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/ssactsengr1025 and id is 1 raw text is: THE KING V. ROUTLEDGE
true meaning is, I will excuse a deviation for six weeks. The instructions, although
it happens that they were not read, strike me much. Another argument: six weeks
is a continuation, a congregate denomination of time. If they had meant separate
days, they would have said 42 days.
The rule made absolute.
THE KING against ROTLEDGE. Friday, 24th Nov. 1780. A college barber at
Oxford, though he resides in the city out of college, is intitled to the privileges
of the university.-Qu. whether, under that right, he is exempt from serving the
office of constable for the city.
An indictment having been found against the defendant, at the Quarter-Sessions
for the City of Oxford, for refusing to take upon himself the office of constable for
one of the wards in that city, it was removed, by certiorari, into this Court, and came
on, for trial, before Buller, Justice, at the last Summer Assizes for the county of
Oxford, on Friday, the 28th of July, 1780.
The indictment contained two counts. The first stated, generally, that the defen-
dant being an inhabitant, and residing in the ward in question, was on, &c. lawfully
and in due manner elected, nominated, and appointed by J. T. alderman of that ward,
and one of the justices for the city, into the office of constable for the said ward; that
he afterwards had notice of the appointment, and was summoned to appear before
K. J. and E. T. two other justices of the city, to be sworn in. The second count
alleged, particularly, that Oxford is an ancient city, that, from time immemorial, there
had been accustomed to be four aldermen of the said city, and that each of such
aldermen should and might, on the 30th of September, every year, (on the day
following, if the 30th of September should be a Sunday,) elect and choose, and of right
ought to elect and choose, a fit and able person, &c. to be constable, in and for the
ward to which such alderman should respectively belong; that the said defendant was
an inhabitant, &c. and a fit and able person, and that the said J. T. then was one of
the aldermen of the said city, to wit, for the ward in question, and that on the said
30th day of September, in the year, &c. the said J. T. did duly and [532] lawfully
elect, choose, and appoint the defendant, &c. (Then stating the notice and summons,
as in the former count, and concluding that notwithstanding the election and appoint-
ment the defendant refused to take the oath, &c.)
The defence consisted, 1. In putting the prosecutors on proving the custom as laid
in the second count of the indictment: 2. In shewing that the defendant, being matri-
culated in the university, and entered on the buttery-books of Brazen Nose College,
as barber to the college, was not liable to serve as constable, although he resided, and
kept a barber's and perfumer's shop in one of the wards of the city.
The evidence for the prosecution, with regard to the custom, was, that, on the
30th of September, (or the 1st of October,) annually, a meeting is held, in the town-
hall, of the mayor, four aldermen, and assistants, at which the new mayor is sworn in,
and the city officers, viz. constables, &c. appointed; that, on such occasions, the hall
is open to every body; that constables are never appointed but at that meeting; but
that none of the members of the corporation ever interfere in their appointment except
the aldermen, each of whom appoints one for his own ward; that this is done in the
following manner: the old constable delivers in a list of all the persons in his ward
fit to serve the office, and the alderman of the ward names one from that list.
With regard to the liability of the defendant to serve, the prosecutors, after proof
of the defendant's residence in the ward, and his keeping a shop there for perfumery,
toys, &c. endeavoured to shew, that, in many instances, persons of a like description,
viz. barbers, cooks, &c. of different colleges, had served the office. They had given
notice to the defendant to produce the matriculation-books of the university, in order
to prove the matriculation of those persons; but, as the books had not been inspected
before, and there was no index, they were not able to find the names of any of them.
It was admitted, on the part of the defendant, that the vice-chancellor of the university
often directs his warrants to be executed by the city constables.
The defendant's counsel, on the question concerning the custom, read a clause in
the charter of 3 Jac. 1, to the City of Oxford, by which it is provided, that constables,
&c. of that city, in case of vacancies, shall be chosen by the mayor, &c. and common-
3388
2 DOUGL 532.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1025&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)