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

PRIVILEGES OF THE POST-OFFICE.

At Bow-street Police-court, yesterday, Sir
Thomas Henry was occupied during a considerable
portion of the afternoon in investigating a series of
charges against the Circular Delivery Company
for infringement of the privilege conferred by statute
upon the Post-office authorities. The specific
charge related to the delivery of four letters or
circulars, and the summonses were eight in number
—fur against Mr. Manuel Eyre and four against
the company generally.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Poland,
instructed by Mr. Peacock, on behalf of the Post-
office authorities ; and the defence by Mr. Merri-
man, of the firm of Merriman and Buckland.
Mr. Poland, in opening the proceedings, ex-
plained that they were instituted under the Ist
Vict., c. 36, s. 2, prohibiting (with certain excep-
tions) the conveyance of letters otherwise than by
post, and imposing penalties of £5 per letter, or
£lOO per week as long as the infractions were con-
tinued. He observed that the law applied not only
to individuals, but also to bodies corporate, and that
the exceptions applied to letters sent by the hand of
a private friend, and having relation to the private
affairs either of the writer or of the person to whom
such letters were addressed. It would be super-
fluous to enter on this occasion into any discussion
of the question whether this exeeption applied to
letters such as those which the defendants were
charged with carrying and delivering. That ques-
tion was fully considered in August last, when Mr.
Eyre appeared as defendant in a similar prosecu-
tion, and had the opportunity of hearing the judg-
ment of the learned chief magistrate upon the

point.
Sir Thomas henry inquired whether Mr. Eyre
was the person who appeared as defendant in the
former ease ?

Mr. Poland said he was the same person, and
Mr. Templeman who then appeared for him, argued
the question very fully. Mr. Templeman, he ob-
served, was one of the directors of the present com-
pany.
Mr. Merriman objected to any reference to the
proceedings upon any former occasion. He was
here to defend a common law right, and he was not
bound by anything which Mr. Templeman or any
one else might have said previously.
Mr. Poland proceeded—The letters were not all
of a private nature. They were of an ordinary
business character. They were circulated for the
pecuniary benefit of the shareholders forming the
company, at a rate of charges fixed by a tariff, viz.,
one farthing per letter, or one halfpenny per news-
paper, so much per lb. for parcels, &c. The evi-
dence would show that the business of delivering
these letters, &c., was carried on somewhat exten-
sively, for the profit of the shareholders, and in
contravention of the prerogative of the Postmaster-
General.

A copy of the prospectus of the company was
handed in.

Mr. Willis Clare said he was-inspector of letter
carriers. On the Bth May last he was, at Pimlico,
and saw a man named Newnham, at present in
court. He was carrying a bag with him, and was
watched by witness, who saw him enter the house
of Messrs. Nevill and Son, 5, Eccleston-street,
where a letter gummed and fastened in the ordi-
nary way was delivered. It was directed as it now
is. It was opened in witness's presence, who took
possession of it, and found that it contained a
printed document—a circular. It had a red stamp
on it, with the words " Circular Delivery Company
(Limited), 317, High Holborn." 'Witness next
saw Newnham deliver three other envelopes, now
produced, addressed as follows : —R. Harris, Esq.,
21, Coleshill-street, Euston-square ; also T. Arch-
butt, Esq., 26, Victoria-road, Pimlico ; and Messrs.
Arehbutt and Co., Motcomb-street, S.W.—all of
which were fastened in the usual way, and
opened at the addresses at which they were
delivered, All contained similar documents to the
one before alluded to. None of the envelopes had
Post-office stamps upon them. Witness spoke to
Newnham at the time, and ascertained that he did
not belong to the Post-office.
Charles Edward Newnhain, residing at 37, St.
James-street, Lisson-grove, was next sworn, and
stared that he went in May last to the office of the
.Circular Delivery Company, 317, High Holborn.
The words " Circular Delivery Company" aro writ-

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. Witness 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 acqua=inted Mr.
Eyre of the fact of his being stopped 'oy 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 reinarked 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 bad 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. H. 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 hardly 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-
holder; 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 on 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 11 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 21. 61 to 3s. 6d. 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 argued before the superior
courts. 4

Sir Thomas Henry inflicted a nominal penalty of
£5 in the case of Mr. Eyre, and another £5 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 must
be given within three days.

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

ALLEGED NEGLECT OF SICK PA2IEN7S
IN ST. LUKE'S WORKHOUSE.

A very lengthened inquiry was held on Wednes-
day night by Mr. Richards, deputy-coroner, re-
specting the death in St. Luke's Workhouse of an
inmate named Frederick James Tame, aged 39
years.

Mrs. M. A. Tame, 8, Bartholomew-square,
mother of the deceased, identified the body. His
father, long since dead, was once a lawyer's clerk,
and he had been reduced to sell earthenware about
the streets. For twenty years he had suffered
from epilepsy, which slightly affected his mind ;
and for years past he was an inmate of
St. Luke's Workhouse. He complained to
witness that he was made to carry water,
&c., to and from the sick wards. Tie said
that if he objected he would be obliged to leave
the house. An extra ration of bread and cheese
was given him for the performance of that duty.
George Evans, paid wardsman, said that the de-
ceased was one of twenty-eight imbeciles under
his care in one ward. Ten of the imbeciles were
epileptics. Lie had two old pauper attendants
under him. Their duties lasted from six in the
morning till ten at night, and as they had to wash
and attend to all the imbeciles, get them their food,
&c., they could not be expected to stay up at night.
No one stayed up at night to watch the patients.
On Thursday night last deceased went to bed as
usual at eight o'clock. At half-past one in the
morning witness, who had been out late,
and had not yet gone to bed, found de-
ceased in a fit. lie gave him a glass of
water, and recovered him, and then went to
bed. At six in the morning the bell rang, and as
deceased did not rise, one of the attendants went
to him and found that he was dead. He had been
dead about two hours. Evidently he had been seized
with a second fit, and being still weak from the first
he died in it.

Several of the jurors said that the system was
clearly in fault. If an attendant had been watch-
ing, the deceased would not have been allowed to
die in the second fit. Twenty-eight imbeciles cer-
tainly required night attendance.

The witness said that he thought so himself, and
had said so, but both he and the pauper attendants
were fully occupied during the day. They all slept
in the ward, and were awakened by the patients
when any of them had a fit.
Dr. H. C. Harris proved that deceased died from
epilepsy. He had been placed in the imbecile ward
for his better protection, on account of his being
subject to fits.
A juror asked if the doctor did not think it dan-
gerous to employ an epileptic patient like the de-
ceased to carry things up and down stairs to and
from the sick wards.

Dr. Harris said that it might have been better if
he had not been so employed, but no accident had
happened. The work was light, and another epi-
leptic, named Bob, and two other inmates, took it
in turns with him. If he objected he would not
have been turned out of the house. He did not
object, for he did not like to lose his extra ration of
bread and cheese.

The two pauper wardsmen were examined, and
they said that the slightest noise of a fit, &c., was
sufficient to awake them at night. But it appeared
that one of them heard nothing of the two fits the
deceased had on the night of his death, and the
other was only slightly disturbed by the first fit, and
he heard nothing at all of the second.
The jury returned a verdict : " That the deceased
was found dead from epilepsy from natural causes,
and the jury are of opinion that it is improper and
dangerous not to have an attendant to sit up during
the night in the imbecile ward, where there are 28
imbeciles, ten of whom are subject to epileptic
seizures ; and they request the coroner to forward
this verdict to the proper authorities."