The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-28 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-(THIS DAY.)

After the opening of the Court this morning, Sir JOHN SCOTT
LILLin stated that having been requested to superintend the elec-
tion of six additional inspectors of weights and measures, with Sir
JOHN GIBBONS, on the preceeding day, he had to report the
names of those returned, which could not have been ascertained
until a late hour last night, from their having been 87 candidates,
and 94 Magistrates who voted.
Sir Joms availed himself of that opportunity of removing an
impression that had gone abroad, through the public press, as to its
being impossible to carry the provisions of the Act into effect, and
consequently that it would be useless to attempt it, or to increase
the number of inspectors for that purpose ; such observations had
certainly been made by individual Magistrates in that Court, but
he wished to protest against the recognition of any such doctrine,
as it amounted to neither more nor less than an encouragement to a
disobedience of the law, and was calculated to mislead those persons
in business who used weights and measures, as they had been given
to understand that they would not be fined more than one farthing
for not having their weights or measures stamped by the time pre-
scribed by this Act. This was encouragement to them not to take
any trouble in making any endeavour to have them so stamped, and
it was also calculated to do considerable injury to the inspectors,
who must be put to considerable expense in making the necessary
arrangements for the proper execution of their respective duties,
and it was also calculated to reflect upon that Court, if such a doc-
trine was allowed to go forth uncontradicted. As regarded the
penalty of one farthing, he had already expressed it as his opinion
that such a fine would in certain cases be sufficient, such as that of
a tradesman making all due diligence in endeavouring to get his
weights and measures stamped and not being enabled to succeed: in
that case he thought it would be the height of injustice to punish a
man for not performing an impossibility ; but if, on the other hand,
no attempt should have been proved to be made, or no application to
an inspector, then he thought it imperative on the Magistrate to inflict
a severe fine. He wished also to correct an impression that appeared to
have gone forth, as to its being the opinion of the Magistrates of that
county that this was an Act introduced by the late Ministers, and that
it was disgraceful to them, as an Hon. Baronet had been pleased to
term it, and another Hon. Baronet, more charitably disposed, ob-
served—" De mortuis nil nisi bonum ;" this last word he thought
it would be justice to change, as De mortuis nil nisi verum would
be more applicable, for the measure was not a Ministerial one, but;
was introduced by a private individual unconnected with Govern-
ment. He ( Sir John) did not appear there as the champion of
the late Ministers, or desirous of reflecting upon their successors ;
but when he heard animadversions of an unfounded nature going
forth from that Court, he for one wished it to be understood that
such were not participated in by the Magistrates throughout the
county. As his opinion as to the late Ministers was that—
Whateer reflections on their conduct fall,
Look on Reform, and you forget them all.
(Hear, hear. )—As that was probably the last opportunity that
would offer of the subject being introduced in that Court, he did
not wish to let it pass without making some observations which in
common justice to all parties he considered it to be his duty to make.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.S

NEW COURT.

Joseph Lay was indicted with stealing, and Reuben Martin, the
ex-pugilist, was also indicted with having received (knowing it to
be stolen), a great coat, belonging to Edward Hodd. The coat
was valued at 30s.

The evidenee of the several witnesses tended to prove that the
bargain for the purchase of the coat by Martin of Lay, was done
openly in the bar of the Boot public-house, Milton-street, which
house is in the occupation of Martin. Two other persons offered
16s. and 18s., but on Martin offering 21s. and a glass of brandy
and water for it, he became the purchaser, and afterwards sold it for
255. The coat was stolen on the 27th October, from the prosecu--
tor's gig, which was the day previous to its coming into the posses-
sion of Martin.

The COMMON SERGEANT said that there was no evidence against
Martin, who was acquitted by the Jury. Lay was found Guilty.
The Common Sergeant refused several of the police constables
their expenses, who appeared to prove points of no material evi-
dence, and declared that he must put a stop to the practice of bring-
ing forward so many unnecessary witnesses, and that there were
more policemen ( witnesses) who came from Worship-street Office,
than any other office of the metropolis.
Mr. PHILLIrs said that the Policeman who had lost many days
in looking after Lay ought to be an exception.
The Court expressed its sorrow for the man, but a public duty, and
the public interest compelled them to adopt the course they had