The Sun.
London, England, 1829-09-10 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

(Concluded from our Paper of Yesterday.)
OFFICE OF SECONDARY.

A petition• was presented from the inhabitants of
Cripplegate-without, complaining of the conduct of
Mr. Crowther, in the discharge of the office of
Secondary, and expressing their surprise that, after
the manner in which he had acted, he should have
asked for remuneration if he left the office. _

Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER put several ques-
tions to the petitioners, with a view to learn whether
the petition had been got up at a public meeting,
and whether they knew, of their own personalknow-
ledge, that Mr. Crowther had asked any remunera-
tion if he should leave the office of Secondary.
.. _

Mr. Newell, on the part of the petitioners, replied
that the petition had not been adopted at any meet-
ing, nor did he know, of his own knowledge,
whether Mr. Crowther had asked for any remune-
ration. He had drawn up the petition, and had
made a statement to that effect from general report.
Mr. GALLOWAY complained of the improper
manner in which the petitioner at the bar had been
cross-examined, but admitted that the petition was
what was called a hole-and-corner petition.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER denied that he had
conducted the examination of the petitioner in an
improper manner. His object had only been to
elicit the truth.

An angry discussion ensued on this subject be-
tween several members of the Court, which ended
in the petition being referred to the Committee upon
the Secondary's-office.
A similar petition was presented from the inhabi-
tants of Bishopsgate-without.
Mr. C. PEARSON, in support of the petition,
stated that it had been adopted at a wardmote re-
gularly convened, after the statements contained in
it had been fully explained to the meeting. The
facts of the case were not new to the inhabitants of
13ishopsgate-without, for they had agreed to a simi-
lar petition ten years since. They were not in-
fluenced by any personal feelings against the gentle-
man who at present holds the situation of Second-
ary, though it was rather a singular circumstance
that he, filling an office of great responsibility, and
receiving the emoluments of that office, was utterly
unknown to almost every person residing in the city.
He (Mr. Pearson) objected to Mr. Crowther receiv-
ing compensation, because he did not deserve it. He
came into the office of Secondary in 1808, and the con-
sideration for which that office was conferred on him
was, that he should well and honestly behave
himself therein. The late Mr. Crowther was in-
sured for 50001., which the Court of Common
Council would have been then obliged to pay to his
family, had not its benevolence been excited by a
statement, that he had left his family without pro-
vision, though it was now known that he died
worth 45,0001. In consequence of that statement,
the office of Secondary was conferred on the present
possessor of the oftiee, subject to the continuance of
the security of 5,000/., until his death; and Mr.
Crowther now asked compensation to the amount of
objected to any such compen-
-8,150/. He strongly
satiou being made, because Mr. Crowther had neg-
lected to attend to the duties of his office. All the
business of his department had been transacted
through underlings, and lie thought the Secondary

ought to be made responsible for all the acts of those
to whom he had intrusted the duties of his situation.

A memorial was presented from Mr. Secondary
Crowther, stating that the statements in the peti-
tions just presented were unfounded, and denying
that he bad sanctioned the taking of any fees which
could in a moral sense be considered as extortionate,
and concluded by requesting the Court to grant
leave to the memorialist to speak in support of his
memorial.

Mr. CROWTHER stated, in so low a voice as to
be scarcely audible, that he had never sanctioned
the taking of fees of higher amount than what was
sanctioned by custom. On the contrary, he had in
some instances lowered the rate of fees. It was
true that Sher:ifs took higher fees than they were
entitled to by Act of Parliament, but it should be
recollected that the Act of Parliament regulating
the fees of Sheriffs was passed 400 years ago, and
the Court of Common Pleas had decided that the
rate of fees therein mentioned was too low to form
a just compensation for the ordinary risk in the fair
and regular execution of bailable writs. Under
these circumstances, he left it to the Court to say,
whether in taking the fees which had been paid to
his predecessor in office, he had acted extortionately.

Mr. TICKNER moved that the Committee on the
Secondary's office be instructed to inquire whether
Mr. Secondary Crowther had given any pecuniary
consideration for the office which he now filled.—
Motion agreed to.
Mr. HARMER wished the report of the Commit-
tee, in relation to the office of Coroner, to be now
received, but

Mr. TICKNER objected to its reception until the
Committee had reported on the point which had
been submitted for their consideration.

A division having taken place on the subject, Mr.
Harmer's motion was lost; but it was stated by the
Lord Mayor that a Court would be holden on
Tuesday to receive the Report.
A petition was presented from Mr. Gude, stating
that the petitioner, having been in the Crown-office,
had had an opportunity of making himself acquainted
with criminal jurisprudence; that be had performed
the duties of Coroner in the King's Bench; and
now offered himself for the vacant office of Coroner
of the city of London.—Ordered to lie on the table.
The Court, after going through various orders of
the day, adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.