The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-03-24 00:00:00

CROWN SIDE.

IPm. Elliott was indicted for stealing 300 welgi
of logwood, part of the cargo of the skip Nintrr
lately wrecked at F...tst Dean.
Ur. Setjeent BEST, who opened the case, admit
that there was no other evidence against the Prisoner
bat that the goods were found in his cart.
The Learned Jos►ae immediately said, that .
tiridence was too slight, and directed a verdict of
Net Guilty.

-vow-
KIWI'.

THE RAIMSI OW ROORNSTER V. RAWLINS.

Mr. I,;srixAssz, for the Plaintiff, opened the
sating, *bat this was an action brought upon
bye.law by the.Corporatioe of Rochester, by wh'
it is declared that any poems not being a Freer
of the city, shall not be permitted to miry on k
trade within the liberty of the city. The,Defende,
was not a Freeman, and he carried on the bush
of an agticulttiral ma,.;sitine-maker, within the libel
of the city.
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT, on the same side,
that this' was a very simple question—whether
Defeitclant had violated a certain bye-law made si
time since by the city of Rochester, by which he
subjected tea. penalty of 10s. a day ? That city,
altuuld prove by his witnesses to the Court,
Corporation by prescription, and that it had recei,
divers charter& in its hams as a corporation. This
bye-law, which they have made, was to enforce
custom practised time out of mind, that no person
should receive the benefit of the city utiles. -
should previously become a freeman of the city, t
Consequently a persons who had not the freedom
the city mast not carry on any business within
lihrrty. He should prove, beyoud tall doubt,
this custom existed time out of mind, by refert
to his documents. Th? next question was as slim
as the first—whether the Defendant actually cart
on hi; business as agricultural. machine-maker ?
this be should also prove as satisfactorily as ,
former to the Court. The question lay in a very
narrow compass, but he was aware that the evidp,
would takO up much of the time of the Court.
What defence them could be set ep he was total
;gnome', but he was sure it was in good hands.
Mt. Wm. Illingworth was first called, who pr,
diced various numbers of charters, from the time
Edvaid the Confessor downwards.—. Charters in
reign of 'Richard I. Henry fII. Charles I.
James I. were brought forward; that at that tii
the city of Rochester was called a. Corporation,
bad a Cinamon Council in the reign of James
and a great variety of charters were read, dated
from the year 1123, proving that several citizens
that time paid 30s. annually for the freedom of
city.
A document was next produced, dated 17th April,
1809, showing that the Defendant paid 31.- for
freedom. The bye-law of 1689 was neat handed,
in and read, enforcing the payment of 31. annuallf
for the freedom of the city of Rochester, but
which no eiol was affixed.
Mr. MilialrATT' for the Defendant, objected than
this bye-laiv not having the seal of the Corporation
was of no effect.

UOMMON SERZEANT conceived that the bye-
law wanted no Corporation seal, as it was not _
act of the Corporation, but of the Common Council
acting for the Corporation.
The Loan Cults BARON over-ruled this
jection.

Mr. MAanyx.rx also raked another objecti..
which was, that ls the bve.law of 1639 expressly
stated, that any actiLn of deht should be brought
the name of the Chamberlain, as this was an apt
of the same nature, and brought in the Immo of .
Corporation, and not the Chamberlain, It was not
goad action.
. Th 4. COMMON SOUZA NT replied. that although
the bye-law citd state that actions should be brought
the name of the Chamberlain, yet it did not pro.
hibit "1:e Corporation from bringing an action.•
.The LORD CHIEF BARON thought, that as
Corporatiou received the penalties, they had a rig
to slue.

• FAmond Baker was the next witness called ,
the Plaintiff, who stated that he was 60 years el
had resided in Rochester 37 years, and lived, ss4
he first came there, in Cage-lane, in the parish
Strood, its the liberty of the city, next door to
Defendant, who carried on the business of an agr,
cultural machine-maker. Witness subsequently
mowed to St. Margaret's parish, which was 'also
within, the city, and'paid for the freedom of carry,
ing on his trade; afterwards, however, he became
principal Serjeatit of the Mace for the city of Ro-
chester, and received the payments of the non-free-
men for the freedom of the city, and received some
in Cege-lane.
Thomas Harting carried on the business of
brewer, in the parish of St. Margaret's, in the
betty pf the city of Rochester, for which he paid
to the Corporation first 30s. a year, and afterward!
Thomas Birch, and several other witnemses.proved
the same fact.

John Plumber was a carpenter by trade, tieing
Strom!, worked for the Defendant, Rawlins, rnt
than one year and an half itt all, and left him alien
a week or a fortnight before Michaelmas. The "
fetidant carried on the business of an agricultuftl
machine-maker,in Cage-lane. The Wardent Mm..
self worked but little in the trade, but had a pretty
fair sale of his goods) and several titan farmers tame
its to look at them.

•~a~;r #-

Joseph Bail worked also for the. Defendant