The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-21 00:00:00

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

LIABILITY TO BE CALLED UPON TO SERVE
THE OFFICE OF CONSTABLE.
Yesterday a Court was held for the dispatch of general
business. A question of considerable importance came on,
and was decided in the course of the day. The following
is an outline :
Mr. BODKIN (the barrister) stated that he appeared to
insist against the appointment of Joseph Sladen, Esq., and.
William Slade, Esq., as constables of the Ward of Castle-
Baynard, an appointment which, he contended, was illegal,
as appeared from the case of the King v. Clarke, Ist term
reports 679. In that case the defendant was appointed
headborough of Whitechapel. By virtue of the charter by
which the elder brothers of the Trinity-house were incorpo-
rated, the members of that body were exempted from serv-
ing as constables ; and, subsequently, the association of the
younger brothers of the Trinity was established. In the
Court of King's Bench it was held that the latter were
not entitled to -exemption, but it came out incidentally
in the -discussion of the case, that the power of the
Crown to grant exemption was undeniable. Chief Justice
Ashurst expressed his opinion to that effect ; and Mr.
Justice Buller said he thought that the question of the
power of the Crown had been completely settled on the
point of exemption in the case of the King v. Pugh : he
meant the power as far as regarded officers under the
Crown. The office of constable was an office under the
Crown ; and the gentlemen who appealed were protectors'
officers under the Crown, and therefore might claim ex-
emption, if it were not proved that there were not a suffi-
cient number of persons in the ward upon whose part no
claim of the kind could be set up. The Learned Counsel
then read the proceedings of the Court of Aldermen in the
year 1818, on a matter of a similar kind, and the favour-
able result ; and he quoted the charter upon which be
grounded his appeal, and which was as follows :
" Charles R. Whereas our royal father of ever-blessed
memory did, by his order, bearing date the 16th of De-
cember, 1632, signify his royal pleasure that the advocates,
proctors, registers, and other officers of his Court of
Arches, and other Ecclesiastical Courts, and of his High
Court of Admiralty, should be freed and exempted from
the office of constable, and other inferior offices, in like
manner as the counsellors, attorneys, registers, or other
officers of any of the temporal Courts of Westminster have
been, and are, either by law, privilege, or prescription,
freed and exempted ; and did thereby declare his royal
pleasure to the then Lord Mayor of London, and the Aldermen
and their Deputies, and to any others whom it might con-
cern, that from thenceforth they should forbear to impose
any the said offices upon the said officers of the said Eccle-
siastical and Admiralty Courts : which exemption we have,
since our happy restoration, confirmed to them ; and do
hereby signify that it is our gracious will and pleasure that
all Doctors of the Civil Law, Proctors, Registers, and
other officers of our Court of Arches, and of other our
Ecclesiastical Courts, and of our said High Court of Ad-
miralty, be freed and exempted from bearing the office of
constable, or any other ward or parish office, in their re-
spective wards and parishes, in like manner as Sergeants-
at-Law, Attorneys, Registers, or any other officers of any
of our temporal Courts of Westminster have been, or are,
either by law, privilege, or prescription, freed and ex-
empted. And it is our further will and pleasure not to
debar any Doctors of the Civil Law, Registers, Proctors,
or other officors of our said courts, who do or shall keep

house in any parish within our city -Ofj..ondob; and pay
scot and lot, and are or shall be assessed or any way
taxed by the Common Councilmen or otherwise, from
having and giving their votes from time to time for the
election of Common Councilmen and all ward and parish
officers in their respective wards and parishes ; but that they
shall and may at all times give their votes and voices
in such elections, as well as any other inhabitants who used
to vote therein : and that this, our Royal pleasure, shall
be signified to our trusty and well-beloved, the Lord Mayor
•f the City of London, and the Aldermen of our said city
and their deputies, in their respective wards, and all others
whom it may concern.—Given at our Court at Whitehall,

...... ,
the 17th clay of July, 1682, in the 34th year of our reign.
By his Majesty's command."—An Act had recently passed,
which made certain persons, who were previously exempted,
liable to he appointed ; and the question was, whether that
Act deprived any of those mentioned in the charter of the
exemption ? It was of great public importance that this
question should be set at rest.

Alderman HARMER.—Most decidedly, all who were
before exempted by the order of the Crown, are still in that
condition.

Alderman WILSON.—The question appears to me to be,
whether you can take upon yourself to say whether there
are a sufficient number of others in the ward to serve, in
the event of exempting those parties.
Mr. BODKIN submitted, that it was for those who sup-
ported the appointment to show that there was not a suffi-
cient number of other inhabitants to fill the office, if the
appellants were exempted.
Alderman WILSON—On the part of the inhabitants of
the ward, I call on you to prove, that if the proctors are
exempted, we can get a supply of constables.
Sir PETER LAURIE thought it was not at all incumbent
upon the parties appealing to prove anything of the kind.
Alderman WILSON—I think I can show that the in-
habitants cannot get constables in the event of their ex-
•rnption.

Mr. BODKIN said, that the onus probandi lay with the
adverse party. In a case at Norwieh, where an attorney
was appointed constable, the Court directed at once that
the claimant of the privileges of the charter should be ex-
empted as an officer of the Court, and the opposing parties
were called upon to show that the exemption would be at,-
tended with injurious consequences.
The Court was then cleared of strangers, and after a
short deliberation amongst the aldermen, the appellants
were called in and informed that they were declared in-
eligible to act as constables.

Mr. RICHARD PARRY, an inhabitant of the Ward of
Castle Baynard, appealed against his appointment to serve
as constable, upon the ground that he had seniors in the
Ward who had not yet served.
The LORD MA.ToR—Did you state that objection at
the Wardmote ?

Mr. PARRY—No, I was not present at the Wardmote.
The LORD MAYOR enquired of the Deputy of the Ward
how it happened that Mr. Parry was chosen out of his turn.
Mr. HICKS (the Deputy) said, that all he could tell was,
that the name had been returned at the Wardmote.
Alderman COPELAND—Aye, by a precinct meeting.
The Appellant was then discharged from the obligation
to serve.

We understand that it is the determination of the majo-
rity of the Members of the Court to throw it open imme-
diately. Amongst other advantages to be produced by
opening the Court is that of putting a period to the facility
with which a member can contradict the assertion he makes.