The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-16 00:00:00

LONGMAN V. TRAIL.

The Court was occupied nearly the whole morning in hear.
ing counsel in this case, in which the questions, being merely of
technical construction, are altogether destitute of public in
terest.

VICE CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the
whole morning with motions totally devoid of any interest,
except to the parties concerned. The Court will proceed with
petitions tomorrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.-( THIS DAY.)

SIIAW, BART., P. POYNTER.

Mr. PLATT, for the defendant, showed cause against a rule
Nisi which had issued for a procedendo to remand the case to
the Mayor Court of London. The question in issue arose
upon the return to a certiorari directed to the Mayor and Com-
monaltyof the city of London, in which return a certain cus-
tom and bye law were set out, and then, that in pursuance of
such custom and bye law, the defendant had incurred a pe-
nalty for employing a foreigner in his service. The bye law
prohibited any freeman being engaged in any handicraft,
manual occupation, or retail business ; and from em-
ploying• in any such handicraft, manual occupation,
or retail business, any person being a foreigner. The
action was brought in the Mayor's Court against the de.
fendant, who was a butcher, for employing in the manual
occupation of a butcher one William Cook, he being a stranger
in the City, and the penalty for such infringement of the bye-
law of the City was 51. Three questions would be raised,
first, that the bye-law was bad; secondly, that the case did not
come within the bye-law ; and thirdly, that if it did, it came
within the excepted cases in the bye-law. First he submitted that
the bye-law was bad, as being not only a restraint but a prohibi-
tion of labour ; for the term "manual occupation" meant any
description of labour, and did not refer to any particular trade.
The bye law was, therefore, too extensive, and being a great
restraint on labour, according to many authorities it was void-
able. A variety of authorities were collected in Comyn's
Digest, under the head " Bye law," c. 3., in which it was held
that where a bye law had a tendency to depress industry, it
was against the public weal, and therefore unreasonable.
Among the exceptions in the bye law it was stated
that it did not prohibit a freeman from employing a fo.
reigner a certain time on trial previous to apprentice-
ship ; other descriptions of persons were also excepted.
The charging part of the declaration stated that the defendant
had employed William Cook after having notice that he was
a foreigner ; so that in fact an apprentice was a foreigner.
The declaration should have gone further, and have stated
more distinctly that the person so employed did not come
within the exception of the bye law. It was unreasonable to
suppose that a person should be prohibited from employing a
foreigner, when for all that appeared no freeman presented
himself, and there was no power to compel a freeman's ser-
vices. Besides, a freeman was not supposed to know whether
any one he employed was capacitated by having his freedom
or not.
Mr. Justice ParrEsoN said it was found by the jury in this
case that the defendant had notice of the party not being a
freeman.
Mr. PLATT submitted that the bye law should apply to per-
for there was no
power
which related case
to of
sons who should be proved to have had the tender of the
"Faza
ko f
toly compelling
vN Wiltshire,"
theh i
tes, e„ r v i
es c
tr of
aservices of a freeman, and that he refused them, so that his
trade might not be restricted or delayed,
the employment of free porters by a merchant, it was held that for employing
the merchant was not liable to a penalty a non-
free porter ; so in the case of " Comyn v. Eastfield," (1 Salkild,
442,) in which it was held that the merchant was not liable.
Mr. Justice PATTEsox—No more than I may be liable for
employing a tailor, not a freeman; this is a different case, for
now a party employs him in his own trade.
Mr. PLATT said, still the custom and bye laws were too ex-
tensive, for the words manual occupation" might apply to a
Sia, freeman. 4 62,)
man sweeping a shop, carrying a joint of meat from one part
of the shop to the other, or any occupation in which the hands
were used; indeed, if a person chose to employ a man to make
his beds, that would come Within the term " manual occupa-

tion." The learned Counsel submitted that, for the reason he
had stated, the procedendo should not issue.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE observed, that in the case of
party, not a freeman, employed to make beds, that was a do-
mestic occupation, and was exempted by the statute of Elizabeth.

Mr. FOLLETT, on behalf of the Corporation of London, said,
that by that statute, and by cases in the Sth vol. of Lord Coke,
129 A, it was clearly laid down that persons employing non-
freemen to brew or bake for their private use, and not in the
way of trade, were exempted from the operation of restrictive
bye laws. As to the bye laws being a restraint on labour, no doubt
all such bye laws were, to a certain extent so, but the present one
did not bear heavier on a person's labour than on a person who
was prohibited from setting up business in the city until he
had purchased or otherwise obtained his freedom. It was
true that all bye laws were bad that were not supported by
custom, but in the case of the Corporation of London all the
customs on which the bye laws were founded were confirmed
by Act of Parliament, and therefore not voidable. As to the
fact of a merchant not being liable for employing a non-free
porter, that was not a case in point, because it did not appear
whether the merchant was himself a freeman, and it was only
a freeman who was liable to the penalty in question. After
citing a variety of authorities bearing on the questions, the
learned Counsel submitted that the proceedings should issue.
Mr. GURNEY followed on the same side.
Their LORDSHIPS delivered the judgment of the Court seria-
tim. As to whether the preSent case came within the excep-
tions in the bye-law, that should have been properly (if it
were an exception) matter of defence in the Court below at the
trial, and could not now be raised. With regard to the point,
that probably no other persons being freemen had tendered
their services, that would apply to all restrictive clauses, and
did not properly become a question to be now considered.
Upon the other point, whether the custom and bye law were
too extensive in terms, their Lordships thought it would be
more satisfactory to take time to consider of it before they deli-
vered their opinion.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

RYAN V.STEPIIENS AND BURCRELL.

This was an action for trespass, for breaking and entering the
dwelling-house of the plaintiff, and shooting at and wounding
the plaintiff's dog, and injuring the floor of the plaintiff's dwell-
ing-house. After evidence had been adduced, a verdict was
found for the plaintiff—damages, 5/,