The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-26 00:00:00

ten on a pane of glass on the door. After giving
testimonials, and calling several times, he ulti-
mately obtained employment from Mr. Eyre, now
present, who asked witness what district be pre-
ferred. Witness replied that, having been a draper,
he knew most parts of London very well, but the
West-end the best. Mr. Eyre gave the witness
some circulars and newspapers, at the same time
inquiring if he knew anything about the neigh-
bourhood of Pimlico. Witness, on replying
" Yes," received from Mr. Eyre some circulars, in
directed envelopes, and newspapers for delivery.
'Witness denied directing any of them himself.
The sorting-office, which is on the first floor, con-
tains a long table, with pigeon-holes, into which
the circulars, &c., are placed. Owing to witness
being the last man employed, some eight or ten men
in the office started to deliver the circulars before
he did. Witness, after seeing the envelopes stamped
with the company's stamp, proceeded to Pimlico
with a bag containing some of them, amongst
which were the four produced, addressed just the
same as they now are. NVituess remembered being
accosted by a gentleman (Mr. Clare), and, after
delivering a great many of the envelopes that day,
he returned to the office, and acquainted Mr.
Eyre of the fact of his being stopped by a gen-
tleman, who asked what witness was doing, and
what he was delivering. Witness said that he
had given his name and address to the gentleman,
and the place where he was employed, and thought
it was his duty to inform Mr. Eyre that he had
done so. Mr. Eyre took it all down in writing, and
requested witness to inform him if he heard of the
matter any further. Mr. Eyre then remarked that
the people at the Post-office had tried it on before,
and he should not be astonished on seeing an article
in the papers about his men being followed. Wit-
ness had visited the office two or three times since
he left it, and had seen Mr. Eyre, who said he had
heard nothing. Witness said he was paid nothing,
nor had he seen any circulars at the office like
the one produced. He was not employed by Mr.
Hewell.
Cross-examined—The witness stated that he had
seen Mr. Clare before, but had not received a frac-
tion from the Post-office authorities.
George Deane, examined, said he was assistant-
registrar •of joint-stock companies, and produced
the memorandum of the Circular Delivery Com-
pany (Limited) Association. It was registered on
February 22, 1868, and dated the 18th. He also
produced articles of association of that company,
and the produced certificate is the certificate of in-
corporation.
Cross-examined—The certificate produced has
been duly issued
.from the office. The names of
Mr. J. Baxter Langley, Mr. J. 11. Hodges, Mr. W.
Felix Robinson, Mr. J. L. Merriman, Mr. T.
Horton, Mr. Templeman, and Mr. Eyre are among
the names of the company's directors.
Mr. Merriman contended that, on behalf of the
prosecution, no case had been made out which he
could be called upon to answer. The allusions
which had been made to the former proceedings
only tended to prejudice the case. He maintained
the common law rights of the defendants to deliver
their own letters or circulars their own way. The
real question at issue had been evaded by the pro-
secution. It was this. Did the company really
infringe the statutes passed to maintain the prero-
gative of the Post-office, interpreting those statutes
in the light of the old statute against monopoly,
2d James 1., which, as he could show by reference
to Blackstone and other eminent authorities, made
large exceptions, in consideration of common law
rights and privileges of her Majesty's subjects.
Sir Thomas Henry—You do not mean seriously
to contend that the statute of monopolies applies to

this case ?
Mr. Merriman did not wish to urge anything
about which he was not serious. At the same time
it would be waste of time to argue the point if the
magistrate had already made up his mind. He
should harily have allowed himself to be made a
director of the company if he had not satisfied him-
self of their legal rights. Indeed he had been per-
fectly satisfied with legal opinions in his favour.
He contended that, except so far as the Post-office
statutes ruled otherwise, the statute of monopolies
applied.
Sir Thomas Henry observed that this was the en-
tire question.
Mr. Merriman said he claimed that they should
be interpreted in the spirit of modern legislation,
and in the spirit of free trade. If a company of
merchants found that they could by combi-
nation get their circulars distributed more promptly,
regularly, and economically than by the ordinary
course of the post, he contended that they had the
common right of citizens to unite for that purpose,
and could do so legally. If one man could send
out his two clerks with circulars, another man could
send out six or eight. If a coal merchant and a
wine merchant chose to unite for the same pur-
pose the wine circulars might be despatched
from the coal-office, or vice versa. The de-
fendants maintained their right to carry on
their own trade in the best way in their power,
for all the officers in the company were share-
holders, working for their mutual benefit. 'Wishing
to act thoroughly bona fide, he took care at the
starting of the company to apply to the Post-office
solicitor to define their exact rights, according to
his estimate of them, and the only answer vouch-
safed to him and his clients, after a considerable
lapse of time, was the service of the present series
of summonses.
Sir Thomas Henry said that Mr. Merriman had
asked them to do what was impossible.
Mr. Merriman said that at all events they
were entitled to be told what was the exact pre-
rogative of the Postmaster-General, and they had
not been supplied with that information. For
instance, he should like to know whether the
Crown would be content to allow them to dis-
tribute these circulars and letters unsealed. if
six people could combine to send out their trade
circulars, he contended that two hundred could
do the same.
Sir T. Henry observed that the company did not
profess to carry on any specific trade.
Mr. Merriman said they carried ou their own
trade, and the onus rested on the Post-office
authorities of showing that they had infringed the
law.

Sir T. Henry said that on the former occasion
he had explained his views of the question, and
it was then proposed to submit a case to the superior

courts.

Mr. Merriman said that was the course he
should now be anxious to adopt. There were,
however, one or two points which it was neces-
sary should appear on the depositions. He there-
fore called Mr. Thomas Horton, the secretary
of the company, to prove its formation and
registration, and produce the register of share-
holders, list of officers, &c. Mr. Michaud
was the representative of the company in the
same way that the agent of Messrs. Pickford
represented their firm ; but he had paid £1 as a
shareholder. No letters or newspapers had been
delivered. They only sent out printed matter, and
undertook to print circulars if necessary.
Cross-examined—With the exception of Mr.
Langley and himself, nearly all the directors were
solicitors, or solicitors' clerks. He thought himself
quite safe, being among so many lawyers. Messen-
gers were paid from 24. 61. to 3.1. 61 per day.
Newnham never applied for his money, or returned
to the office after delivering the circulars in ques-

tion.
After considerable discussion it was agreed to
draw up a case to be argaad before the superior

courts.
Sir Thomas Henry inflicted a nominal penalty of
£3 in the case of Mr. Eyre, and another
,£o against
the company.
The remaining summonses were disposed of by a
nominal penalty of one shilling in each case by con-
sent. _

Sir Thomas Henry said that notice of appeal muse
be given within three days.

During a quarter of a century florniman's Teas have had
an immense sale, and as they aro now Bd. per pound
Cheaper, in consequence of the Reduced Duty, the demand
will doubtless be even further extended. Sold, secured in
Packets; genuine are signed " liornimczn and Co., Lon-
don."