The King against Ludlam, Chamberlain of London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 190
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
case 184. the king against ludlam, Chamberlain of London. A bye-law of the City of London, " That every person using the trade of a joiner shall be free of the Joiners Company, and that every apprentice to a joiner shall forfeit ten pounds if he be admitted to the freedom of any other company," is good; but if a person who has served an apprenticship to a merchant-taylor use the trade of a joiner, the Court will grant a mandamus to the Joiners Company to admit him to his freedom, in order to avoid the penalty.-S. C. Stra. 675. Upon a mandamus to admit George Warren to his freedom of the City of London, he having served an apprenticeship to the warden of the Company of Merchant-Taylors ; The chamberlain made a return of the custom of London to make bye-laws, and that a bye-law was made the nineteenth of October, in the sixth year of William and Mary, that no person using the trade of a joiner should be made free of any other company but that of the joiners, with an express prohibition to the chamberlain to that effect; and that every person who had served an apprenticeship to a joiner should, upon notice, take up his freedom, with a penalty of tea pounds if he is admitted of any other company ; that this man has used the trade of a joiner : [268] wherefore he was never admitted. The question was, whether this is a good bye-law or not 1 It was argued against the return, that it was not, because the City of London for many ages past has been supplied with all their superior officers out of the twelve great companies, of which this of the Merchant-Taylors is one; and that Warren is free of that company, and therefore he shall not be compelled to be free of any other. There are but two ways of being free, either by birth and by acquisition, for every freeman's child is free of the same company of which his father was free ; and if such child should be of another trade, certainly he would not be obliged to purchase his freedom in another company. Besides this return is ill, for it is, that he who exercises the trade of a joiner in London, must take his freedom in the Company of Joiners, if summoned for that purpose ; and it is not set forth that Warren was summoned. On the other side it was argued, that this was a good bye-law, and well returned ; that it was a bye-law founded upon a custom, and confirmed by Acts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Ledwick, Widow, Administratrix of Ledwick
...8 Mod. 265; 2 Ld. Raym. 1361; 1 Str. 591; called in Ld. Raym. and Str. Jenny v. Hale. (h) Those do not seem to be the words of the Court; 8 Mod. 267. (i) B. R., T. 4 Geo. 3, 3 Burr. 1516; 1 Blackst. 485. (k) 1 Blackst. 489. (I) This seems to be what Lord Holt meant in the words cited from C......
-
Wannel v Camerar' Civit' London
...(1), and if it enacts that he shall take up his freedom there under a penalty, a mandamus will lie to admit him to prevent a forfeiture. 8 Mod. 267. 3 Burr. 1328, S. C. Mandamus to admit George Wannel to his freedom of the City of London : setting forth that he was bound apprentice to one S......