Star.
London, England, 1827-12-12 00:00:00

sewers that ran into it, and that whatever ois-
kroeted the sewers, would throw water upon the
marshes &Hackney, and would so produce great
injury to the parish. If that were the case, then the
parish of Hackney had no defence against this rate,
which was made for the purpose of keeping clean the
general sewerage of the district. He then applied him
self to the case of the plaintiff individually, and said
that he would prove that many of the houses in Church-
street, where the plaintiff lived, had drains to a sewer
which communicated with Hackney brook sewer. He
would prove that in the very nest house to the plain-
tiff's, the lower parts of the house were inundated dur-
ing times of flood, before that sewer was constructed;
but that since the owner had made a drain communi-
cating with that sewer, the lower parts had become so
dry as to be now used as lodging rooms. It was char,
therefore, that some benefit might be derived to the
plaintiff's property from that sewer; and if so, the
plaintiff was liable to the rate. If his Lordship should
decide against him oo the objection which he hid taken
to this action in point of law, he would meet his Learned
Friend on the two points of fact which he had raised,
and would shew, that whether this was a rate laid twin
the parish of Hackney generally, or upon the plaintiff
individually, it was a rate for a draia by which both
were, or might be, benefited. If he should make out
that point to their satisfaction, be would only have to
shew that the trespass of which the plaintiff complained
was made to levy that rate, in order to entitle the de-
fendants to their verdict.

Lad TINTERDEN, in reference to the legal objection
to the plaintiff's right to maintain this action, called,
the attention. of the Attorney General to the case of,
" Stafford v. Hamston," 5 Moore, p. 608. In that case
it was held that a decree by the commissioners of
sewers was not conclusive against a party assessed for
the payment of a rate and residing within the district
over which they had jurisdiction, but that such party
might prove, in an action of trespass brought by him ,
against one of the collectors of the rates for taking his,
goods to satisfy such rate, that he derived no benefit
firms the sewer in respect of which the assessment was'
made. His Lordship concluded by saying, that with
the authority of that case before him, he could not
think of stopping the present cause. The defendant
should, however, have the full benefit of the objection
at a future period. He begged to be understood as not
deciding the point either one way or the other.
The Arroastav Gamic+ L. said, that in that particular
case the party had no opportunity of traversing the pre-
sentment, and the judgment turned upon that point.
The commission of sewers for the district of the Tower
Hamlets was then put •in and read; as was also the
precept of the Sheriff, with the panel of the Jury which
Made the presentmeut. In reading the precept, it ap•
peared that it directed the Sheriff to summon a Jury
from the district of the Tower Hamlets.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that by the words of
the Act of Henry VIII. the Sheriff was ordered to
summon a Jury " from the honest and lawful men of
the shire or shires, place or places, where such default
or annoyance may be." If, then; such a Jury be not
summoned, and it was now in evidence that such a
Jury had not been summoned, all the subsequent pro-
ceedings were caroms nom judice, and therefore invalid.
The ATTORNEY GRIIIIRAL contended, that by the
words " place or places," the Act of Parliament limited
the district from which the Jury was to come.
Lad Tearsanan called the attention of the Attorney
General to a case cited in 7th East, p. 71.
Mr.Guntasy, who was with the Attorney General,
observed that there was a note in Callis, p. 108, in
which it was laid down that the Jury might come from
the 'hundred; and Styles 191 was quoted..

Lord Tevraknetc conceived that the rule laid down
in the note on Callis might have been altered by a sub-
sequent Act of Parliament. F.)rmerly the Jurors were
obliged in all cases to be taken de viciseto ; but that bad,
been subsequently altered by the Legislature.
The SOLICITOIt Getwaaat. said, that there was another
elapse in the Act of PArliament, which might perhaps
be considered as throwing light on the words he had
before quoted from it. The Sheriff was desired to form
Jory from his bailiwicks, both within and without
their liberties.

The Artnanev GWIMIAL insisted by the word liber-
ties must be meant the district included within the com-
mission. _ _

Lord Tawraarazu thought not. " Within and
with-
Oat certain liberties' are common formal words, which
hate gained an acceptation on which there could be no
doubt. In interpreting the words of this Act of Parlia•
meat, we most consider the words " place or places"
analogous to the teem " shire or shires," which go be-
fore them. He felt inclinstd to say, that, in cases like
the present, the precept to the Sheriff ought to direct
him to take tl tJary de corpore comitalus, and not from
any particular district. Here they had not been so
taken. The precept to the Sfieriff and the panel of the
Jury were both wrong. The rate is therefore bad, and
the plaintiff is entitled to a vadict.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff—Da-
maces, 51.61.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dr. ii.

Sittings after Ifkbaelmal Tenn before Mr. incite Buanotrou and

Common Juries.

In an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the
value of a bill of exchange, which he alleged had been
imptoperly obtained from him, a Mr. Zamuda was call.
ed nn the pai t of the defendant, to prove the embai rass
went of the plaintiffs circumstances. The print was
an immaterial one in the cause, but ,m reply, Mr. Ser-
geant A NDIIVIS, having remarked up the character of
the evidence given. by the defendant's witnesses gener-
ally, caste to that of Mr.Zamuda. " And now I come,"
said he, p to the evidence of the Jew.man, who sus hr
has lent the plaintiff 1.0001."
Mr.Zasnuda--" Led so I hawe,,Sir." (Ha was pro
eeeding to complain in a very loud voice of the insult
he had received, but was at lingth silrneed.)
Mr. Justice Buaanucts (to Mr. Serjeant .Andrews)
—You %sought it all on yourself.
Mr,oSergeant Air we admitted titat be bad used
the term inadvertynly, but be begged to assure his
Lordship that it was not with a view to reflect at all oa
the religion which Mr. Zanayda professed. He could
ledligelp thinking, however, from the warmth which
seedcases had betrayed, that he cone into Court
sett gave his evidence something in the manner of a
partisan.
The cause then proceeded, and Mr.. Justice Boa.
aouoa having concluded his charge to the jury,
Mr. Zama& again preseeted himself, and begged,
la Lordship to pardon him for the interruption bol&a

Idve Justice Suaeoucm desired him to be quiet until
the jury bad returned their verdict.
This happened in.a leer minutes, sod Mr. Zsmoda
having again begged pardon, said, he should not ha•e
dues so, had be not been hurried away by his feelings

receiving what he consideted a gross insult, The Use
. such term as ass Jew-man. he should not have
petted from any person professing the Christian religiße
Mr. Justice BURSOUGH—The Learned Sergeant has'
ld you, that-he did not mean to reflect upon your tell-
iort; but T don't see why you should be offended. I
should not be offended if any one were to call me a,
Christian-man.
Mr. Zamuda said, he did nut complain of the term,
but of the sense in which it appeared it was meant to
apply. The subject of religion was at all times a very
tender one, and should not have been introduced in this
cause, to which it could have no relation. A Jew felt an
attack on his religion perhaps more than any other per-
son, because they were more oppressed.
Mr. Justice BURROW:aI repeated, that he saw nothing
in the expression at which as offence could be taken :
and a witness in a Court of justice should oot be too
thin skinned; indeed, they often took offence where
none was meant.

Mr. Zamuda thanked his Lordship for the indulgence
he had allowed him, and said, that with respect to the
observation of his being a partisan, he begged to assure
his Lordship, that he was perfectly unacquainted with
the defendant, and had never heard any thing of the
present cause until ten minutes before he actually came
into Coen, having been served with a subpoena in the
immediate neighbourhood.
Hem the conversation dropped, and Mr. Zamoda
went out of Court.

..
..--,
1 . ,
A a
wouldrelapse spin its marshy state. The of i
Acil:
Learned Cassell Ohm twill , that he would prove by pet
the @vide* of scientific persons, that whatever ob. 1
stssieved *es waters et the Lea would obstroct the cob