The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-11-14 00:00:00

TOR CORPORATION P.

Mr. Bainiuttam in this case moved the Court to set
aside a verdict of 9s. thl. which had been obtained by
the plai►►tiffs, and grant a new trial. The case was
tried before Mr. Justice Bailey at Durham, and a ver-
dict far nominal damages taken fur the plaintiffs. The
action was brought to try the right of the Corporation
to certain tolls on corn entering the town. Mr.
Brougham urged two grounds l.►r setting aside the
verdict. First and principally, that it was against
the evidence; and secondly, that it was brought about
by the misdirection of the Learned Judge. lie endea-
voured to chew that the evidence on the trial on the
part of the plaintiffs did not warrant the verdict that
the Corporation were entitled to these tolls. The
principal part of that evidence was documentary, hut
the charter of 1560, in the reign of Elizabeth, which
granted a toll on all corn entering the t.'wn, was for
the protection of the Mffregio and Puietegio (t::e wall
and bridge), and the immense imposts which were new
levied could never have been ail designed for that pur-
pose. There was also a lark of evidence to stow the
antiquity of this toll. .1 halfpenny a boll (two Win-1
ehester linehels) was now claimed by Cie Corporation,
hut fourpenee in our days was worth a shilling in
those of Elisalatli, and was it reasonable to think so
large a toll would then be imposed? And it should
lie remewhcrrd that this was a toll in money not in
kind, and that the nominal value as you went hack
was nut diu►inisbed. 'flue amount of the toll made ill
improbable IMI much had been claimed formerly.

The Coley JusTtest said, all this had been more
properly laid before the Jury at the trial.
Mr. likill'ull.tal said he had due so, hut he contend-
ed the Jury had drawn wrong conclusions. tie then
said he hal new OVldelire to offer, which had been dis-
covered only situ'e the trial took place. It was a char-
ter granted to the Corporation in 1353, the 24th of
Edward 111. by whom they were entitled to demand
tolls fur tsis years, and nu limiter. This too was for
the repair of the bridge soil road, being the same pre.'
leiter that the Corporation now made nse of to demand
tolls. In looking to this rh toter, lie (outlet' that the
tolls granted were very high, such as 24. for every itti
sheep ; but lie supposed the reason for that was, that!
Newcastle was so much exposed to the incutsiossa ofj
the enemy, the Scotch, and indeed to Ibis day it was!
salmi infested with thew.—(.4 laugh.)
31r. Jo:slier BAILET.—" I think yon were right in•
saying it was the exposed sititat• of Newcastle
which made the Kimg grant 'twit high tolls to keep its,
walls in repair. Awl as you talk of the dangers of
the border, perhaps you are nut aware that to this day
the Judges receive dagger motley, to protect diem in
that cirruit.
Mr. tiaoconase repeated his arguments r a stew
trial; hut the Court refused to grant it, alleging dial
the Jury had the whole evidence before thew at the
trisl, and that they had no reason to pressme that the
conclusion which they 'hew was • wrong ore. Their j
Lordships, however, restrained the plaintiffs Mem
feting the judgment in this rase as a bar to any other
action which might arise under similar circuusatancos
against the Corporation.

COUNT OF ((MINION PLEAS, Nov. 13.

irnr r. PITT.

The defendant in thiscanse, Mr. Charlea Pitt, of the
A.lrlphi, moved for a rule to show cause why a new
trial should not he granted, and the verdict against
hint in an action of ejectment for arrears of rent, he
set aside. At the trial the defendant's contiscl main-
tained that the action costl.l not he supported, because
the levying of distre•s on the premises was an acknow-
ledgment of tenancy. Upon the present occasion the
defendant pleaded his own cause, and set off ♦arious
ankles of account to balance t..e amount of rent alleged
to he slur.

The (.4.I'RT derided, that preparatory to the rule
for a n••w trial being. granted, the defendant should
make affidavit as to the farts of the ea.e.

11.111% WAS the only etoe which rime before the Court
(hiring. the day, bin the det&ih, of it were of nu inter-
est it firth reporting'.

Po I. !I.E.

M*N•qox-siousc.—.l few Of the straggling thievss.
who were separated fr the bands of depredator: in
the street on Saturday night, were brought before the
Lord Mayor, charged by • of the Officers u lib
Navin_ attempted to plunder several persons on Lad•
gate-bill. 'l•he thieves, it was stated, had, on that
occasion, assembled together opposite the house of
Mr. llone, and the houses of other persons who hail
lighted up in a superior manner. When any respect• 1
able person was passing, th:•y seircil leion by the arms
and openly robbed him of his watch and even• thing
rise he hail of value about him. This was their
plan of operations, ati.l their unnibers were so great,
that they cared not whetht•r the Police saw them or
nut. The ♦iLour, him ea er. With which they were
attacked by several of the Officers, aniougst whom
were Harrison, the Nlarslialman, and Brown and Fur.
tester, soon checked their inipetnosity in some Our.,
Those Officers darter in amongst the most active, and
the 11110 W of resistance soon vanished. One of those
fellows, who were taken into custody, had a great
number of banderchieft of all descriptions upon his
person, anal other articles, which it were evident
Were not his.

The Lord 3layor, iu sending back the prisoners to
the Compter, said. there were certain ill elisposeil
persons who took advantage of the tumults whirls
necessarily arose from the determination of the Police
to pot down sods ammeters as those just brought he-
fuse him, by ascribing to the warmth of the political
hostility against cergain measures all the efiaseptctsers
of thou sr:mai:thou% proreedings. lie regrettril that
a very growl tui‘reprelentation ill•Illseen omit of what
had °eternal in the city on Nous-Jett: !tight. It was
stated in a very revert:Me 3lovaing Plies of poyalat
I character, that die Odeon lied beet attsavvi wish