Star.
London, England, 1820-06-13 00:00:00


.-

• •
. COMMON COUNCIL.
' Yesterday-the LORD MAYOR held a Court of Com-
mon Council, for the purpose of receiving a Report
from the Militia Committee, and on ot>erbusittess.
After the. last
..proceedingi had Wen read, • Mr.
'FAATELL, in his place, asked whether the Resolutions
of the last Court, requesting the. , **embers, and
440
such other Members' as had seats. - .arliament, to
support the Petition then agreed tolii Parliamentary
Reform, had been served upon those Gentlemen?
.And, upon its being stated . that they had, he ex-,
pressed his surprise that none of them. had made
Any observationi upon the • Petition' when presented
to the House.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said, that at the time the Pe-
tition was presented he was absent from the country,
orhe would not have suffered it to pass by in the
manner in which his-Colleagues had done.
It was finally stated, that the Petition was ordered
to be printed.
Mr. DIXON then made an inquiry into the claim
which had been made on behalf of the Mayor, Corn-
monalty, and -Citizens, at the ensuing Coronation;
when he was answered by the Cost Meir SERJEANT,
that the claim had been made as usual, and accord-
ing.to ancient custom.
A discussion took .place upon , a motion by Mr.:
OLDHAM, for referring it to a Committee to consider
the Act of Common Council of-the 7th William 111.
touching the right of calling Common Halls. Mr.
Oldham was about to argue upon the authority of
that Court to decide upon the subject, when he was
ca lid to order by
Sir-C. HUNTER, who insisted that as the Court was
called for particular business, the Hon. Member ha.
no right to interrupt the regular routine by any new
proposition. .
Mr. OLDHAM - complained that the Hon. Baronet
had interrupted him before he knew what it was he
was about to propose. His object was to move
that it be referred to the Committee appointed by
that Court to watch over- the proceedings of the
Court of Aldermen relative to the late prosecution—
to take the said Act into consideration, and to report
whether any and what alteration should be made as
to the right of calling Cpl mon Halls.
, Sir C. linsmn insisted that it was out of order
to propose any such motion before the regular busi-
ness had been gone thrOugh.
Mr. 'Mos supported Sir Claudius, and contended
that Mr. Oldham ought to give-notice of a motion
.of such importance. -
Alderman WAITHMAN contended that the Court
was the master Gf its own proceedings, that the
motion involved a question of privilege, and ought
not to remain upo 1 the paper. as it might do, if
notice only were-given of it, for twelve months. He
was proceeding to observe upon the conduct of the
Court of Aldermen, when he was interrupted by
Sir C. HUNTER, who defended the Court of Alder-
men—they had gained ail they wished, they had
only desired to ascertain tjte legal right, and never
meant to punil.
[Here the worthy 'Baronet was in his turn inter-
I rupted with loud cries of hear, hearand such was
.the general confusion, that the Lord Mayor threat-1
cued to dissolve the Court if better order was not
preserved.]
. Mr. JAMES WILLIAMS then attempted to get a
hearing, but was assailed by• so many interruptions,
that he at length desisted and left the Court in disgust.
Mr. OLDHAM then rose to insist upon his right.to
make his motion, but was again interrupted by Sir
Claudius and others, when amid,t the noise and con-
fusion which prevailed, some Member moved, " That,
the Court do adjourn." This proceeding brought
the Court a little to its recollection, order was re-
stored, the motion for adjournment was put and ne-
gatived, and Mr. Oldhatu,:after a few observations,
tending to prove that the object of the prosecution
was to punish, agreed to give notice of his motion.
• The Militia Committee reported the result of their
holding a cunference With Lord'Sinsubtritt, and. te--
commending a Bill to be brought into Parlianneik,
authorizing the raising of-only one Regiment of Mi-
litia, of 600 men, for the City, and to be at the dis-
posal of Government for general service as the other
Militias, the same being beyond the proportion of
the number of -Militiamen iirr the Counties through-
out
the Kingdom, which, after some observations
from MT. Alderman WAITIIMAN, Sir C. S. HUNTER,
Mr. Dittos, and MrsoGenau, was agreed to.
The Ii.SMEMIRANCER laid before the Court a copy
of the 1131sfor the more convenient recoveiy of Sm'all
Debts, which was referred to the General Purposes
Coin mate; - ,

The Court then proceeded to consider the Ad-
journed Itepori relative to Mr. Sheriff PARKINS ; •and
the same being read, Mr. Dixon moved that it be
agreed with, and that all paphents to him be sus-
pended ; when a long debate ensued.
• Mr. T. N. WILLIAms reprobated the neglect of the
usual ragcantry by the Sheiiff. Lle.had'it.ironohet
best authority, that the share. of the expenses'which
should hive been paid by Mr. Parkins On 'the Lord
Mayor's Day, amounted to 1.:690 ; and his 'share of,
the expenses at the Old Bailey, elk; to £6OO. The
whole amount of what the Sheriff ought tohave paid,
but one farthing of which he had not defrayed, was
' eighteen hundred pounds.
MI-. PEARSON denied the right of the Court to re-
move the Sheriff horn his situation, or to render the
right of election in the Livery, nugatory, by depriV-.
fug him of his emoluitenrs; for whete would be the
elective franchise of that body, if the Officers whom
they elected could be moved next day by the Com-
mon Council? He did not defend the conduct ef
Sheriff Parkins, but the rights of the Livery. With,
respect to himself; he stood there in a very painful'
situation, knowing that he had helped Sheriff Par-
kins to the office. He doubted not whetier the page-
antry so much applatided would not 'be propeily
,giyen up; and entered at great length into the
tory of the office, whiCh, he said, was one of the most
important in the City. He had himseltadirised She-
riff Parkins to endeavour to put a stop to the
nem at the Old Bailey; and he maintained theopi•
nion, that it would be of much advantage to abolish
them. He had seen that conduct upon the "part of
those who dined, which was. highly disgraceful.* He
had men some drinking champai&n •and claret, and
washing their suouths with rose-waters, &c. &c./cc.
lie rqse 'lO. move, 80. Amendment ; when seVeystl
lireqlhertii3aeoMil 'an adjmniuneitt Ofthe debate viap
immediately carried.

No

e•

_,

...

LA* INTEtZIGENcg.
COVET OP XING'S BENCH, JUNE pt.
The Conn was occupied the whole day upon, die
peremptory new trial paper, but there was nothing
,ofa public nature in the proceedings.
COURT OF COinitON PLEAS, JUNE 12.
BROWN v: HOWARD. • . .
.This was an action brought against the defenaltat
under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff,
in the year 1808, had employed the defendant to
purchase an Annuity of £54, and for that purpose
advanced the sum of £6OO. The Annuity was paid
from the beginning of the year 1808 to the latter end
of 1814, when the bankruptcy of the person on whose
premises the Annuity was said to have
.been secured,
Induced the discovery that' the premises did not be.
long to him. The present action was then commenced
Stainst the broker who had been' employed in the
purchase, to- which he had pleaded the Statute of
Limitations. 'The Jufy had found that the security
was, in the words of the declaration " bad, invalid,
insufficient and fraudulent," and that the defendant
knew it to be so. .

Mr. Seijcani VATIGHAN had, on a former day in
the Term, obtained a Rule to shew cause, why this
verdict shouLl not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered,
on the gtounJ that the original breach of contract
was committed in 1808, and that, as the action was
not commenced until 1817, the plaintiff was haired
by the Statute of Limitations from maintaining it.
Mr. Seijeant LENS and Mr. Serjeant Pam, now
sheaved cause against the Rule, contending that they
could not have brought an action before, as they
would have been answered that the Annuity was
regularly paid ; hut •
The COUNT said, that the case of Batty o. Falconer
was decisive of the present, and that, however they
might wish to assist the plaintiff, believing th?s to be
at lept a very hard case, yet that the Statute and the
decision of the Court of King's Beich were most de-
cidedly against him ; and they must, therefore, make
the Rule for a nonsuit absolute.