The Sun.
London, England, 1821-10-22 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER SESSION g.

On Saturday the Court was occupied -with a
nimber of petty assaults, in which some of the
fair 'sex were very conspicuous ; but the deeds
of these amazons were not of sufficient interest
for public record.

MR. TAYLOR'S ACT:
IMPORTANT To MANUFACTURERS:

i•••• •
tins was an appeal. against a conviction of
Mr. Minshull's) the Magistrate of Bow-street,
upon an information preferred against Messrs.
Combe, Delafield, and Co., . the- _extensive
brewers, by the dust contractor for the parish
of St. Martin, to recover several penalties against
them, for the removal from one part of their pre-
mises, which is in St. Martin's, to another, which
is iniSt. George's, Bloomsbury, of a quantity .of
cinder's; within the meaning of the clause in Mr.
M. A. Taylor's Act, which vests the property,
in such cases, 'upon their.removal, in .the paro-
chial contractor.—All the facts of the case were
admitted, and_ the question arose upon the legal
construction of the Act, •
Mr. ALLEY, in support of the'information, read the clause,.
which prohibited all persons from carrying away, or going
about to carry away, or remOVe dust, ashes, cinders, &c. from
one parish to another, except by order or consent of the parish
contractor for the same.. It was here admitted that Messrs.
COmbe, Delafield, and'Co., the extensive brewers, who con-
sumed
a greatdeal of coal, had removed a large quantity of
their ashes from one part of their premises to another, situated
in a different parish, and where they again used it for some pur-
pmes connected with their business. low, whatever might be
the policy of the act, and its occasional-hardship, it was quite 1
clear that, by the -clause in this act, whenever any coals Were
once consumed in a tire.or a furnace, they,' upon removal,•be..
Came the property of 'the parish contractor; who paid a.large
sum for his contract—in this case 1901. a-year.
. Mr..Anor.mtrs—We, on the other side, beg the Court to
bear in mind that it is our own servant carrying away our own
coal from one part of our manufactory to another,,and for our
own purposes in the process of our trade.
Mr. ALLEY admitted that fact, but still contended, upon the
?uthority of the Carlton House and Sir Joseph Bankes s cases,
that the removal was contrary to Act of Parliament.
The CHAIRMAN.—But here they are usingit fir their own
purposes in the process of trade-1)o you admit 'that ?
Mr. ALLEY.--We say that the moment the coal is used, the
original owner has no right to carry it away ; that is our view
of the Act.

Mr. Ctrnwoon said, he had to oppose his Learned Friend.
(Mr. A.'s) view of the Act, upon' the construction of which he
must, however, make few preliminary observations. They
all knew that that Act had been framed by Mr. Michael' An-
gelo Taylor—indeed since the time Of. Henry VIII. the Tay.-
lors appeared to preside, like a tutelar 4'epio.s, over this-great
metropolis. Sir Robert Taylor, the father, took under his sr-
guardianship the buildings of the metropolis ; the son,
Michael Angelo Taylor, took to himself the whole of the pave-
ment of the 'Metropolis. The father's Act was obscure-enough,
the son's still more improved upon the obscurity of his-pre-
de6,essor ; and it must remain until the' seniority of a future
Taylor, to see whether it will be possible, in the same fa-
toirame an Act exceeding in obscurity that upon which
the. present information was founded. here the qUestion
was simply this _Could the COntractor, within the evident
mezning and intention of the Legislature, step in and take the
article of the.manufacture, while in process of use in his busi-
ness, and upon his own .prewises ? Messrs. Combe, Dclafield,
and Co. were, as was stated, extensive brewers: their premises
happened to he situated within the precincts of two parishes. In
one part of their premises they need large quantities of coal in
their process of bresvlng• in another, they tisti-the small coal and
uncousumcd fuel, whicl; fell through the furnaces of their large
coppers, which it Was necessary to rake and stir, for the pur-
pose of preserving a fire of a certain beat, for the purpose of
boiling water to cleanse their casks. The.ftiel so used was not
properly ashes or dust, for it contained a good deal of coal,
which fell, unreduced, through the gratings of the larger fur-
naces. How was it possible, then, to construe this act so as to
prevent their applying their coal in the one case as they did in
he' other, without at once creating h principle and precedent
which violated all the rights of private property, in a manner
which no Act:of Parliament could have ever contemplated %
The case only required to be stated to shew the absurdity of any
such attempt. •

Mr. A.CLEY---" We know that bricks
,maY he made of the
refese dust of coals : could the. reftiae be taken away for
such a purpose Without violating this Act ?" •
The Ow nmas—" VeS I think it could, if a man were so
using it upon his own premises.
Mr. C a woop—The plain facts here were, that the cooper-
age happened to be in St. George's, Bloomsbury, and the ac-
tual brewery- in St. Martin's a in one part of the establishment
coals were used in one arecess, and, , in the other, in a different
way, but still for a part of the same-business; but in came the
scaverger of St. Martin's and said, " True, you can burn your
coals in My parish for your own brewery, but you shall not in
St. George's; for the moment you attempt to remove them ac:oss
the street, they became mine " As well might he c'a'm the
coke which was removing from the gas manufactories. It was
true, that, by Mr. 'Taylor's Act,. no man could remove his dust
from his own premises to mother, to be applied to a di g'.
purpose from that in which he used his fuel ; but here there
was an obvious distinction in the cases. In criminal cases,. an
Act of Parliament Must be construed literally ; that was neces-
sary for the full defence and security of the lives of his Males-
ty's subjects ; but in civil cases the Court were hound to. take
the meaning of the law from the whole scope of the Act, as it
evidently interpreted the motive of the Legislature in enacting
it. The legislature evidently intended to keep the streets free
from nuisance ; but they never contemplated, where they gave'
a surveyor a remedy against another for removing his ashes,
that he should also have a remedy against the real owner, who
was creating no nuisance, removing no dust, but carrying it
from one part of his premises to another for a purpose necessary
fur the process of his own trade. -
Mr. Apoartius followed on the same side, and said that
there was an evident distinction between this andi the Carlton-
.house case ; for in the latter, the Court would recollect, there
was a disputed claim of property, the refuse fuel being claimed
by some of the household under a warrant of office as their per-.
quisite. The Legislature, he contended, could never mean to
authcrise the intrusion of a scavenger into any man's pre-
mises to carry away his unconsumed fuel ; if that were to be the
constellation of the law, then the contractor might enter a gold-
smith's workshop. and carry off his ashes, if the goldsmith
presume to move it from one part of his premises to another to
carry it through the process of washing, for the purpose of se-
parating the gold dust from the ashes to which it attached in
the process of the manufacturer's trade. He also observed that
a great part of the coal was not used at all before remeval—
many smaller parts of the coal fall through entire'
Mr. A r.LEY' in reuly, insisted that the clause in the Act Was
imperative. As to the statement that particles of smalier 'coal
might fall through and mix up with the ashes, that was nothing.
They all knew that ft cook, in hurrying on her dinner, often
rafted out good coal ; but was that a reason why when the dust-
man came she should insist upon his not removing the dust from
the dust hole, until he separated the particles of. coal from the
dust of the ashes. He admitted that many hardships were im-
posed upon- private individuals by the local acts; foe instance,
the. removal steps, where they had been standing for years ;
and the consevent alteration and limitation of halls and porti-.
while those acts-subsisted they must be obeyed.
The CHAIRMAN, in pronouncing the opinion of the Court,
said,. that he could never put the construction upon .this act,
which was contended for in support of the present information.
It was true that the ease was one of particular importance to
the parochial contractor, and also to the public at large. It
must equally be admitted, that the act trencned very much upon
what were previously considered the rightS of private individuals.
Ile Was old enough to remember the time when dustmen were
obliged to be paid large sums for removing ashes and dust ; but of
late years its value and uses becoming better known, large sums
were given tbr it, and the expenses of removing additionally in-
curred by the parties dealing in the commodity. It bad been
truly said that the case of Carlton House dust was different from
this ; so also was that of the late Sir Joseph Bankes ; in the
fbrrner was a disputed claim of property, and in the latter thecase
was this :—Sir Joaeph- consumed in his -house, in Soho-square,
a large quantity of coal, and was in the habit of removing the
aches, after they had passed through their full stage for domestic
use, to his place at trounslow, where, in his botanical pur-
suits, he wished to apply them for his manure uses. Now that
was the exact purpose for which the Legislature meant to pre-
scree theta for the dust contractor, and was clearly what the law
intended to , prevent. The law did not tolerate a claim for
coke, nor for Goldsmiths' ashes, in- this Act ; and when there
were such distinctions,. it behoved the Court to examine each case
as it came before it, and to decide exactly as the merits of each
appeared to require. What was the present case 7 Was it a
fraud upon the contractor, by_ the removal of dust from one
man's premises to be applied to the uses of another, or to be
made a profit of, by sale or application as a distinct commo-
dity from that which it originally was ?—No such thing ; it
was not in a state of delivery as dust, but actually passing
through an intermediate
_process of consumption as fuel, in a

znanitfaetzry where that fuel was used. Such beirg the fact, he
thought the information could not be sustained, and must be
therefore quashed.
Mr. AI. T.E Y said that he was ready to bow to the decision
and ,clear distinction which, the Chairman drew between this
caste and others which had been decided under the Act.

The Chairmen observed, that the laW never could' have in-
tended, to give the dust cOntractor the privilege of saying what
was dist and what was not. When it became dust it certainly
be' ine his property on removal, but not otherwise.

RIOTING AT HONEY A:4D FRANCIS'S FUNERAL.

en Saturday, at four o'clock, the regular busineiS of the
Session having been brought to a clo•sa?
31r. IVAnvonn addressed the Chairman, and said; that he
had yesterday applied to the Court to have the recognizancesof
two men, named John Fly and William Griffiths, estreated,
-they not having appearet,, as they were bound to do by their
recognizances entered into on the 28th August last, to answer a
charge of riot at Knightsbridge on the 26th of that morfth;and
for which a bill of indictment had been found againat them.
He now understood that one of the parties was torthcoming,
and he should therefore content himself with applying; to have
the recognizances of the other (John Fly) estr.:ated. The
prosecutors were ready to go to trial on the indictment against
Griffiths, who was now in Court.
tiRIFFITHS' was thenput to the bar, and pleaded Not
Guilty to the indictment, for riotously assembling at
bridge on the 261 h August last. -• ' • • .
1.701,{Dy in staling the case against him,icutreated
the Jury to discharge from their minds altogether the 'Previous
accounts which they had heard of Certain tumultuotis transac
tions which had orcurrcd at Knightsbridge during the tuzieral
of.two men named Francis and Honey, who had been killed on
the day of the late Queen's funeral. Ile said it was tSeEduty
alone to collect the facts from the evidence which Would teWi.i
before them, and not in any degree to suffer their minds .to re-
ceive . any bias firm previons statements. A considerable as-
semblage of the lower classes of the people had Met on the eVen-
ing of the 26th, of the funeral in question, at Knightsbridge4in
front of the barracks of the regiment of Life Guards, against
whom a good deal of irrhation was said at that time to have
been excited in the minds of the pophlaCe. The rioters kept
hooting and insulting the soldiers from without, and aiso
stones in a violent and dangerous manner over the I,,,ar:ack
walls. At length the constables, who were stationed Withal. the
blirral:s, were directed, after the Riot Act had been read, to i;o
forth.ameng the mob, and shew them that warning had been
given, by placards :and whatever other
.means they. -cculd,. to
induce thenfto.dcsist and retire home ; while so doing, the.p:i-
soner was observed to be particularly active ; he was seed and
heard hooting, -and the constables would prove, that while they
were endeavouring to clear the road, he called out to the people,
" stand, you cowards, stand ;" for so doing, they tea hint into
custody, and he was now to stand his trial for his part in the
riot of that day. The ;,earned Counsel then laid down the law
of the case as applicable to riots, and pointed out that any man
Waiting on the spc, particularly if he be found exciting
rioters to prolong tumult, atter due notice of the' Itiat Act,' had
incurred the penalties of the-law. He would now call his wit-
ness:s.—The first wits

Geo. Edward Blanc—He said he was a constable stationed oh
the 'day in question at the barracks, Knightibridge, Mr. Conant,
the magistrate, Was there. A large mob were outside,-hooting
vary much, and throwing. stones over the barrack gates. The
magistrate then read the r iot Act, and witness gave notice, by
holuing up a placard :to the mob. 'They still continued th;ow,
ink; stones, and witness and other constables were ordered mit to
disperse them. lie said that if they did not go away, the mili-
tary would be ordered cut. -11-itness believed he might have
struck- the prisoner, for he did strike or push with hir., staffthese
who kept-on the spot. Witness heard the prisoner exclaik,
"• seand, you cowards, stand," and lie believed the words XV VIY!
addr_ssAi to the mob, though the man said afterwards he meant
them inr the soldiers or the constables, to keep them at tteir
duty.. die refused to go home when required, and said he lived
at ias mother's, just on the spot.. Ile made no resistance what-
ever to his caption.
William Creagh, jeweller, said he was a special constable
stuioned at the barracks. lie saw the people riotous and hoot-
ing : the prisoner was hooting.. Witness ordered him to.go on
he said he Would.not, he was 'near his own home ; and he called
out " stand, cowards, stand." lie went on very quietly whenL
taken, nor did he make any resistance. lie said he livid dose
by at his mother's, and din not mean the expressions he used to:
the mob.
,Dar. WAr.tonll said that that was his case.

Mr. IlAnnY said, that he was COunsel for the prisoner; but
that really -he saw nothing in the case to lender it nectssary for
hint to address the Jury. There-was no proof of the prisoner
being riotous ; he had denied at the time the application to the
mob-of the expressions, he had used :he madelio resistance ;
and wa's'aettivilly carried' away a:prisoner because he would net
unit his -mother's door. where he lived.,
The Jury here interrupttd Mr:Barry, anasaid they were quite
satisfied.

A verdict of Not Guilty was immediately recorded, and th?
prisoner was discharged.

Names of some of the rivers and creeks. of
United States :—Bigmuddy River and
muddy River, Little-shallow River, Good Wo-
man River, Little Good Wornan Creek, Grind--
same Creek, Cuphoati•d Creek, Biscuit Creek,
Blowing-fly Creek, cum 1111illiS (Ibis in the same
delightful taste.

THE MARKETS, &c.

CORN-EHCHANGE, Oc•r. 22.

There was an abundant supply of Wheat to .lay, an: very
few purchasers ; some very fine sampleS obtained the price
quoted below, but the ordinary kind could not procure a bidder,
although offered ss. or 6s. lower than on Monday last ; Barley
3s. or 4s. lower, and few buyers at that decline; •Peas, Beans,
and Oats from 2s. to 3s. lower. No alteration in the price. of
Flour.—The trade in general was very dull.
Wheat, Old Os 74s J White Pea,: ... .. 403
New 4os 58s Grey Peas ',8% •Ma
Rye 'Bs 32s Beans 24s 34s
Barley •'ls 28s Oats 17s 30s
Malt 62s 68s Flour, sack

AVERAGE PIIICE OF CORN IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
Wheat, 61s..I.Barley, 338. 5d —Oats; 21s. 11d.—Rye, 28s.
41—Beans, 335. 3d.—Pease, 31s. 6d.
The Average Price of Brown or Mu.scovadO Sng,ir., corn-.
puted from the Returns made in the Week ending the' Fith day
of October, 1821, is 30s. 9?,d. per Hundred Weight. - • •