dart.
William Hathaway, of37,
that at about twenty minutes before nine o'clock on Saturday
l e
Hertford-place, Drury-lane, said
e, and walked towards
d
night he was passing through Drury- an , and the prisoner
crossed the road from the opposite al