£82 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



He did not know, indeed, that he 

 should be satisfied with his own 

 decision. If there were no more 

 in the case than tlie bond, he 

 should think that would be no 

 objection to the petitioner's re- 

 covering, because he would be 

 liable for the penalty of the bond. 

 But the Act of Queen Anne had 

 been cited, and by that Act, no 

 man was to act as a broker unless 

 authorized by the Maj'or and Al- 

 dermen, ami under such regula- 

 tions as they should think fit and 

 reasonable. His Lordship appre- 

 hended, therefore, that the ques- 

 tion was, whether any regulations 

 had been made, and what those 

 regulations were. It was mate- 

 rial to ascertain, whether the 

 bond and oath were to enforce 

 certain regulations, or whether 

 such bond and oath were to be 

 considered as stating what the 

 regulations were. He was dis- 

 posed to think that the Mayor 

 and Aldermen had made regula- 

 tions, and sought to secure them 

 by this bond and oath. The next 

 point Avas, whether those regula- 

 tions were such as they were em- spccted 

 powered to make, according to 

 the true intent and meaning of 

 the statute. If they were such 

 as the statute authorised, then 

 the question might be brought to 

 this : — that brokers, being pro- 

 hibited from this species of trad- 



Lord Mayor and Aldermen shoiild 

 think fit and reasonable." 



The Lord Chancellor. — " Un- 

 doubtedly those words may re- 

 quire further consideration. We 

 have argued the case all along as 

 if the word regulation had been 

 employed in the statute. I should 

 wish to know, therefore, what 

 restrictions and limitations have 

 been established." 



His Lordship then stated, that 

 he had spoken to the Chief Jus- 

 tice of the Common Pleas this 

 morning on the subject of this 

 case, who observed, that he had 

 known this objection taken to a 

 broker's action at I^isi Prius, but 

 it had been over-ruled. As to 

 the statute, the Chief Justice de- 

 clared, he had never heard that it 

 existed. 



Mr. Bell said, that the 13th 

 Edward HI. expressly authorised 

 the city of London to administer 

 oaths to tlieir brokers ; the ques- 

 tion was, what ouths they were to 

 administer. 



Ordered to stand over till the 

 several records have been ia- 



ing by those regulations, they 

 were also prohibited by the sta- 

 tute. His Lordship, therefore, 

 wished to know what those regu- 

 lations were, de facto. 



Sir Sam\icl llomilly observed, 

 that the word regulatioiis did not 

 occur in the statute. The words 

 of the statute weie . " With such 

 Imitations and restrictions as the 



Gladstone and Co. v. the Trus- 

 tees of the Liverpool Docks. — This 

 was a writ of error from the Com- 

 mon Pleas at Lancaster: it was 

 an action brought by the plaintiffs 

 to recover 241. 8s. 9d. as an over- 

 charge made upon the ship Rich- 

 ard, upon her arrival in the 

 docks at Liverpool. The record 

 stated, tliat before the passing of 

 the 51 Geo. HI. c. 143, for in- 

 corporating the Liverpool Dock 

 Company, the plaintiifs were 

 owners of the ship Fichard, built 

 at W'hitby, and registered at Li- 

 verpool ; she had traded out- 

 wards. 



