HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0925 and id is 1 raw text is: TRIN. 29 CAR. II. IN B. R.
that Smartford was elected, and without reasonable cause refused, for which he was
committed; to which return these exceptions were taken by Holt jun. 1. This
custom to commit is not good, for it does not concern the government of the city, but
only the state of the company. 2. It does not appear that he was habilis & idoneus,
and therefore not eligible, 2 Leon. 29. March 103. Sed non allocatur; for first, all
their customs are confirmed by statute. 2. A refusal without reasonable cause implies
him habilis & idoneus.
THE KING against THE CITY OF LONDON.
Custom of London to disfranchise freemen upon information before the mayor and
aldermen for speaking disgraceful words of an alderman. S. C. 1 Vent. 302, 327.
2 Show. 3 Keb. 764, 109, 811. 3 Keb. 714. 2 Salk. 426.
Upon a habeas corpus and certiorari they returned the custom of London, that if any
freeman of the city speak disgraceful words of an alderman, that for such speaking the
common seJjeant hath usually exhibited an information before the mayor and aldermen,
wherein if the offender be convicted by verdict or confession, the use is to punish him by
fine or disfranchisement, and that Clark spoke scandalous words of Alderman Lawrence,
as he was surveying the measures of coals ; scil. that he would undo the city, and that he
was a knave, &c. for which the common serjeant exhibited an information, whereupon
he was taken and imprisoned. To which return these exceptions were taken ; 1. This
custom to try a man for words spoken of an alderman in the Court of Aldermen is
unreasonable; it is to make them Judges and parties. 2. It does not appear by the
return that Clark was a freeman. In the information indeed, which is returned in
hcec verba, he is said to be a freeman, but that is not sufficient; the return itself must
set forth in fact, that he was a freeman ; for upon this return, as it is here, he cannot
have an action upon the case for the [201] falsity of the return, if he be not a freeman.
3dly, This custom to disfranchise for words is void, 11 Co. Bagg's case. To which it
was answered, that their customs being confirmed by the statute of R. 2. as it appears
by the record, the custom thereby is made good ; and for that omission in the return,
in not saying he was a freeman, they said they had a multitude of precedents after
that form, and proceedings upon them; which the Court desired to see, but none
were produced, and the parties agreed in the mean time; upon which the Court was
afterwards moved by the city counsel for a procedendo, but the Court would not grant
it without farther argument, saying it might be dangerous to put it in the power of
the aldermen to disfranchise a freeman for speaking words of an alderman; and
though the words were here spokcui to him in the exercise of his office of alderman
and justice of peace, yet they said it would be more reasonable to punish him by fine
and imprisonment, which might be by information in this Court, but this Court cannot
disfranchise him.
BUTTS against PENNY.
[Disapproved, Forbes v. Cochrane, 1823, 3 Dowl.'& Ry. 721; 2 B. & C. 448.]
Trover for negroes. S. C. 3 Keb. 785. Vid. 3 Lev. 336, 337. Vid. 2 Salk. 666, 667,
contra. See 5 Mod. 182, 186, 187. Raym. 16. 3 Lev. 336, 337. Cro. Jac. 262, 463.
Cro. Car. 19, 391, 545. Mar. 12. Cro. El. 126. Hob. 283. 1 Com. Dig. 219.
1 Salk. 556. 1 Raym. 250. 5 Mod. 375. 5 Com. Dig. 352. 5 Bac. Ab. 264.
Trover for 100 negroes, and upon non culp. it was found by special verdict, that
the negroes were infidels, and the subjects of an infidel prince, and are usually bought and
sold in America as merchandise, by the custom of merchants, and that the plaintiff
bought these, and was in possession of them until the defendant took them. And
Thompson argued, there could be no property in the person of a man sufficient to
maintain trover, and cited Co. Lit. 116. That no property could be in villains but
by compact or conquest. But the Court held, that negroes being usually bought and
sold among merchants, as merchandise, and also being infidels, there might be a
property in them sufficient to maintain trover, and gave judgment for the plaintiff,
nisi causa, this term ; and at the end of the term, upon the prayer of the Attorney-
General to be heard as to this matter, day was given until next term.
518
2 LEV. 201.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0925&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)