The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-20 00:00:00

THE LORD MAYOR AND COMMON

COUNCIL.

On Monday the Committee of the whole Court assembled,
to discuss the conduct of the Lord Mayor. A number of mem-
bers were in attendance, the interest occasioned by the dis-
putes between the Chief Magistrates and the Common Council
being greatly increased.
Mr. PRITCHARD, on taking the chair, requested the parti.
cular attention of the Committee to the very important busi-
ness about to be submitted to them. He then proposed a
variety of resolutions relative to the question in dispute, which
were agreed to almost unanimously, and it was resolved that
the Committee should sit again on Thursday.

ORDER BY THE LORD MAYOR.

Sir C. MARSHALL said be believed the Hall-keeper had
something to communicate to the Committee relative to the
Lord Mayor. The Hall-keeper was then called in, and he
stated that he bad received a note from the Lord Mayor, pro-
hibiting him from summoning the Committee of the whole
Court.

The following is a copy of the letter :
" Mr. Temple, Hall-keeper, Guildhall.
" I hereby desire that you will not continue to summons
the. Members of the Common Council under the form as a
Committee of the whole Court, there not being any such
Committee in existence."

Mr. GaLLoway—The Hall-keeper is an officer, not the
Lord Mayor, and is bound to obey.
Mr. R. TATLOR—As to the assertion contained in the com-
munication, that this Committee was not in existence, it can
be considered as amounting to nothing more than if the Com-
mittee came to a resolution that there was no Lord Mayor in
existence.

Mr. FIGGINS considered the communication of the Lord
Mayor as the ultimatum of dictation. The Lord Mayor could
not prevent the Court from discussing that question at the
next Court ; for a greater violation of privilege never had been
committed.

A MEMBER—He certainly will prevent any discussion.
The Hall-keeper hoped the Members would be kind enough
to excuse him for not summoning them in future as Members
of the Committee of the whole Court, as he felt himself to be
in a very awkward situation.
Mr. E. WILSON said that the Members would be very un-
willing to let the Hall-keeper sustain any annoyance.
Mr. HEARD-I protest against such dictation as this.
The Committee then adjourned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

TILSON AND PRESTON V. KEY, BART., AND DUTTON.

Sir F. POLLOCK stated that this was an action to recover
the amount of a bill for work and labour performed by the
plaintiffs, as attorneys. The business had occupied a long
portion of time, and ran through some years, beginning with
1822. The present action was for the smaller portion of the
account, as the plaintiffs' partnership expired on the Ist of
May, 1825. There was another action, which the Jury would
probably have to try, for business done since that period, in
which Mr. Preston alone was the plaintiff. Pleas of the sta-
tute of limitations had been put upon the record, but the case
was taken out of the statute by a payment made by the defer*.
dans in 1829. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to his
statement, when

Mr. PLATT, who appeared for the defendant Sir John Key,
suggested that, as this case involved many long accounts re-
lating to law business, the whole matter had better be referred
to a legal arbitrator, with power to call in the assistance of any
taxing-officer.
Mr. ERLE, for the defendant Dutton, concurred with his
Learned Friend, Mr. Platt, in making this proposal. The
second action would, of course, be disposed of in the same way.
Sir F. Ponnocx stipulated that, as a preliminary condition,
the third plea in the second action should be withdrawn from
the record.

Some discussion followed on this proposition ; and it was
finally arranged that the pleas of the statute of limitations in
both actions, and the plea referred to by Sir F. Pollock in
the second action, should be withdrawn from the record ; but
that the arbitrator should have full power to consider all de-
fence on the merits ; that the costs of the cause should abide
the event, and the costs of the reference be in the discretion of
the arbitrator.—A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff, sub-
ject to this reference.

-- - -
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

RAWMONE V. MATTHEWS.

This was on action to recover damages against defendant,
for having, by his misrepresentations, induced the plaintiff to
give him considerable more for the good-will of his business, as
a chemist and druggist, than the said business was worth.
His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence ' • and the Jury, after
deliberating a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages, 201.