The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-05-25 00:00:00

that he was liable no farther; upon this Issue ens
joined.

J.
MT. Sant.tvv, for the plaintiff, 1,41:04 this was the
third time the Noble plaintiff had occasion to come into
Court. Now every gentleman on the Jury was aware
that the market had been for a long time in the family
of the Dnke of Belford. In the reign of Charles 11.
it was granted to the Earl of Bedford, an ancestor of
the present Duke. Ever since that time the tolls
arising from it had been payable to his family. A few
years ago an Act of Parliament passed, new modelling
the manner in which these tolls were to be received.
The Jury should be informed, that. at emotion* law,
tolls were payable not by the seller but the buyer of
a commodity exposed to sale. In Covent-garden
market, very great inconvenience was found to result
from this practice, as well from the quantity of goods
sold in the market, as the early hour in which busi-
ness was transacted there in the morning. A new• ar-
rangement was therefore made, that the seller should
pay instead of the buyer ; but, as this run counter to
the common law, the Act of 1,113 was made to give
the demand the sanction of law. For further conve-
nience the market was divided, one part being appro-
priated to the sale of potatoes, another to fruit and
lowers, ace. A,•other part not let out for ally parti-
mam purpose was called the casualty market, and here
these *be brought mixed loads of potatoes, flowers,
Am pitched their goods, and they either paid four-
pence for a cart load, or one shilling for a waggon,
(where there was no particular measure, such as sacks).
The defendant exposed his goods in the potatoe market,
end the question was, whether he ought to pay four-
pence a load or four-pence a sack. He (the plaintiff)
contended, that Mr. Page ought to pay by the sack,
but if should appear that they had no claim to that,
then the money paid into Court by the defendant would
cover the Duke's claim against him. The Jnry saw the
point upon which they joined issue, and after the ver-
dicts in the former case, he (Mr. Scarlet) was astonish-
ed what could be the defence set up now. It would
depend in a great measure upon custom, and to that he
meant to direct the attention of his witnesses.

A number of witties.es ncre ealletl, who proved that
a part of the market had for a long time been called
the potatoe-market, and that they bad been u%esi to
pad• four-pence a sack for potatoes exposed there for
sale : on their cross-examination they said, that the
toll was originally five-pence a sack, lint they had
then the accommodation of warehouses, scales, weights.
watching. &c.
Mr. MARRYATT, for the defence, contended, that as
the payment of the toll by the seller. and not by the
btycr,•was a constitutional agreeutent, the additional
sum paid by them was for the accommodation, Rnd nat
for the toll. He denied that by t•ummon right this addi-
tional toll, if toll it could be called, was demandable.
There should be a distinction made between what was
pail' for toll and what was said for arcommotiation.
In all other parts of the market where this accoutosoda-
Von was not affortietl, four-pence was payable, aid he
contended that two different tolls could not be taken
in the same market.

The
spoke '

witnesses which he called, and all of whom
facts within their recollection for malty years

ULD BAILEE, MAI' 24.

John Johrenfote, a boy 15 years of age, and Nary
Downes, were severally indicted, the fornter for steal.
log a scarf, the property of Mr. Raker, at Hamner.
smith, and the latter for receiving it knowing it to be
stolen.

This case disclosed a s..ene of lamentable depravity.
The sister of the boy, a girl only 13 years old, appear.
ed as the first witness a::ains, her brother in a chirp
which might affect his life, though she herself was the
actual thief, and he only an accomplice. She stated
the facts ut the case with npparent indifference. and
said that her brother had suggested to her to commit
the robbery while he waited a few doors from 31r.
Baker's shop. On being apprehended she was ad.
omitted as evidence against her brother, and told ail
she knew about the transaction.

The prosecutor stated, that the house did not belong
to him, but to Isis son, and therefore the capital part
of the charge was done away with, the name of Lis
son not being specified in the indictment.
The c„,emossitaar ANT, in consequence, directed
the Jury to consider the case as a common larcent.
The boy was found Utility of Stealing, hat cot in a
dwelling•house; and, as there appeared no hope of re.
chaining him, it being stated that he had robbed e;ery
shop iu Hatutuersmith,
The COMMON-SkILIKANT said, that he should I.e
sent out of the country.
Mr. Sheritf Horniest L humanely observed, that he
would get the prisoner's si.ter into the Refuge for the
Destitute.

The female prisoner was aequined, bat detained on
a similar charge in which the hod• was also implicated.
This charge was preferred by Mr. Carter, a sales-
man, at Hammersmith, from whose shop the boy stole
a pair of breeches, which he afterwards sold to the fe-
male prisoner, who kept a clothes shop in the town.
The boy was also convicted, in this instance, and
the prisoner (Downes) acquitted, to whom the Cosmos;
SennaNT observed, that she must in future be much
more cautions in her erbodurt.