Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1815-07-15
From the Nelo- York, Herald, July 5.
INTERESTING DECISION.
The Mayor, Aldermen,
and Commonaiity CT
ty of Newly ork.
Anthony 'Frappan,

and Commonaiity CT 0t July, 1919, be-
ty of New-York. fore Justice Ia
-s ---- belle. by very
respectable and intelligent Jury of the
First ward, for penalty, under a byo-law
Of the Corporation of New-York.
ID. S. Jones of Counsel for the Plaintiff;
Robert Bogardus, for the defendant.
The bye law was as follows And be
it further ordained that no person Shall
sell or expose for sale any squihs or fire
works commonly called crackers, in this
city, under the penalty Of twenty-five dol
lars for each offence, provided that this
section shall not apply to the said articles
imported into this city, and sold in the
packages as imported.'
The complaint was for exposing said
crackers for sale. Jacob Hays testified,
that he was the High Constable of the city,
and received eight hundred dollars per an
mum, from the Corporation to prevent
their laws from being violated-that on the
eth June he handed to - Spence, one of
the marshals, money and requested him to
20 into Trappan's Store and .nS~nhase
crackers, that he remained in the Fly-mar-
ket till Spence entered and then he went
forward & discove red that Spence purchas-
cd twelve crackers and paid one shilling
therelor-that he saw crackers hang at the
defendants window. Spence was also
sworn and testified the same in substance
and for that kind of business he did not
expect any pay or compensation.
1t was admitted that the articles were
imported, duties paid thereon, and that
Trappan had the usual licence from the
United States, to sell by retail all articles,
&c. imported into the U. States.
The defendants counsel raised several
objections against the plaintiffs right to
recover.
The principal and most important that
the bye law was void.
1st. Because it restrained trade, pow
er not vested by charter nor by any act
of the General or State Government, in the
Common Council Of this City.
3D. Because it was unreasonable both in
its effect and penalty.
Sd. Because it was contradictory or re-
puguant to the laws Of the General or State
Government.
The Justice as usual gave no opinion OF
charge to the Jury.
The arguments on the Counsel, exami-
nation of the Charter, acts of the LegisIa-
sure, and the laws relative to the power of
The Corporation in making Bye Laws,
occupied several hours. During the whole
time the Jurors paid the greatest attention,
and manifested desire TO come to a cor
rect decision, and after retiring from the
bar for some time, returned with verdict
for the defendant.
ADDITION.
The above case is published just az it
was sent to fine Office but, apprehensive
that there we're other facts, connected with
1t, that ought to be known, and consider
ing it important that the citizens should
not be led into an error respecting the
bye-laws Of the Corporation, an enquiry
has been made of what farther took place.
We learnt that after the Jury had given in
their verdict of acguittal, they were re-
guested, il open court, by the Counsel for
The Corporation, in order that he might be
guided in future, to state the grounds of
he verdict, and whether they had acquit-
ted the defendanton the principal point Ia
ken by his counsel, viz. that tie ordinance
zCaS roid To which several OF them an
swered that 9cas not the ground. Being
asked TO state what was the ground, they
declined answering, having agreed among
themselves before they left the room not
TO answer in open court but said, they
had no objection to satisfy the Counsel for
the RUard, after they should have left the
court. Accordingly, Mr.. M'Mennomy,
me foreman, beingwaited OH by Mr.. Jones
for that purpose said, the Jury had acquit-
ted the defendant, because they thought it
a hard case, as he had been convicted in
another prosecution against him buta few
days before, under the same statute, for
vending the same article and penalty of
o5 dollars enforced. This they thought
would be sufficient restraint. We say no.
thing impeaching the verdict; this IS not
the first time Juries have decided upon
point, that never occurred to the judge or
the bar or even the bye-standers, but we
conceive we ought not to permit doubt
about the validity of our laws to exist es-
pecially Of so salutary one as that in
question sand therefore we have been thus
particular. It may not be impertinent to
add that an English statute with similar
provisions has been in existence ever since
the reign Of William, and has been revised
and re-enacted 10Th George CHI. 81. The
following is an abridgement of it as given
in Addison.
f" Making or causing to be made or giv-