The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1834

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION INQUIRY.

(Before Sir F. PALGRAVE.)
WOOLMEN'S COMPANY.
One of the past Masters of this Company attended, and
stated that the style of the Company formerly was, the
Company of wool-packers, wool-winders, wool-shooters, and
wool-men ; they were appointed to examine all wool and
see what was fit for use. This was done by an officer
called a wool-stapler, who was sworn, and the last of these
officers was in the year 1779. In the reign of Edward IV.
the Company went in the procession at the coronation of
the Queen. The Company consists of two classes—livery-
men and freemen, and the ruling body consists of the
Master, two Wardens, and 12 Assistants. The number of
the livery is forty, but the freemen are unlimited. Females
are eligible to the freedom. The Court of Assistants is
open to the whole body. The Master and Wardens are
elected for two years. The mode of the election is by
open vote. There is no religious distinction made in
electing to the Court. There are, at present, four Quakers on
it. There are two brothers and a father and son on the Court.
These are the only relations on it. The Master finds 500/.
security. One Member of the Court was passed over unani-
mously, and not elected Master, on the ground of drunken-
nesi. The officers of the Company are the clerk and
beadle, who are elected during good behaviour. These
last-may be displaced from the Court on the grounds of
non-residence or insolvency. There has been only one dis-
placed in the last thirty years, and he was going to reside
abroad. The Master pays a fine of .51., and the Wardens
a fine of five marks for refusing to serve, but :these fines
are seldom incurred. The freedom is obtained by patri-
mony, apprenticeship, gift, and redemption. The children
of freemen born after their father's death are entitled to the
freedom. There was only one instance of the freedom hav-
ing been granted by gift, and that was to a person named
Vernon. By an order of the Court of Aldermen it was
that females were admitted by patrimony or apprenticeship.
There are fees paid on admission, and there is a quarter-
age of fourpence. By an old ordinance no wool-shooter
can have more than one apprentice at a time, under a pe-
nalty of 101. on each apprentice above that number. This
penalty, however, is not now enforced. There is no restriction
as to the number of apprentices on any other class of the
Company. Turnover apprentices are allowed. All the present
members of the Company, except three, are free of the city of
London. None are now admitted who are not free of
the city. By an ordinance of Charles 11. all wool-combers
were declared free of the city. The Hall and records of
the Company were destroyed in the great fire of London.
There is no qualification necessary to procure the freedom,
nor is it necessary to belong to any particular trade. There
is no instance of the freedom being refused. The fee on
becoming a Master is 211. The clerk has only a-nominal
salary. The Court rarely makes any by-law. The War-
dens audit the accounts. The Company at large have ac-
cess to all documents. The charter of the Company was
lost in the fire, and no copy of it remains. The Company
had no livery until it was granted to them by the Court of
Aldermen in the year 1825. Formerly no one could carry
on any of the branches of the trade without the permission
of the Company, but they now exercise no control.
HORNERS' COMPANY.
Sir F. PALGRAVE said that he had received a letter from
the clerk of the Homers' Company, declining to attend,
but offering to submit to the Court of Assistants any
further questions in writing the, Commissioner might wish
to have answered.
Mr. Burnell, the Master of the Company, said that it
was the wish of the Company and the Court of Assistants,
that the Clerk should have attended and given the Com-
missioners every information they might require, but the
Clerk, although the servant of the Company, had refused
to do so, in imitation, he (Mr. Burnell) supposed, of the
Clerks of the large Companies. He (Mr. Burnell) had
some delicacy about giving all the information that might
be called for, because he took an oath of secresy every-
year, and he had served the office of Master 20 years.
Sir F. PALGRAVE said that all oaths of this description
were merely conditional, just as the coronation oath was..
Mr. Burnell said he should give the Commissioner as
much information as he thought he could conscientiously
give, and he was sure the Commissioner would not press
for more.
Sir F. PALGRAVE said certainly not.
Mr. Burnell then went on to state that the Company
consisted of one class of freemen only, they having no
livery ; and the ruling body consisted of Master and War-
dens, who are elected every year, and Assistants, who are
elected for life. At present the Court consists of only the
Master, two Wardens, and three Assistants. The charter
of the Company is a very curious one, and was granted to
them by Edward IV. About 100 years ago the Company
was a very large one, but the trade had now quite fallen
off, and he and his son were of the very few who carried it
on at present. The chief purposes for which the trade is
at all carried on now, were the making of drinking cups and
preparing horn plates for exportation to Germany, where
they manufacture the horn thus prepared into articles of
imitation tortoiseshell. Horn powder flasks are made, but
they are not used in any great number. The reason that
the English horn is preferred above all other for making the
imitation tortoiseshell is, that it possesses a finer and a
kinder texture and grain, and is not so stubborn. The use
of horn originated in the days of Alfred. The mode of pre-
paring it at present is by scraping first, and then pressing it
between plates of hot iron. The elections in the Company
are by open voting, and appointment to office is by se-
niority, and there is no security given by any of the
members of the Court, nor is there any distinction made
on the grounds of religion. Father, son, and brother,
are the only relations on the Court. The Clerk of the
Company has a salary, but he (Mr. Burnell) must decline
stating how much that salary was. There is a fine of 41. for
coming on the Court, and the same fees have been paid
since the year 1700. The freedom is obtained by patri-
mony, servitude, and redemption. The Company was
originally a trading one. Formerly the Company used to
buy up all horns by contract, and kept one general stock
for the use of the trade. Members are restricted to two
apprentices. The fine for redemption is 81., and the free-
dom is never conferred by gift. The Company had never
applied to the Court of Aldermen for a livery, because he
understood it would not be granted to them, unless they
had an income sufficient to sustain the dignity of one. In
1830, an order was made that no freeman of the Company
should come upon the Court, unless he should be free also
of the city of London. All persons within 24 miles of
London; are restricted from practising the trade, unless
they belong to the Company, The homers of London
generally join the Company, but they are not now com-
pelled to do so. There are not a dozen of the trade in all
London. The trade has fallen off, owing to the great im-
provement in glass. Freemen only are privileged to carry
on the trade in London. Those who attend the Courts
dine at the expense of the Company. The controul of the
trade is not abandoned, but not exercised. They have
some leasehold property arising from the ground where
their warehouse formerly stood, in Wentworth-street,
Whitechapel. They have property in the funds, but he
declines stating how much.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 3.

BIRMINGHAM V. RIDER.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict which had been given in this case for the
defendant should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.
This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment, and
was tried before Lord Denman at the sittings after last
term. The plaintiff was a poor man, who had purchased a
horse of the defendant, which he was to pay for by instal-
ments. He was not able regularly to keep up his pay-
ments, and the defendant's servant one day meeting him in
the street caused him to be apprehended on the charge of
stealing the horse. The plaintiff was taken before a City
Magistrate, who dismissed the charge, but it was agreed be-
tween the parties that the horse should be delivered up.
The difficulty at the time of the trial was to prove that the
imprisonment had been caused by the defendant, and that
difficulty was attempted to be supplied by calling the de-
fendant's servant, with a view to show that he ha autho-
rised the officer to detain the plaintiff. The Jury, however,
thought that that point had not been made out, and there-
fore gave a verdict for the defendant. The Lord Chief
Justice had summed up the evidence, and observed upon
the evidence of the defendant's servant, leaving it to the
Jury to say whether in their opinion his evidence justified
them in concluding that the imprisonment had been caused
by the defendant's order. The conclusion at which the
Jury had arrived was manifestly against the weight of evi-
dence in the cause, and such he believed had been the im-
pression of the Chief Justice at the trial.
Lord DENMAN had left the whole case to the jury with-
out endeavouring to direct them in the way.
It was understood that the rule was refused.

BUTTERTON V. BURGESS.
Mr. WHATLEY moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict given for the plaintiff in this case, with 501. da-
mages, should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.
He moved this rule upon the payment of costs. This was
an action to recover damages for criminal conversation with
the plaintiff's wife. The cause was tried at the Shrewsbury
Assizes before Mr. Justice Williams. The defendant was
the labouring servant of the plaintiff, who was a farmer.
The verdict was taken against him in his absence. There
were now affidavits fully accounting for the defendant not
being at the trial, and showing that it arose from the diffi-
culty of getting such witnesses as he discovered to be neces-
sary.
- In consequence of this he had not been able to pre-
pare his brief in time to deliver it to the Counsel the day
before the trial. The brief was therefore not delivered till
the morning of the trial, and then, a number of causes
having been quite unexpectedly disposed of, the case came
on so rapidly that the Couusel to whom it was delivered

had. not had time to read it. Under these circumstances,
that Learned Counsel saying that it was quite impossible
for him to do justice to the cause, he returned the brief to
the defendant. The cause was, therefore, taken as an un-
defended cause, and a verdict for .501. passed against the
defendant. Under these circumstances he applied for a rule
to set aside the verdict.

The Court did not see any sufficient ground to grant the
rule.

MORRIS V. DIXON.
• This was an action of assumpsit brought upon an instru-
ment in the following form :
" I acknowledge to owe James Morris, of Bo!ton, the
sum of 361., which I agree to pay to him as soon as cir-
cumstances will permit me to do so."
The case came on for trial before Mr. Justice Vaughan at
Chester, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff for the
sum of 61.

Mr. J. Jervis now moved for a rule to show cause why
that verdict should not be set aside and a nonsuit entered,
on the ground that the instrument had been improperly re-
ceived in evidence, as it was not stamped with an agreement
stamp.

The Court granted the rule.
GRIFFITH V. HUGHES, CLERK.
Mr. John Jervis moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict given in this case for the defendant should not be
set aside, and a verdict, with nominal damages, entered for
the plaintiff. This was an action of trespass and false im-
prisonment, tried at the last assizes at Welshpool, before
Mr. Justice Vaughan. The plaintiff was the gamekeeper
of a gentleman named Woodcock, and the defendant was a
county Magistrate. The plaintiff was charged with tress
passing upon the laud of another person, and an information
was laid against him. A warning had been issued to the
constable to direct him to appear before the Justice and
answer the information, but he did not appear ; on which
the Justice issued his warrant for the apprehension of the
plaintiff. This action of false imprisonment was then
brought, on the ground that the warning or summons, if it
might be so called, and the warrant, were both defective in
form.
The Court granted the rule.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Nov. 3.

(Before Mr. Commissioner WILLIAMS.)
REMINGTON, STEPHENSON, AND CO.'S BANKRUPTCY.

A meeting of the creditors of this banking firm was con-
vened for this day, for the purpose of auditing the accounts,
and declaring a dividend upon the joint estate. In conse-
quence, however, of the non-receipt of a sum of money which
the assignees expected to have obtained, the dividend was
postponed. It is understood that the next dividend upon
the general estate will be about sixpence in the pound,
which will make the dividends paid to the creditors of the
banking firm exceed 11 s. in the pound.
Upon the separate estate of Rowland Stephenson, a fur-
ther small dividend is also expected to be declared. No-
thing is known of the proceedings of Rowland Stephenson,
who is stated to be in great distress in America.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

A poor woman, who a few days ago complained to the
LORD MAYOR that although she and her five children had
nothing to eat she was prevented from having an interview
with the Magistrates of Lambeth-street Office by the
officers in attendance there, came before the LORD MAYOR
yesterday, for the purpose of stating the result of another
application for admittance.
The woman stated that no attention was paid to her com-
plaint. She had seen the Magistrates at Lambeth-street
Office, but was told that she could not be assisted by them.
The LORD MAYOR—Then I would advise you to go at
o,nce to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department,
end make your complaint to him. lam convinced that you
will not apply in vain. If you had been refused admission
to the Magistrates by the officers, I should at once take your
depositions and hand them to the Under-Secretary ; but as
the Magistrates- have decided upon your application, I
cannot impugn that decision.

- The woman knew nobody to whom to go for shelter, and
asked where she should leave her children until she should
return from the Home Secretary ?
. The LORD MAYOR—Take your children with you. If
your claim was in the city of London I should compel the
parish officers to relieve you, but I have no power to act in
your case. However, I have every reason to suppose that
the Home Secretary will interfere in your behalf. Even
the new Act does not authorise such treatment as that to
which you have been subjected. It will not sanction the
refusal of the necessaries of life, however magistrates may
be disposed to act upon so kind a system.
The applicant then left the Justice Room for the purpose
of going to the office of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Booker, one of the parish officers of Bishopsgate,
brought before the Lord Mayor a young woman of very
decent appearance in order to be informed by his Lordship
in what manner the Poor Law Bill could be applied to her
case. She had, the officer said, become pregnant by a man
of some property while in service. The consequence was
that she lost her place with her character, and was now
dependent upon the parish for support. The girl was
ready to swear that the person who had ruined her was the
only man she had ever known intimately, but that person
refused to contribute to the maintenance of the child, and
the parish did not know how to compel him, as there was
no corroborative testimony to be found to confirm her simple
declaration that he was the father.

The Loan MAYOR---I don't pretend to understand what
they mean by corroborative testimony in a case of the kind.
You say the man is able to support the child ? Mr.
Booker—No doubt of it. He is in good business, and has
money in the Bank ; but he says we can't corroborate her
statement, for he won't make any acknowledgment that he
has had anything to do with her, and I am given to under-
stand that an acknowledgment of the kind is the corrobora-
tive matter required.

The LORD MAYOR did not know what to advise the
parish to do, but he supposed a lawyer would advise them
to file a bill of discovery, or what was called a fishing bill.
Mr. Booker—The girl is not able to support herself,
and how we are to manage when the child is born we know
not. We certainly shall not let the mother and child
starve, and the father will have the laugh at the parish for
maintaining his child for the want of corroborative testi-
mony.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Hobler said the dilemma was an extremely disagree-
able one. The corroborative testimony must, if he could
fathom the meaning of the Act, be a thing of no very re-
markable delicacy. It was a testimony which a decent
person would not very willingly subscribe to.
The LORD MAYOR—I don't know what to do. It
would appear that any vagabond fellow who destroys a poor
credulous girl may be helped out of the responsibility by the
absence of this corroborative testimony.—(Laughter.) The
nonsense of the thing is really insufferable.
Mr. Booker said that the girl should be taken care of.
He wished very much to be in possession of the meaning of
every part of the Bill, for the parish in which he was an
officer was an extremely populous one, and there were in it
a great numher dependent upon parochial bounty.
The LORD MAYOR-4 wish I could assist you, for I
think it necessary to declare, now that I am at the end of
my Mayoralty, that the parish has shown great judgment in
appointing to the situation you fill a man of so much hu-
manity and discrimination as you possess. lam sorry to
be obliged to think differently of the officers of other dis-
tricts, who seem to delight in the power of rejecting the so-
licitations of the distressed, which they think this Bill gives
to them. I regret, too, that such officers receive the very
discreditable sanction of some Magistrates, and in bearing
my testimony to that fact, I am borne out by the corrobo-
rative testimony of the poor themselves--(A laugh.)