The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-07-19 00:00:00

WESTERN CIRCUIT. e-- STAFFORD, JULY 17. DOUCH INTER, MONDAY, JULY 17. TUE APOTMECASIES. COMPANY re. PEUNVIIOUOII. All the Crown business having been disposed of on aaturday This was an action brought by the Apothecaries Company night, Mr. Justice GASELEE left town this rimming on his way to against the defendant, to recover the penalties under the Act of the Exeter. Mr. Justice Lieraenet. E continued to preside at the s,lth of Geo. Ii I. fur emceeing les an Apothecary without having Civil side. b ee n regularly apprenticed or examined and admitted by the incur - DOE DEM. WOOD, c LEAK, r. COLSON, CLERIC. Formed p i s intiffe. This wait en action of ejectment tonight by the Rev. Mr. Wood, m e , b l eep opered the pleadings. as Doctor of the parish of the Ho'y Trinity, in the borough of Mr. W• E. tAr N DON stated the case to the Jury. In this cam Dorchester, to recover possession of a certain field, containing two e am counsel for the plaintiff& who are the Company of the Apo- acres, held by the defendant RA Rector of St. Peter's. thecaries in hoyden, and though they institute the present action Mr. Jett EMY opened the pleadings. t 0 greet yet a grt many penalties, when I have proved the case, Mr. Sergeant M terse maid that the field in question was glebe w hich t will be my Ju l y to establish, I shall be meshed on the land, and had been held for centuries by the Rector of the Holy pan of my clients with only taking one, which is to the amount Trinity, as belonging to that Rectory. It was now in the posses. of 201. This action is brought against the defendant, neater an Kinn of the defendant, who held it under a presentation to the Rec. Act p a ed so recently se the 55 th year of his late 31sep sty's tory of St. Peter's. The defendant's claim would be met by pro w rei n. which renders liable to a penalty of 2W. any gentleman who I log that he (the defendant) was not the Rector of St. Peter's; and, ; ?fat as an nonliterary, without having the certificate which if this failed, he should also prove, that even if the defendant were the Vet makes nece ma ry fur all apothecaries, excepting such per - the Rector of St. Peter's, lie had no right to the land In question, suns ' s' have been in practice befor the let of August. 1815. Oen- as it belonged to the Rectory of the 11017 Trinity, of which the amen, you novo be well aware of the many evils w i th which p laintiff was the incumbent. To establish his firsCpropostition, the practice of ignorant pretend , rs to the science of medicine that the defendant was not the Rector of St. Peter's, he should crave afflicted society ; and with a view to p revent the . prove, by ancient documents of unquestionable authenticity, that, tierious dimmers which almost daily occurred formerly and ; for a period of more than five hundred years, the Rectory of the are s•ill occurring, the Legislature interposed with this TOO Holy Trinity had been united with that of St. Peter's, and that the wholeanrrte Statute. whereby the plaintiffs are entrusted presentation to ti e former was held as a presentation to both. To with the examination of all persons claimiog to practise as apothe. account for the defendant's having obtained a presentation to the caries!. and to certify to the public, when they have ascertained it, Rectory of St. Peter's, it was necessary to state that the late in the eeperieece and the abilities of persons; and when infor. cumbent of the parish of the Holy Trinity was a Mr. Richmond. notion - s given to them that any person is practising without going This gentleman was !mown to the Jury, at least by name, as he through this ordeal, they woted be neglectful not only of the ditty and his wife heel al yearn ago met their death by the which they owe to themselves, but of the trust reposed in them hy I fal l oe the roof of house dtirin g a dreadful heericane. Mr. the public , if they did not instantly institute such an action as _ the 1 R ichmond sea l & gentlemen of the wastes( respectabilay, but it so Having skied very Midi, the object of this Act of Par. happened that he was a man of peculiarly quiet and retired habits; present. b e low 's, I shall now very 'shortly proceed to mention the cireum- and the defendant. having conceived that he discovered some flaw stances w hi c h s ee to be proved let support of this action. The duty in Mr. Richmond's title to hold the Rectory of St. Peter's, as Rec. o f a pothecaries consists in accurately making tip the prescriptions of tor of the Holy Trinity., contrived to obtain a presentation to St. p hysicians, which , from time immemorial down to the present day, Peter's, and as the perish was small, and Mr. Richmond was ex have been written in Latin. To guard against those fatal accidents tremely averse to litigation, lie never contested the defendant's what) we read of almost every month, it is absolutely requisite right. 3lr. Colson °hulloed the presentation to St. Peter's from n that the apothecaries should be acquainted with the language in Corporation called " The Guardians of the Free.school and Alms which them ereectiptions are written. If they be ignorant of that houses of Dorchester." in whom the right of presentation to the l angua ge, or if they have received an education incompati- union of the Holy Trinity and St. Peter's confessedly lay. Before be with the following of this profession, they cannot follow he entered into any particulars as to the nature of the docu it but with the utmost danger to the health or lives of metals about to be submittal, it was tight to acquaint mote who may have the misfortune to engage their as- the Jury, that the present occupier of the land in question a m our , Very early in the life of Ala Fernyhougla the was Mr. Mansfield, the defendant's attorney, who had originally d e f e ndant, I believe when he was only eight years of age (his fa- held under Illaßichmond, the late incumbent of the Holy Trinity ; t i e r being a farmer, anti I dare say very respectable in that line of but afterwards Mr. Mansfield chose to take up with ale. Colson 's life) put lam to school with a person who merely taught him read- right, and on being called on to deliver up the possession, he re ing and writing, at a rate of from 33. to fat. a week ; so that you I fused, alleging that he held under the Rector of St. Peter's. There ma y form some estimate of the chenicter of the education lie re. I was one other circumstance to be Owned, which proved that Mr. ceived front that circumstance. Ile continued with this school- Colson himself had not always conceived that he had a right to the memo e suppose, four years, hut not continually, for he was re- field in question as Rector of St. Peter's, for some years ago he ap. pettedly taken off his studies to attend the plough, and look to plied to the guardians of a certain fund for the increase of small oilier concerns about the farm, particularly in the times of hay and livings, and it being necessary to state what property belonged to corn harvest. This was all the etlueotion this gentleman received, the Rectory of St. Pewee, he slated in his return that the Rec as far as I ant informed. If he received better, he will be able tory of St. Peter's had no glebe land. However, it appeared that this day to show it. Having quitted this school, about twelve he had since acquired new information, and having obtained the years ago, he is next mud to the shop of a Mr. Heap, a augmentation which he desired from the guardians of the fund for chemist and druggist at Wolverhampton, with whom he re- e lite increase of small livings, he now came into Court to defend MS trained but for a short period. Now, there, undonbt- right to the possession of that land, which he had stated did not edly, he had an oppormnity of learning how to compound inedi- belong to the Rectory of St. Peter's. The Learned Sergeant then tines; but he was not regaled, Apprenticed to an apothecary for proceeded minutely to describe the documents, which he was about fire years.as the Act requires. I mean to say nothing to the die- to produce in evidence, commencing with the taxation of I'epe paragement of Mr. Heap. the druggist ; but surely you will allow Nicholas, dated so fir back as the year 1219. that twelve. thirteen, or fourteen months. behind a druggieeit cotta- 3lr. 3la II F.W ET II e a (with whom was Mr. EARLE) for the de to, is very diffeeent from meti n g a regular apprenticeship with an Ancient, had a preliminary objection to make to the production of established practitioner. In the first instance he went from this the evidence proposed to be offered for the plaintiff Plaintiff's gentleman to the house of a 31r. Gaunt, for his health, about Counsel proposed to prove that the Rectory of St. Peter's was united Christmas, 1811, and he quitted him eerly in 1815. In that year. I with that of the Holy Trinity, and that the presentation of Mr. undeneand, he only attained the age of eighteen. When I say Colson to the former wits not a legal presentation. Now he subs eighteen, Ido not mean to bind myself up specifically to that age; mined, that the question as to the legal right of presentation to but caialnlv wanting aeons years to become twenty-one. In the the living of St. Peter's ought not to be entertained by his Lord month of May. 1815. be went as an assietant. or journeyman, to ship, but that it :night be tried before another tribunal. Mr. Sutton, an apothecary, at Yoetel. Ile lived with him until Justice LIT TLEDALE-Was the plaintiff or the defendant first the death of that gentleman, in the month of July. 11117, and, I be- presenktl? lives , d he continued to live with the widow. Since t ha t Serg eant armor. replied, that the presentation of Mr. Colson periiel . , however, he has conducted himself as a regular practitioner, took place during the life-time of the late incumbent, Mr. Rich. and the present action is brought to recover the penalties for every mond I ns tance in,which he has exerted himself on his own account, with- 31r. M ...EREWETITEn referred to Crook --Elizabeth, in Imp ala b e t og duly qualified, although I shall only take a verdict for one port of his objection, and again submitted that the question as to penalty. I will read to you, gentlemen, the letter that he has writ- the right of presentation was for the Spiritual Courts, and could be ten to my clients, on receiving an application from them on the sub- decided only by a guars imj edit. jest of the levant complaint against him. Justice Li ler eenetee said lie woold not stop the trial upon a " Sir-I received yours on the 16th inst., and was much stir- formal objection, winch might be argued elsewhere. Ile thought pared on perusing the contents. The person who as given the in- the matter might be inquired into in the present action. font:aim to the Master and Wardens of the Society of Apothe- The plaintiff's evidence was then produced, and consisted of an aeries respecting my not being duly qualified to practoe as an examined copy or an entry in the survey or ecclesiastical valuation apothecary, it incorrect. If 1 had been called upon by that per. taken by order of Pope Nicholas in 1291. It stated that the tenth too, I could anon have satisfied him tha t I had a legal right to act of the value of the lavish of the Holy Trinity, with the chapel of as an apothecary, and he would have appeared more like a gen- St. Peter annexed, was gl. tlernan ; but as the matter es proceeded 10 fur, I beg to inform you, Copies of other entr es and rolls, dated 1303 and 1341, were also that I was in practice as at apothecary prior to the Act of Parlia. put in. They stated the same sum of Ili. to be the tax on the mere oasis& for the, better regulation oe Apothecaries in England clitirthes of the Hely Trinity and St. Peter's. The valor cede. and Wale& I entered into a partnership with a regular medical sitroitors of the Arehdeaconty of Dorchester had snuits to the gmileman the tint day of June 1815, comer:emir the mewed same effect. artatee of agreement of co-partnership, which instrument is in my The neat documents were books of the institutions made by the possession, will clearly prove that lam lewdly authorised to peace Bishops of Salisbury, in whose diocese Dorchester then teas, though use ae en apothecary. Therefore your informant is in as error in it is now in the diocese of Bristol. By these books it appearal suppoeing that I was not duly qualified." that all the institutions from 1303 down to 1540, were of one and Iliac Gentlemen, is the letter so far, but here he offers a bonus the same rector to the churches of the Holy Trinity anti St. Peter's. to my clients, if they will discontinue this action. By an inquisition taken at that period, it was leund that the Mr. Jeatris-A bolas you mean, I !suppose. church of St. Peter's, Dorchester, was dependent on that of the Ma W. E. TAUNTON munting-A bohre , Gent'ennui, if m 9 H o l y T r i n i t y. Leersted Friend likes it. if dm person does not like to have an 1 An Act of Parliament (the 37th of Henry VIII.) was then potion against himself, he manifests a dispoeition to wish actions 1 cited. fly the doh motion of chap. 21, it was enacted that all brought against others by my clients. I will continue to read the I churches t hem united should continue so for ever. letter. It was observed by the defendant's Counsel, that the King's " But I understand there is a gentleman in this neighbourhood, name was not mentioned in this Act, and that therefore the Kicg carrying on the medical practice, who is liable to the penalties int. was not bound by it. posed by the said Act. Mr. W. H. Johns, the Demoy Register of the Arcltdeaconry I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. of Dorchester, was men called and produced a register of the " Yolall, near Lichfield, "J. FERN YHOUGII. usual fees or procurations paid at the visitations by the l'arsons to " Dee. 19, 1823. the Archdeacon. Them payments were formerly made by die e• P.S.-I ant not certain whether I have directed this letter Clergy themselves after the visitation dinner, but that was found right ; it was with difficulty I matte out the signature." to be a very inconvenient way, and now the fees were paid by the The Learned Counsel concluded by remarking that this letter Churchwardens, The demand for the parishes of St. Peter's and alone evinced the incompetency of the defendant to write English ' the Holy Trinity was :nade in one, and always paid by the Church. much less to read • limn. wardens of the Holy Trinity. The same person who was Rector Elisabeth Fox-at am the wife of William Fox. He lives at of the Holy Trinity was also Rector of St. Peter's up to the time Hadley End, near Voxall, in this county. I recollect the defendant when Mr. Colson was presented. attending nie in 1817 and 1818. All the family was ill. (A bill Thomas Allen, Clerk to the Bishop of Salisbury's Secretary, was then shown the witness, end site identified it as a bill that she produced a register (tithe institutions to these churches since May, had received Gum defendant.) He attended me for a breaking out. 1752. 'l'lle Rev. John Ilubbard was then instituted on the Fescue Cross-examined by Mt. J envie-I'lle breaking out was the itch. tat t oo o f t h e C or p ora ti on o f the Guardian of the Free - school and I bare not got it still. He did not cure me ; but I was obliged to Aline-houses of Dorchester, vacant by the death of Dr. W. Lee. get in the assistance of another gentleman, who did cure me. I ' in 17111, the Rev. Nethaitiel Templeton was presented and in here nit paid the defendant yet. Ido not expect that I shall not etituted in the tame tarn,. The next presentaion was in 11113, have to pay lam if he be cast in this action. when the Rev. 31r Richmond was presented by a Commission from The bill was here put in and read. the Guardians of the Corporation of the Free-school and Alms- John Thompson also proved that he had employed the defendant 'lowa's of Dorchester to the Rectory of the Holy Trinity, with the within the time 'specified by the last witness. Rectory and Free Chapel of Footle Whitfield thereto annexed. In Jenny Hall mid she knew the defendant well, and believed the 1825, the present plantar was presented in the same form of words bills presented to her were all in his hand-writing. They were far Stephen(:al e, sworn- at; :en f or two years one of the church- II h inofeseional attendance in the years 182'2 and 1823. There wal 00- wardens of Sr. Peter's. Ile lived 50 years in the parish, and recoil. thing mentioned in them about a partnership with any person. lecteti the Rev. ale. Ternpleson, who . , with his Curate, always did George Ilickley, a schoolmaster. proved that the defendant watt a duty at St. Peter's Chapel. 3lr. Templeson acted as Rector of pupil of his for about four veers. and paid 4d. or lel. a week. At St. Peer's. Witness knew the field in question. 111 r. Templeton that time he followed his father's plough. 'al'itness did not teach had that field whilst he was Rector. His horses were often put to hint Lean, but only the matter of accounts. lye was obliged to graze in the field, and witness has observed them. alr. Richmond admit, in his crate-examination. that when the defendant left him elm acted as Rector of both parishes, from lel3 up to the preeenta he went to a boanlingoahoul at fhaveritige in this county. tam of 31r. Colson. Mr. 'at ood has only acted as Rector of the Mr. Heap, a druggist, of Wolverhampton, proved that the Holy Trinity, since he catia in 1325. defendant lived with him merely as an assistant from 1010 to Cros s- examine d - M r. lempleson used to come through wit -1514. ness's house to the field, the right in which is now dis p uted. He On erommxtmination he admitted that the defendant had always came almost every day for neatly 30 years. Witness heul him the hest opportunities of improving his qualifications to become a say that he becan:e the sequestrator of St. Peter's in the death of regular apothecary. 3lr. Templewm. Witness at one time became sequestrator of St. William Gaunt, in apothecary, then gave some evidence against Peter's, in conjurctira with Thomas Randall, now dead. As se the defendant, which we refrain front insertirg from reasons that questratori of the parish they took possession of the crop on the subsequently appear. held now in question. lair. Richmond afterwards became segues- Several other witnesses were then called to prove that the de- trator, and subsequently Rector of St. Peter's. A person named fendant bad practised as an apothecary, and diet lie could have no ( bom bs, and after, a man named Hodges, occupied the field.- kgal round for so doing. ' They held it of witness's fillow.sequestrator. The field is situated air. Jeavis then addressed the Jury for the defendant. He in the parish of St. Peter's, and no pare of it is in or even adjoin. was ready to mote le that the Apothecaries: Company were bound to see the Act of Parliament complied with which regulated their ing the parish of the Holy Trinity. They bury , christen , an d p er. movements. it was quite within the range of possibility, however, , land form all other religious rites, in St. Peter's Cowell. It has no glebe that they might be made the instruments of forwarding the UlidiCi• except the hell in question-it' that beloegs to it. A garden of about three and a half acres, i n the possession of Mr. Pittman, nue desnets of a rival competitor to the defendent in the small valet is part of the glebe , Trinity. of of the HolTrinitv. of Ynxall. It was to be lamented, in this case, that the Apothe es' Company had not sooner inquired auto the character of the Re-examitted-After the death of 31 r. Templeson , Ran dall and cari witness became sequestrators, took possession of the field, and defendant. who had been engaged in business on hie own account mowed the grass • but the churelowardens of the Holy Trinity de. aim tine beginning of 1821. 'I his inquiry, however, was not row Tended the Randall ga v e crop, and they (eremite antl Bendel') gave instituted by the Company of Apothecaries, but by a Mr. Garner, them tip without witness s knowtedge , . who was a rival to the defendant in the small village of Yoxall, and _ I l l e r m li l ic p itmo Richmon d himself became xequestrator, and read himself who wag the real plaintiff ' in the cam. By the statute of Queen into ' • "• e the Church as such. Witness du not know what right alr. Elizabeth, any apothecaries who riot had served a regular appreto Richmond had to hold the field afterwards. tiet-thip were liable to the penalties inflicted by the Act under which the present action was brought • but that Act was now re. 3lr. Christopher Arden-Knew the field in question, and occu. pealed. By the new statute of the :tad; of the late King, however, pied it from 1816 to 11123. He paid time rem to 31r. Richmond. a penalty of twenty pounds was inflicted upon any apothecary who The next evidence given was a letter, written by the defendant practised without a certificate fromthe regular Company of 'martin. in 1022, applying for an augmentation of St. Peter's, from the rated Aprithecaelee. But there was &clause of exeliption which ex- Commissioners of Queen Ann's bounty. The letter stated that eluded those from the penalties of this Act who had regularly prac- there were no tithes nor glebe lands belonging to St. Peter's. timd as apothecaries before the Ist of August 1313. In such The answers, on oath, to the several interrogatories of the Cottl e situation was the client of the Learned Counsel. His Learned missionere put in pursuance of the letter, were also produced as Friend, by a show of hypercriticism, had endeavoured to bring evidence. They elated, as in the letter, that there were no tithes forward proofs of the ignorance the defendant displayed in a lettet nor any glebe land belonging to St. Peter's. he had written, because he bad spelled two or three words without Mr. 11l CREW ErnEst then addressed the Jury on behalf of an h. This unfortunate defendant was not a classical scholar. the defendant. He confessed he felt the duty that involved on him Jury were told, because lie had not been examined at tine Apothe. was replete with difficulty. The parties in the ease were clergy_ caries' Hall ; but he hail heen a regular prretitioner tor some years men, and it was most desirable that they should continue on good previous to the passing of the Acton which this action was founded, terms, anti that no animosity should exist between 111011. The and that would tam him from its penalties. Learned Sergeant had most properly abstained front anything that The Learned Counsel then called an immense number of wit- cou ld give rise to unpleasantness between the parties, and he should nesse:, who proved that the defendant had practised for some time, imitate him by not imparting to his address anything foreign with much credit to himself, previous to the posing of the Act ; to the case. There never was a question which required more the also that he had been a partner of a regular practitioner previous to undivided attention of the Jury to facts. The real question wax the ,amhe Period ; and several of Mena s wore that 31r. Gaunt, w h e th e r the lessor Wood had made out to the Jury t h at he was 0 T.tne". l for the plaintiffs, could not be believed on his oath. entitled to the land in question. The case was one in wh i ch it Alf. I'ACNTON eloquently replied. was too much to expect the clearest possible evidence. Ile admit. Mr. Ju s ti ce BultROUGm charged the Jury; and after retiring ted that there were some doubtful facto' in the case, mane that left for a short time, they found for the defendant. uncertainty on the mind; but though this fact and another were The verdict wait received with partial applause. uncertain, there was enough to incline the male when the Jury A came respecting mat-treatment to a lunatic, which wee tobe produced for the defend , . in poseession of the evidence to of have been tr were . tol here, has been made a imam. It excited in- ant. lie would produce a document antecedent to any those finite Llama. produced In. ti:': aleintiff, elikii would prove Ow in the' reign of OXFORD CIRCUIT. THE BRITISH PRESS. Henry 111., the parishes of St. Peter's and the holy Trinity were separated anti divided, and in the fifth of the King; as to the valuation of Pope Nicholas produced at the other side, he contend ed it did not prove that the parishes were united. They were not entered as united parishes, but were entered together as parishes in the gift of the Crown, not by any means as parishes emu:eel. The presentation of Ralph d'Odium, as put in for the plaintiff, he contenthel was not correct. He should lay before the Jury the first presentation of Ralph d'Odium, antecedent to that put in for the plaintiff. and which proved that the said Ralph d'Odium was first presented to St. Peter's. The plaintiff's Counsel had put in the presentations from 1303 to 1340, but these presentations were to the Holy Trinity alone, and afforded no presumption that St. Peter's was united. Though the King may have weaned the two parishes to the Fame person, the parishes were not the more united. If the plaintiff's Counsel proved that the King had united the parishes, it would have been satisfactory, but therewas no evidence of any act of the King's. If the King exercised his right of presentation to the two parishes, by presenting them to one per son, it was no proof that the parishes were not separate ; but if the King had ever presented them separately, it was decisive that the parishes were separate, although they might, for convenience, have b.en allowed to go together on one or many occasions. Now he would prove that in 1330 there was a separate presentation of Geoffrey tie Hardwick to the parish of St. Peter's. This was one of the presentations which the Learned Sergeant had omitted to bring forward, with ills usual dexterity, because, in his discretion, he conceived it bore against the interest of his client. There was another presentation in twerity.nine yearn atter also, omitted to be produced at the other side. It was a presentation of a person named Roland to the width of St. Peter's ulone. It was true that at the other 'sidle they had produced four successive presentations to the parish of the Holy Trinity with the parish of St. Peter's annexed. There was no question as to the. right of the King to present both golviehes to the Salle person if he pined, but did that prove them united ? Though he had presented beat to the same person forty times, and afterwanis made a separate presentation, it was evi dence that there was no union, which could only be effected by the consent of the King. As to the Act of Parliament which was pro duced, and which rendered the dissolution of unions impossible, the King was rot bound by that Act unless his name was men tioned in it. But even if it was admitted that the Patron was bound by the Act in question, there was no evidence of the Patron's assent to the union. It was true that a presentation to IRA parishes, about lour years after the date of the Act, was produced, but indistinct documents could not he confided in ; and even if they were, the documents in this case went step by step to elm, there was no union of the parishes. In all the documents, the parish of the Holy Trinity appeared with ironic Whitfield annexed, but there was no instance of St. Peter's being annexed in any document that could be relied on. At making the grant of presentation to the Corporation, the parish of St. Peter's was not named; only the parish of the Holy Trinity, with Frome Whitfield annexed. It was impossible St. Peter's could go under that grant. In 16.10, when the ecclesiastica survey took place, the return was matte for both parishes separate! y. This made the whole matter clear, if it was doubtful before. But he should show more. Ile should prove that the Rectors of' the Holy Trinity had themselves treated St. Peter's as separate. Other documents could probably have beep produced to support the defendant's case, but for a tire which took pine at Blandfard in 1731, when all the documents belonging to the Bishopric were destroyed. But he could prove that the Rector of the Holy Trinity had taken nut the sequestration the the !mesh of St. Peter's. 31r. Templcson. the Rector of the parish of the Holy Trinity, died in June 11113, when 3lr. Richmond took out the sequestration. Upon the Whaled the documents. he insisted that it was proved that the parishes were not united. Now as to the other point, that the close was in the parish of the lloly Trinity, all the probabilities of the case were against such a con clusion. Its local situation proved it belonged to St. Peter's, and this was further proved by the fact that St. Peter's had no other glebe. It may be that Mr. Templeson believed it belonged to the Holy Trinity, but he might be mistaken. Ile had erroneously signed himself Rector, when only sequestrator ; anti as to the Churchwardens, they signed the terrier, when applied to by the Rector, without examining its contents. This he would prove by one of the Churchwardens now surviving. In addition to this, he should prove from Templeson's declarations, that the close in questian belonged to St. Petes'e. His account.bnoks also proved that the close was in St. Peter's, and was designated the Bowling green. Now with respect to .Mr. Coleon's return to the Commis sioners of Queen Anne's Bounty, it was easily explained. He returned that St. Peter's had no glebe land• because at that time he was ignorant that the glebe belonged to St. Peter's. In conclusion, he cautioned the Jury against being led away by the reply of the Learned Sergeant, and begged of them to confine themselves to the facts of the case. Ile theughe they should be well satisfied before they consented by their verdict to take away the only piece of glebe which St. Peter's had, and to add it to a parish already possessing a glebe. Documents were then produced in support of the defendant's case.] The first document orodneed was a book compiled from inquiei lions taken in the reign of !leery 111. It was compiled in the reign of Edward V., and described the Chtirele of St. Peter's in the Borough of Dorchester as being in the gift of the King. The presentation of De Hardwick to St. Peter's W4S then put in. The returns made by the parish of St. Peter's, in answer to the inquiry of the Commissioners in MO, were also produced. It stated that there was no parsonage or vicarage in the parish—that there was no other parsonage or living helongirg to St. Peter's, and that it had no parish church. Mr. Smith. the Bishop's Register, produced the grant of segues. tration to St. Peter's, token out by Mr. Hubbard ; also a seques tration to the Holy Trinity, dated 4th June, 1732. In 17131 sequestration was granted to Mr. Templeson for both parishes, and on his death, in 1813, sequestration was granted to the church besides of both parishes. It wen afterwards granted separately to Mr. Richmond for St. Peter's. The presentation of defendant to St. Peter's, dated 26th Nov. 1824, was then given in evidence; also hie presentation by the Crown under the Great Seal. It was also proved, that in the account of the procuration fees the parish of St. Peter's and the Holy Trinity were charged and in serted separately. I Mr. Henry John produced the institution of Mr. Hubbard, in 1781, to the Holy Trinity alone; of Mr. Richmond, in 1813, to the parish of the Holy Trinity, with the Rectory and chapel of Forme Whitfield annexed ; and of Mr. ('olson, in October 1822, to the parish of St. Peter's, vacant by the death of the last incumbent. John Bascow, one of the Churchwardens who signed the terrier produced by plaintiff; was sworn, to prove that he signed it without knowing what it contained. Justice Lyre eetteett said he thought it of no great use to call as old man to disprove what he had signed 40 years before. The Rev. 3lr. Oakley was then examined—He knew 111 r. Tern. pleson; assisted to keep his accounts. Mr. Templeson told witness that he was never inducted to St. Peter's, but held it by sequestra tion from the Bishop. (The account books of the parish were here prollarell.) Witness knew Mr. Templeson's hand-writing. The *mourns were chiefly written by him. The field in question was charged all through as belonging to the parish of St. Peter's, and on no occasion as belonging to the parish of the Holy Trinity. Mr. Templeson told witness that he kept St. Peter's separate, fearing he should be celled on to produce his accounts as sequestrator. James Pittman examined—Knew 31r. Templeton. He told witness thnt the living of St. Peter's was not worth accepting, for that he had nothing by it but the bowling-green glebe and the Easter offering. Crows-examined —Witness did not say he could not recollect such a conversation with Mr. Templeson. IVould not swear he did not say so to Mr. Coombe (the plaintiff's attorney). Did. say to Mr. Coombe that be had given only a shilling, and that Mr. 31ansfield (defendant's attorneys had given him a guinea. In say. in" r e l f i l e at ca u s t e it n h e a t v s had jogcl t o o s i the ed d atbo tru ti t i li. sides, Mr. Sergeant W IDE replied at great length. 'f he beamed Jenne then summed up the evidence, and left it to the Jury to find—first, whether the living of St. Peter's and and that of the Holy Trinity were held together Imin the earliest times .o the passing of the statutes in the reign of Henry VIII. e ere ondly, whether, if they were held together before the reign of Henry Vlll. they had been held together subsequently ; thirdly, whether, if held to ether subsequently, they had been held with the consent of the patron, ordinary, and incumbent; fourthly, whether, if held with the consent of the patron, ordinary, and in cumbent, they lied been held under the presentations and institu tions proved. or under the grant of sequestration • and law ly, whether the field in question was or was not a parcel of the glebe land of the Holy Trinity, though locally situated in the parish of St. Peter's. The Jury having found all these questions in the affirmative, verdict was taken generally for the plaintiff, spbject to the opi. nion of the Court upon the case. This record occupied the Court from nine o'clock in the morning until nearly ten o'clock at night, anti appeared to excite a consider able degree of local interest, from the situation of the parties, and the nature of the evidence adduced. The Court was crowded dur ing the entire day. The above case concluded the Assizes for Dorset. MIDLAND CIRCUIT. DERBY, JULY 17. On Saturday evening, the Lord Chief Justice arrived at Derby, at nine o'clock, and immediately opened the Commission. On Sunday, both of their Lordships attended Divine Service, and this morning proceeded to take the trials. CRI3IINAL SIDE. Illefore the Lord Chief BaRON.I Junws Booth was capitally indicted fur having, on tne 3d of April last, assaulted James Harrison, at Charlesworth, in thik county, whh intent to do him grievous bodily harm. There was also another count in the indictment, charging the prisoner with the minor offence. James Harrison, examined by Mr. CLARICE —1 am et present a labouring man ; I remember the night of the 3d April last; I was at the sign of the Grey Mare public-house, near Charlesworth, in this county ; I was, during the evening, at a club of a benefit so ciety, and left it to go home about ten o'clock, but I cannot speak with certainty as to the hour. When I ]eft the house, and had pro ceeded about 200 yards, I was attacked by the prisoner, James Booth ; before that, 1 heard a great noise, as if there had been a scuffle, and prisoner was asking for a light, saying he had lost something, and that he could not leave the spot till he found it. He then rushed at me with an open knife; he cried out, " How on," the meaning of which I don't know, and then said, " that's James Harrison. and that's the man I want to be at." lie cut Inc in the cheek and left hand, but I grasped him, and kept in custody until I daivcrctl him to the constable, at the house of Mr. Bariett. 1 then went to the Doctor's to have the wounds dressed, and prisoner was allowed to escape ; hut, trh obtainng a warrant, in a short time after I had him apprehended. I knew Booth by his voice. There were other persons with me. Cross-examined by 'Mr. liar.Givir—The night was dark, very dark. I coded on Booth by his name, after be struck me. lie said I was afraid of those who had ill-used him, and I believe that to be the rea-on why be attacked me. We hod had no previous quarrel. Booth was on his road home, accompanied by his father and his brother. Robert Marston examined—l accompanied Harrison from the public house. We met Booth and others; Booth was asking for a light; a lantern was brought, but the light was soon put out ; I heard Booth's voice, and saw him Cut at Harrison there was a great noise, but I heed Harrison say to Booth, " Do, lads, spare my lift." Harrison Raid he had x tooth knock,:tl out, nod I said, " Stick to him, and take him to a liltht. that we may be sure or hint." 'When ire was at ilarrisov's •I cried out, " Maio, Boxer, don't kill a holy." Boxer is a bye-name given to Booth. In cross-examinatioo, nothing contradieloilt to the above was elicited from this witness. .... —1! igginb)tham, a companion or the prosecutor's, corro borated the last wituess, and swore positively that, without any previous provocation, an far as he knew, Booth attacked llarrison in the mantic!. described. _ ......... On cross-examination, he denied that any stones were thrown at Booth or his friends, by himself or Harrison, or any other person of their party. He did not hear Booth say he wantes: James Har rison; what he did hear him say was. " I want the man in the white breeches." liarri,on wore a pair of white breeches on the evening in question. James Stafford, another of the associates of the prosecutor, de posed to the effect, , hat Booth wantonly attacked Harrison ; that no stones were thrown at him, either by the witness or any of his party ; that Hariison was severely cut in the left cheek, and that the piorning after the scuffle, lie went to the spot where it took place, and there found a knits, now produced. This witness, in cross-examination, denied that he saw any stone thrown at Booth. James Bradshaw was called to prove that, early in the evening of this scuffle, he had exchanged knives with Booth. The knife now produced is the knife lie had so exchanged. Robert Thomley. surgeon, stated tha nature of the wounds. The prosecutor bled profusely; but there was no danger to be ap prehended. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr. BALGUY called four witnesses, viz. Aston, Oarbill, and the father and brother of the pris.iner, who severally swore that the poisoner was three times ►eaten, and otherwise ill-used by the prosecutor and his party ; and that stones or sods were thrown at thou, before the prisoner attacked liar • rison. Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent character, for humanity and good temper. The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed tip the evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict of—Guiity. CIVIL SIDE. [Before the LORD CHIEF J rsTies.] A VERMIN TRAP. SIR ROGER ORESI.Y, HART. t•. THE REV. MR. cnr.r.rsrs. This was an action of 'rover, brought by the present High Sheriff for this county, against the defendant, a respectable clergy man, residing in his neighbourhood. It appeared from the statement of Counsel, as %tell as from the evidence, that no friendly feeling existed between the parties, in consequence of some dispute about tithes. The trap had been placed close to the boundary-line separating the grounds of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the latter hav ing become possessed of it, refused to give it up, alleging, that it lets placed there fur the purpose of caviling game, and not vermin, And that, as such, information should have been laid before it Ma gistrate. The plaintiff persisted in demanding the trap, but the Bev. defendant as stoutly refused to be entrapped, and would not give it up. He laid an information on the subject before Sir Os wald :%loseley ; but the worthy Baronet refused taking the infortna don, as he considered the trap was set for an unlawful purpose. The Louts Cut JuSTICE charged the Jury, that they must find a verdict to the amount of two shillings (the sum laid In the declaration), as the trap had been twice demanded from the defen d dant, and had also been set for lawful purposes. Verdict for the plaintiff—Dantaees George iirotron, now confined in this gaol, for numerous forge ries, is to be removed to-morrow to Maidstone, there to take his trial. It would be unjust to say more, as the prisoner's fate should be left to a Jury of his country. felony are disappointed here by his removal. NORTIIIIRIV CIRCUIT. rOISK, oII'ILY 17. Lronard Wilkinsei, who was convicted on Friday last of the murder of Nicholas Carter. underwent the awful sentence of the law this morning. l'reviously to his execniiou he acknowledged his guilt. WRIT OF RIGHT. ANCEI. V. ANGEL. This important cause came on for trial this morning. Great curiosity had been excited by the name of a Writ of Right, and the Court was filled at an eatly hour by well-dressed spectators of bath sexes. The Grand Assize was exceedingly respectable, and included some of the most considerable gentlemen of the county. Counsel for the demandant—Mr. SCAR LETT, Mr. BROUGHAM, Mr. TINDALL, Mr. PAB►F., Alt. A RCIIBOLO, Mr. WILDE, and Mr. BAINES. Counsel for the tenant—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who was specially retained), Mr. Possoeg, Mr. ALDERSON, and Mr. PAT TISON. Mr. BAINES, for the demandant, having opened the pleadings, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Grand Assize on behalf of the tenant, or defendant. He observed, that the defend. ant, for whom he then appeared, had been in:possession of the pro perty claimed by the demandant fora period of nearly forty years ; not, indeed, an undisturbed possession, because many proceedings had been instituted, and many actions brought, to wrest the pro perty from hint. Hitherto those attempts had been made without success; whether the event of the present inquiry was to be diffe rent from that of the ocher actions which had preceded it, they would decide when they had heard his statement and the evidence by which it was to be supported. He confessed that he did not, on the commencement of the cause, feel exactly at ease—not that he doubted the justice of his cause, or the weight of die evidence which would support it, but because the management of it hail been entrusted to him, a stranger amongst them, whilst he was op posed to Mr. Scatted, who, in addition to his great talents and experience, had had so many opportunities of gain ing their personal favour and respect. Ile had, however, too great a confidence in the character of the tribunal before which lie stood, to believe that the disadvantage to which he had alluded would at all prejudice his client. The situation of the defendant was in one respect a peculiar one. Ile had been in possession of the pro. petty in question fur a period of forty years. and yet, contrary to the usual course of proceeding. where the claimant began by establish ing a case before the defendant could be called upon to show his title, in this case, notwithstanding that length of possession, the claimant remained quiet, and the tenant was first called upon to expose his title to the property. Ile would now proceed to state the case,and in doing so, he should do little more than submit a dry statements of facts. The question which they had now to deters niine arose out of the will of John Angel, who had principally re. sided at Stockwell, and died between forty and fifty years ago. He hod died possessed of very extensive estates in Kent. Surrey. Berk shire, and, as it was supposed, in the county of York. The pro perty in Yorkshire consisted of certain dues, payable to a light house, situate at the mouth of the Humber. Those ducat amount. ed to about 10,1100/. a year, and it was alleged that at the time of Iris death the testator had been entitled to three.fouttlio, which would be about 70001. a year. It Vida that interest in the light-house of which their verdict to-day would dispose. The testator had been a man of secluded habits ; some disappointment in early life had in duced him to retire from society, but lie had been a man of acute mind, and by minute attention to his own affairs had succeed ed in accumulating the immense property which he had left at his death. Amongst other pectiliariti.m to which the testator had been I subject, there had been one which he (the Attorney. General) hoped wan not very extensively ditiused, and that had been an un controllable aversion to lawyers. lle had therefore made his will himself, and in making it he had most amply atoned to the lawyers for the aversion with which lie had always regarded them, for out of that will there had already arisen tour suits in Chancery and five actions at law. (A laugh.) It was contended by the de mandant that the Yorkshire property had not been devised in die will, and that it therefore went to the heir at law. That heir at law the demandant imagined to be himself, and on the mewl it was stated how he made himself out to be the lien at law. It was stated that the testator had descended from Justinian Angel—that Justinian had had a brother named Thomas, and that lie (the de. mantlant) was the great-grandson of Thomas. They (the Counsel for the tenant) were in the dark as to the demandant i case. Until within a recent period they knew not who he was ; he had been in a very obscure situation in life, and whether lie now carried on that suit himself, or was a mere Instrument in the hands of others, they bad no means of determining. Thus much, however, he (the Attorney-General) would say, that he thought it not improbable that the demandant would show a descent from a Thomas Angel, The main point would be, whether that Thomas had been the brother of Justinian. He would, for the sake of ar. gument, assume that the demandant would make out his descent as set forth on the record. Still, however, the demandant wouid not advance one step, because he (the Attorney-General) would show that Justinian Angel had had an elder brother named William, and that from the elder branch the tenant was descended. To prove that, he should begin at the period at which Crowhurst, in the county of Surrey. where the Angels had most constantly resided, had first come into the possession of that family. Ile stifild pro. duce in evidence the deed of feoffinent, by which, in 1615, Sir Humphrey Lisle conveyed Crowhurat to William Angel. In that deed they would find mention made of John Angel, the son and heir apparent of William. He should then show them that John had married a daughter of Sir Robert Edelph, in the county of Kent, and that the issue of that marriage had been twenty children. That would be proved by the copy of a monumental stone in the church-yard of Crowhurat, which, after mentioning the 20 children, stated that nine had then survived, and mentioned their names, William, John, Robert, James, Justinian, Thomas, and three daughter , . They would observe that William was there mentioned Its the eldest of the sons, and in order to corroborate that proof he would produce copies of the register of Crowhurat, which, when compared with the evidence deduced from the monument, would show beyond doubt that William had been the senior both of Justinian and Thomas. He would also show them a deed exe. cuted by John Angel in 1665, in which he described hit son Wil. ham to heir apparent, and settled his property upon William id tail male. end, in default of home, settled it upon the other sons id succession, mentioning the conies of William and Thomas. The next step would be to show the niarriage of William to the datighte: of Thee. Oneson, Esq. of Biefield, and that he should show by the, marriage settlement, and by the envy of a monument in Crow. hunt church, which stated that William Angel had married Elizai bed) tlosson. Front that marriage lied sprung six children, of whom two sons and one daughter bad died in infancy, leavinN two (heighten' and one eon surviving them. The names (r' the datighters hail been Frances and Elizebetle and that of the son William. Ile should show to them that Elizabeth had died un. married, and that William had married, but had died without issue. It was from Frances, therefore, that the tenant claimed hig descent. It would next be proved that Frailees had married a Mr. Benediek Browne, at the parish church, of Binfield, aid that would be shown by the register of the marriage. The next question would tic, hail there been any issue of that ntarriage ? He look, ti to the register ef Birdield, and he found that three children had been bap. tized at Dinfield. Soon after the marriage, Mr. Benedick Btowue had purchased an estate called Studleigh, at Caine in Wiltshire; and it would be proved that a fourth child, named B. nr.lick, had been baptized at Caine. Of those children the eldest had beet named William, the second Frances, the third Ilene. dick, and the fourth Catherine. William survived his lather, Ile administeeell to him, and they would find that in the let. ter of administration, doted 1737, he was described as the eldest son of his father. Benedick survived William, and that would be shown by the letters of administration granted to Benedick un his brother's decease. From Benedick the tenant was descended. The property at Studleigh hid been increased by the purchase of the manor, and leases Would he shown to the Jury executed by Bene. (tick seer the death of his brother, which mottle show that Benee dick had been in possession. It would be as well for him (the At torney-Genentl) to mention et that petit d a circumstance which would conic before them in the course of the cause. lie had al ready told them that different adventurers had laid claim to the property in question, and it was no wonder therefore that the re gisters from which inforreation could be gleaned had been the ob. jects of daily search. In consequence, as he supposed. throoghout three pages of the Caine registers 1041 had been altered ter Who find been the author of the forgery he could not sly, but obviously it had not been any one in the interest of Ills client. The next link in the chain of evidence would be to show that Benedick had married. It would be shewn that Benedick, in the life ime of his brother William, had become connected with a female of the name of Pleydy Brook, who had become pregnant by him, and that he had married hi r shortly before her confinement. They had not been married at Caine, in which parish was Studleigh, where lived, btu at Wilsford, a parish shout live miles distant. The register would be produced, and from that it would appear that in 1741 Benediek Brown had been married to Pleydy Brook. It would be proved also by the teenseript of the tegisters, which they might know was yearly returned by each parish to the Bishop of the diocese. In addition to that, he had au important piece of evidence. In the year 1741, it had been necessary, before a license could be granted, for the party applying .o enter into a bond, whist{ remained in the possession of the Bishop of the diocese._ Sow a bond had been searched for, and a bond had bean found, entered into by Benedick Brown, and bearing date the day before his marriage. That bond would he produced before them, and they would then say whether they had any doubt that the niarriag,e had taken place. The first issue of that marriage had been Bents. dick Brown, who had been baptized at Caine, and whose baptism they would find in the parish register. The entry had been written on a place from which something had been etased, and he believed that it would be contended on the other side, that in the first entry the child had been described to be illegitimate, and that such enti had been erased. That might have been the case. Pleytly Brook had suddenly disappeared from Caine t the fact of her niurriage had been unknown, and when she appeared to baptize a child only Emir or five Weeks old, it was not unlikely that an entry had been made wide I tied been erased on better information. But that was im material, for from that Benedick, the tenant, did not claim. That Benedick hail died in infancy ; his death woultebe proved ; and it would be shawls that a second son had been born, who had also been called Benedick, and who hod been the father of the present tenant, who had taken the name of Angel, in compliance with the direction of John Angel, the testator. Such was die evidence oa which the title of the tenant would rest. Ile desired them to ex amine it with the moat scrupulous jealousy, and he doubted nut that after such examination the es - biome would remain unshaken. The evidence, which was entirely documentary, was then gone into. It is unnecessary to go into it, as it was, in fact, an exact illustration of the statement of .the Attorney-General. The proof, indeed, was most exact, and the pedigr:e was drawn from the first ►►'illiam Angel, in 1615, down to the present tenant, with out a single link being wanting in the chain. The tenant's case having concluded, 31r. SCARCE CT submitted that the Counsel on the other s i de ought now to admit the seisin of the ancestor. ►►'ithout such ad mission the title of the tenant could not he regarded as complete. The ATTOILNEY-GEN ER AL refused to make any admission. He had shown the tenant to be in possession, and how he hart come into possession. It was for the demandant to show n betier title, and certainly he (the attorney-littict.l) *mild not Luis; hint by making any admission. The Court was then adjourned until to-morrow, when the de menden' must make out his title. THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS. MIDDLETON, JULY 16.—About twelve o'clock last night the inhabitants of this place were surprised by the sudden appearance of iOO or 2,50 men, armed with sticks and bludgeons. At the time of their arrival every thing was going on as usual in the place—shops and public-houses were open, and people were looking after their ordinary concerns. But the unexpected intrusion of these strangers caused an instant change in the appearance of things; every body was filled with amazement or alarm. The rioters came from towards Manchester, and halted in the market place. Some of them were heard to say, " Here are shops, we can help ourselves to provisions ; and here are shoes, let us each get a pair." They came in military array, and halted in their ranks at the word of com mand. By their speech, their leaders were known to be Irish. One man spoke loud, and raid, "If any honest man is prepared with arms, and disposed to join • us, he will be made welcome ;" but nobody came out; not one inhabitant of Middleton joined them. Presently a noise was heard, and a cry that the soldiers were coming. Some then left their ranks, but the main body pass:d up Wood -street, and retreated across a place called Archer-park, and the Great-park, into the old road to Manchester, by which route they escaped. The mili tary, a party of the Queen's Bays, now made their appear ance, accompanied by Messrs. Norris and Foster, Magis trates, the Boroughreeve of Manchester, and several con stables; and had it not been for their timely arrival, there is every reason to believe that the work of plunder would have commenced. Nothing however was now left for them to do but to look after odd stragglers, two of whom were taken and conveyed to Manchester, having confessed they came with the mob; three others were taken this morning by a watchman; and one is now in the dungeon here He is a young man, poor and emaciated in appearance. Ile says he was in St. George's-read when the mob came up, and he was compelled by them to fall into the ranks, and to come with them to Middleton.— After the retreat of the rioters, the soldiers paraded the streets and lanes, and were received at several places with hootings and shouting, and other expressions of dis approbation, but no stones were thrown, nor any ofnred. At one time the soldiers took two young men into custody, belonging to the town. Whilst searching them, one of the lads cried out, " Iha but three-hapence, an you tnunna tak it."—" No, no ," replied the warriors, "we won't take your menu, my lad, we would rather give you some." The general appearance of the rioters was meagre, and they seemed to have but little order among them. One was heard to say he'd be d—d if he went any further, there were so many masters to please. MANCHESTER, JULY 16.—A posting bill, of which the following is a copy, is here circulated : " Pun fie Novice.—We, the undersigned Magistrates tin the coucty of Lancaster, have observed with great regret that cercitti evil-disposed persons, strangers in Manchester, have, within tLe last few days, been endeavouring to excite the peaceable and well. disposed inhabitants, by inflammatory larguape and addri.-ists, to acts of outrage and insubordination ; and in furtherance of tneit wicked object, have given notices of public meetings to be held in the evenings of several days in the present week, at which such strangers have been the principal speakers, and the meetings have been protracted to late hours of the night ; " Now, we do hereby declare our opinisn, that all such meet ings are illegal, as having a manifest real direct tendency to a breach II the peace, which it is our duty to protect. " We therefore catnip!' all persons not to attend any such meat. ings, nor in any respect to be induced, by the wicked and semi . chievous, to engage in proceedings which must bring upon them all the consequences attending such illegal conduct. " Given under our hands this 15th July, 1826. " New Bailey Court House. " J. NORRIS. " J. SIINESTER. JAMES BRIERLEV. • " J. BIRDER'''. " J. FOSTER." -.- Extract from H Mercurio of May 22, 1826 : " Mexico, May 10.—ilia Excellency, the President of the United States of Mexico, has issued a decree of this date, ordering that all national goods and productions of this country shall be free of duties for exportation, except gold and silver. Gold consul shall pay 2 per cent.; ditto, ' manufactured, ditto 9 per cent.; silver, whether coin •d manufactured, shall pay 3i per cent." R