The Sun. — London, England, 1817-07-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCEItY, JULY 17. iNIPORTANT DECISION RELATIVE TO DISSENTERS. • The. Loan CHANCELLOR this morning, in a speech of nearly r‘vo hourS; gave j:idgment in the case of Matinder and Stewart la Pearson and others, Trustees of a Chapel in NVOlverhampt a fell report of the pleadings in which was given in Tuesday's 1.111. His Lordship began by ex pressing his deep sense of the very great 41)1)4p :ince of this nitestion in its general principles, and the necessity which was thereby imposed on . the coert of giving it the more attention. In 1701, it appeared, a deed was made out, • by which a Parcel of ground was given for the purpose of _erecting :a Chapel for the worship of God s and to this grant an addition was. afterwards made •of stiois of 2001. each by two and of 991. by another person, all fur the support of the said Chapel. BefOre going into the nature of the deed, he felt himpelf bound to refer to the Act passed in 1088, by which it was 'ordained that,. as certain persons to ease their consciences, felt they were tailed to separate from the Church .of England. such persons should he exempted from the penalties imposed on,them by former Acts of • this realm, excepting those, however, who at tacked the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. How ever mach this Act. might operate in favour of Dissenters, still it was evident that . the CoMmon „slaw underwent no alteisoton a hut rimained in as .much force asbefore. In the 9th or 10thof King;William and. Queen .114,ary, - an Act had passed, by which blasphemy of eyery kind was proliibited nailer the severest. penalties, and by which it was • declared that any,person propagating any doctrine contrary to . the Christian religion., should, ipso filet°, be disabled frotn fir:l:ling any office, cede- siastical, civil or military a under his Majesty ,or.his 'successors ; hut at the same time it was provided, • that inforntations against such offenders should .be lodged .within threemoiiths after the offence; and that even atter the offender would . be pardoned,, by renouncing .his errors in presence of 'the Court . which convicted him. This was so far, perhaps, then necessary, .-but he did not see on what groundit could be Alleged that it in the slightest degree operated against the Common Law. - :.'here also was an Act the SCottish Parliament, which statuted and ..ordained, " That our Sovereign Lott! the King, 'by and with the advice of his Estates, cloth decern .and ordain, that whoever deities God or the Holy Trinity,.sha.ll be processed and put to death on • conviction."' The 53d of •the Kin g had, howeve'r, repealed the disabling clause of the Toleration • -Act,-aud also'the Act of the Scots Parliament, ,bot he'laelieved there was no difference of °Pinion in either House of Parliament that the Common Law was the same as before. The Attorney , :General had charged the defendants with pro ceeding to create a trust iN bich .he alleged was contrary to the intention of the founder of that trust. Ile (Lind Eldon) did not apprehend he la , ' A ,right to meddle with any criminal motives tytrirh might be imputed to the defendants,, as he considered he was placed there solely to judge of : • civil nlatters. lie thongire, - from• reading the ahat'thet eavas• suflicient colour given to the allega tions of the AttoroeyaGeneral, viz• that this chapel "Was founded for the sole.purpone*of Trinitarian .doctrines being taught there. It was:, as he tkow •down, quite clear, in the law of this coon ?try, that lithe intention of the donor of any chit - ritable gift was, 'that that sum should be appro "' :priated solely to the promotion 'of the dissenting; interest, that this "Court had no . power to alter that dooatron,ae:th out violating the wishes of:the donator, and he most say, that 'on this record he .. had nothing satijactorily enough: to strew' him' what were the species - of - doctrines to be taught in this church,,, excepting what he collected from a rather singular clause - of the deed,: and to which be should now refer. By that clause the donor had Contemplated a-period when the chapel' might be shut up, as the worship earl on•there might be eon:tatty to law. it appeared toliimonterly impOsSinle that the 'founder, looking to awhat might. _take place, could in fact, :or in sober reason, mean to appoint a system •of doctrines to be•promulgated in thatehapelawhich at the'tin-ue be • snappointeirthern were 'illegal, for how in• truth could they consider th emse l ves p rotecte d; as t h e original founder and trustees 'did by law,- except they were conscious .the Chapel was to be eons • 'ducted on principles which the law sanctioned?— , • ItiVindd certainly be doing violence to the will of the 'founder, to 'suppose that •he by-his . will gaveinhe frustees powers to act lira differentman e arterthan what was originally•meant•at the time ''he founded this Chapel, or that-they could change; 'train being a Trinitarian, to be an Unitarian rs ChapeL Complaint had been made against ralr. ;Maunder not acting as a trustee since 1793, and it: , was alleged he ought to he dismissed a but Ice snust: say that no such dismissal could taineplace•unless' by a regular process, and then if it appeated,`, l ' • 'that such dismissal was sought for solely because_ Maunder defender what he conceived to be; . thearriginal 'intentions' of the founder, this -Couga r " a woold take special care that no such dismissal, • • should take place. After minutely going over ' -s' trust deeds •of 1701, 20, 42, and 72,t iris 'Lordship observed that the present guess , "tins must be discussed solely as if it had been ' relating to a charity, without any regard to !Th.- - , .•. •giiitts•opinions i but to mere civil purposes. The question he had then to discuss was, " (or what, . purpose had --this legal estate been vested." It was• well known what the duties of an English ClesgYman in the Established Church were, and • his dereliction of these duties would be so sonn , known; that to • say mo.ae.' on that head waa tm itecesary. As the Legislature bad, however, allowed men to swede front the Church, and to be cone iv hat was now called dissenters,he felt himself , bnaind tusayathat a Court of Law or Nquity was call ';.;eel to defend the property with which the trustees in , .abefAhpels . •ol.DiSaeaters were invested, and to.see than that property : was•properlyadministered. it . issaa plain contmon" sense, that when money was ale-ft.a. lay donors . :for .a certain parpofe, the. Courts of this country were bound to see that such money was properly applied, as long as the - Inpplicat ion Of that money Was legal. The" ease - A.6a - Sartliftid, • decided in the Louse of Lords, had clean). shewn that thong!' a mtljhritv of a Cl!aDel or M••eting- , house might wish to divert the rsieeting-uouse to other purposes than was originally ittteuded by the founders of the Chapel, yet still if any persons adhered to 'the original system it, could not be altered. Here no question of principle was en tertained, as indeed no Judge had a call to meddle with principle, but the Courts of Law had always, and must always feel they were bOund to support those who adhered to 'the prin ciples on which Cll3pek or Meeting-houses were Thinking then that this question was deeply important on general principles, be in the mean time granted the injunction, on both - pvties becoming bound to obey such . order as be would hereafter make on the - subject, and he would. not make any order unless both agreed in the mean time to oblige themselves to be responsible for the rents and other monies belonging to the estates in - question, 'meantime allowing the Minister to have the usual allowance granted to him 'as Mi nister Of the Chapel. He. therefore ordered that the case be referred to the Master, to inquire and report in whom the legal estates were vested ; what Was the particular nature of the object the founder had in view in making this donation .what kind of worship . he meant ;----how tar that WOrship was then sanctioned by law ;—what doc trines were to be taught and inculgated,-and who were the proper persons to act as trustees on the estates, - and all' the books of these estates to he produced and examined. He therefore did expressly grant an injunction, in the mean time, prohibiting tine trustee* front either- directly or innirectly ejecting the Rev. John tei.viirt or Mr. Maiii,der, and be also - prohibited them from incurring any expellees: whatever relative to •such ejectment, till this report was made by the Master, and an order granted on such report •by the Court. • Injunction Alierefore granted. - [luring this 'judgment the Court was very crowded.) • His Lordship said he 'should give judgment in the case of the Borough' of Fowcy to-morrow (this day). NAWNI.IN AND OTHERS V. GRACIE. This was an n'pplication, made by Sir A. PIG.. Gorr, on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Gracie, praying his Lordship to dissolve an injunction, which had been obtained by Mr. Mawman, and forty-4/0 other Booksellers, restraining him from publishing a work, intii Cruden's Concord ance." In .the'year 1810, the plaintiffs had pub liShed an edition (the Cth) of the above work, and, in 1815, the defendant also published an edition of the Aarne, which the plaintiffs alleged he had pirated froin the one published by them.— The work in questiom was originally c(lnnittled by its venerable author in 1737, and in 1784 he divd. . T .n 181.0, a Mr. Bye, having made certain 'altera tions, additions, and corteetions, and also some oinissioes, sold the work to 'Alr..Mawman for the slim of 1351. ss. Among the corrections made by Mr. 'Bye, were no less a number than 300 in the 'punctuation, leaving out colons and semicolons. .CI4ANCIULOII.-- 7 " Ler" me ssAy,. Sir Artaoir, C;at, !IA I been employed on such a work is the. present, I should very soon have come' to a fun .top." .SitARTUUR PIGGOTT COlltintviL—Ttre 'reason. for the pltio'ilV - havilk - applied'fOr in itknet to stay the . iklendant publish? g -his work was, that he sold it at one hail tie p'rice'of the one ptiblfsited by them. 1t was t oliim; Sir Arthur, a strange anomaly; bow any:person could claith tbe copytigla of a work by •a mere correction of the puncfnafirm, - and a few ; if that were to be. allowed, it would he impoSsible to say what works tvciiultf not be laid to piracy. Mr. Gracie, by hii 'affidavit, denied the allegation, that Mr. liye - had made any additions to. the on-: ginal .Mr. G., had ccimpiled his work from the Edinburgh edition of 1804. and. the Livvrpool—edition of -1814, 15, 1-6, .which was :published in numbers. The corrections alleged to have-ban-made by the plaintiff, appeared in the Edinburgh .edition of .1:814. ',Messrs. J. and Wilson, two of the :plaiutiff,s, had-bought 500 _ copies•of the defendant's work, and another, a Baynes, had :purchased,3,oo.. The obtaining the•injunction .was-of -very -serions.consequeuce to the delendant,tas there were.2oool. in promissory notes, which he could not.teceive, And also, 2500 copies-which he.could,noubspose of. 'Phr , Lcarned :Counsel quoted the case of-Power ,v.. Walker, in -which:Lord .Ellenbcrough held, ,that .to vest an interest,-every , assignmentofa copyright. must be made in writing, as-applicabk to the,present ease. The .work in question was not entered at Station cr's•fiall, nor did the plaintiff's insist on their right cO,the-work till latelY; .tae must therefore contend, that •there;was no -ground for continuing the injunction. 1147TRESLOVE followed on the'same side. Sir SAMIJELROMILLY for the •plaintiffs, •con 'tended, that from the eampilationmf the wprk,'it was . clear that the defendant had pirated it:from that of tbe•plaintiff : in foci, he, the defendant, 'admitted -.that he .bad copied, it froth the'Rdin burgh and:Liverpool'Editions, whieb , was a piracy frim'the-plaintiff's work. From 'the many correc lions'thativadbeen-Made, the plainfiff.badlaken as mifeli'pains . as the' original compiler. After quoting a -great .many. of the,.corrections, the Learned Gentleman - concluded by hoping that that Lord Chancellor would -nOt dissolve the injnnetion. - I'iIr..SLIALEWELL 'followed. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the pre_ sent injunction.liabeen.obtaincti on an ex parte heating of the case,, before the Vice Chancellor, It appeared to' his . Lordihip very strange; that' fory.iiine booksellers should not have•been.aWate7 of the .existence of the work in piestion, and-have" stopped it if they had the right. After taking a' clear and able vieW of the case, his. Lordship de cided, that the fact as to whether the plaintifkhad, or had not the copyright, .was a question to . be decided by a Court olLaw, and dissolved the in junction accordingly: COURT. OF KING'S • BENCH, JULY 17. Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord ELLENBOROUQH. CRINI. CON. 8. ITALFORT), E. V. SIR' TI4O . IIVAS STAINES. This was an action in which the plaintiff, Banker at Canterbury, sought .to'recover a com pensation in damages against the defendant, for having sedarad and carried on an adulterous inter course wit:kirk' wife. It appeared that the parties were nearly related to each other, that they had been brought up together at the same school, and that the closest intimacy and friendship had sahrristed between them on all occasions; When ever the defendant was 'absent from England, he being a Captain in his Majesty's Navy, Mr. Hal ford had ate manaaernent of his private affairs, and when the cessation of the war made it no longer necessary for the defendant to be employed in the service of iris country, he took up his residence at Dandelion, near Margate, where he had a house and a . farin; and_ where he was frequently visited by Mr. and Mrs.: Halibut. Indeed their' inter course was. so constant, that Sir ThoMaS generally passed his time at iris friend's house at Canterbury, when he and iris wife were riot visitiut. him. it appeared by the evidence, that Mr. Hallotd Was married to his-Lady in the year 1805, and several' witnesses proved that they had a amnia! affection for each other, and lived together in a state'ofam interrupted happiness. The principal witness to prove that the adultery had been committed was, Mrs. Stuart; - she said slie was sister to Sir Thomas Staines; 'that she was a widow, amd lived in his [rouse, as a companion and . housekeeper. Mr. and •Mrs. Halforrl were,in the constant habit of visiting at her brother's house, at Dandelion ; and on theie oecasionS Me. H. would go to Can terbury. for a night or two, and return again to Dandelion, where his wile remained behind him. 'Up to tire month of April; 1.816, the witness had never seen any tiring improp,sl in the conduct of 'Mrs. Haltord. One night, • during that month, while Mr. Hallord was at Canterbury, the witness happened to sit up an. hour latter than usual; a little before rine in the morning ; she :was in her bed-room, she heard,some person open a door at the bottom of the stairs, which led tai Mrs. Fialtord's rotOm,.and which had been previously bolted. .She waited some time to hear:if there evas any further noise ; nobody returned ; and she ' fearing that thieves had been in the house, went 1 and called Mary Rolfe, the servant. They went down together, and found all the doors fastened, so that it Was impossible that any person could have broken into the house. She retained with an intention of intorming her brother of t h e no i se she had heard ; . 'when' she went to his bed room the door was open, he was not in the room, but tire clothes which he usually wore, with the exceptiOn of . his night gOwn and slippers,werc lying on Orel : loot . ..rite witness could not go to sleep; andat r hemorn ing, sire hiard a person return and go into her brother's bed-room. ' The next day 'Mr. Raiford returned from •Canterbuyy, to which 'place he pro ceeded again very soon aftet in the month of May. On the night of his ahsenee the witness hear tlihe same noise•of a person going down and unbolting the door ; • she welt into the bed-room of Mary boat, the servant, whom she had previously call ed u;,on to accompany her. This room was eon.: tignoas to that in which Mrs. Halford slept; there was a communication hit ween the. two rooms by means of a 'doable dour, one of which the servant had purposely left open that day, in order to be bet ter able to - hear what passed in Mrs. Halford's room acuigiit. - . The witness and tire girl, while stand ing anirriAleiing at rhis-cloOr, heard the nose a - person getting into Mrs'. Halfard's bed; witness al so heard whispering, and other noises which Cominced her that her suspicions were well founded. Immediately after, sire went to her bro ther's-room, found the door open, the Led empty, and his- clothes in the same state as on the former tdaht. These things were repeated every night during that month, and the month of June; when Alr: Elaiford happened to go-to Canterbury. The witness entertained no dOtibt of a criminal inter course having taken place. About •a fortnight atter the first discovery, tbe-witness . mentioned the business to an acquaintance of her's, of the name - of Crump, who advised her to mention it to her brother, - and who, onlher expressing a reluctance to do o, said she would !herself- communicate it to'him ; but the witness intreated of her not to do so, orraecount of his violeut temper. She parti culaily noticed the conduct of her - brother and 'Mrs, nalfdrd, after sire had reason to suspect their criminal intercourse ;.and-slre-saw her on one occasion sittingon his knee, and observedtheur kiss ing each other. Mrs. Raiford in the mean tune re turned to Canterbury, and some time after the-wit ness went Co London , in order to' be present at her daughter's lying-in. While she was in London,--dttr-. ing—the course of the winter, she communicated to Miss Raiford, the aunt of the plaintiff, all the circumstances that 'had come to her knowledge ; then the affair was made known to 'Mr. Raiford ; a family meeting was held ; all the circumstances were communicated to . Sir 'Thomas Staines ; and the result was, a separation between Mr. and Mrs. Raiford. .Mrs. Stuart,' in : her re-examination, acknowledged that previously to her mentioning the business to Miss Halford, she had, while in London, received alerter from her brother, telling her that 'in consequence .their tempers not' agreeing, lie did not wish that she.should live with him July longer.. Mary Itolle corroborated the'testiniony of the last witness, .so far as related to the second night of the discovery. She examined bed next morning, and it seemed to ,Iteras it tw•o ._ . persons'had lain in it. -Mr. Crttnip-proved that Mrs. Stewart made the discovery to•liim early. in May,. 1816, and asked his advice what to do.- •He advised h•er to,make communication. to no person bnt iziir Thomas. 'She Said she was Afraid of his violent temper. • Wit 'nessliffered, to make the , conimunicationl to him of Month', but Mrs. Stewart dissuaded him, telling hiru S Tivomns would knock' him , down He un- derstood Nlitry Rolfe was to , tqati:e_ the communi- cation while Mrs. Stewart was ttivay,: but.he did not know:bow.it was iriade.: - He.w s .pre4ent at the examination before the family at -Canterbury. This was the substante.of the , case-on theliart of toe plaintiff. 7 Mr."Sedeant BEST, for the defendant,. addressed the Jury in an able and ingenionsispecch, icr-which heendeavoured to prove that no Adulterous: inter- course 'whatever had ta-lccn place. The,circnin -stance on which he chiefly dwelt , leas, that of the witness -Airs. Stuart 'never having made the affair public until her brother had; discarded her from his -house—%Vhen, in 'a -fit of anger .and malice, that wicked mornan _tru,mped the .story which she related that day in Court ; and told it after a lapSe of . nine months, for the purpose of ruining her brother and an innocent woman, whose honour and character she bad determined to ruin. Here the Learned Serjeant commented on all the parts.of Mrs. Stuart's evidence, in order to spew that it was defective as well as incon sistent. Not a single fact had been stated in any of the evidence which •was not perfeetlyrecon cileable with the. -innocence of ;be parties. Hu der all the circumstances he entreated the Jury to weigh the probabilities of the case, and he hoped iley would, in the presence-instance,- give a gallant officer-that. defence, which he on many occasions gave to his country, when he was braVe ly fighting her battles. • If they gave a ire Hitt . with - heavy 'damages, it would be his ruin. . He was only a half pay Captain inhis Majesty's Navy, and had very little property. Surely, they would not, by their verdict, immerse this brave officer within the to of a prison, where he migbt - be prevented from ever again serving his country: Lord , ELLENßoaopott summed up the evidence with suitable observations—and the -Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict.fur the plain , t i if—Datnages, _One Thousand:Pounds. . The Court was uncommonly crowded during the whole trial, which lasted several hours. TH.E D,C7KE op NonTHISEIII.AfirD'S COFFIN.--• The inside coffin' is lined with rich white satin; and dress of . the same, trimmed with fine point lace, &c. °lnside case made of English oak,. covered with rich crimson Genoa velvet, and finished in the handsomest manlier, with stars of the Order of the Garter, coronets, and every ap propriate d ecorat i on . O n t h e plate are the arm 4 and supporters, with the following inscription engraved : The Most Rig)] Pt;issant and,Most N o ble. PRINCE lITGH PERCY. Duke and Earl of 'Northumbei land, Earl am Baron Percy., Baron Luey.?oyning, Fitzpavne, Bryan, Latimer, and Warimoritt, and Liaronet, Lord Lieofenant'and Cnstos Ito talon= of the .County of Noriltumberiand, and town of NeWeistle-upon-Time, Vice-Adriiiral of the same and the Maritime parts afiereof, _and IS,night of the Most Nohltn Order of the Garter. . Died on thelOtli day of . .Tuty,, 11307. .111 the 75th year of his age. The cavalcade will Inure from Northumberland louse to-morrow at•t welve o'clock. iNDEsTatmsztsx.-,- . Stevens rested at nine o'clock on Wedne§day.evening, having gone 29 miles and a half that day. .11e'started 20 minutes past ;four yesterday morning, and ley five iu the a(tecuontx he had accomplished 21 wiles. •CRARGE: OF MUTIDRIL—OIarySiMpSM7- was veg.. terday, charged, at Union Hall, wait the wilful murder of her tlatighter r a y'oung woman about 23 years of age. From the statement of a man named Omen, who lives in the same house with the pri.- soner at-Lambeth, it appeared that,,in consequence of hearing a noise in the prisoner's apartment oo Friday evening, he was induced to look i at the Wipdow,when beam the prisoner strike her danigh ,ter a violent blow on the head, which knocked her down ; she assisted her to rise again,-placed her in a chair, and then struck her another violent bloW over the eye. The young woman was afterwards taken to Lamheth -woyk house,where she died on Wednesday. it farther appeared, from the statement of one of the nurses bylonginkito•O:c the deceased Was brought into' th? house her eye .was.very black, as if froin.a violesit z _biow. She was .extremely weak, and appeared to, be in a de cline. She spoke most affectionately of her mo ther, who, She said, had been very kind to her, maintained her two years, dulin.g. !'me she path been it!. Qn Friday her .mother came home in a ,State of intoxicptrp, when she imprudently called her a dronkun bunter, Which most likely provoked her tb-•strike her. The prisonec :was committed till the result of the Coroner's ittqueo be knowd. Szraous AcetpeNT,.-7-Yesterday John Cox, a fine boy, ten years of age, the son of Mr, Cox,. of Lewishani-street; Westminster, playing with sointi of his selloo'Nfellows in some alit- ruins near father's house, they agreed to tnake,what they termed a bonfire,. ,and ,purchased some crackers and.gimpowder. 'Young Cox made a" . wildfire . ," and was in the act of. setting fire to it, When,- fa consequence. of the powder being very dry, it blew tip at once in his face, which not only burned his face in a dreadful manner, but his eyes were so badly scorched, that the surgeons who attended him give no hopes of his ever re covering his sight. MELANCHOLY EVENT.—Three One yon men,' sons of Mr. TAsKEit, were all drowned a few . days ago, when bathing in the River•Cuper, (county of. Angus, N. B.)---One of thep, who could not swim, went beyond his depth, end the other two, good swimmers, in the vain attempt to save him,-perished with him. BIRTH'S. On the 15th inst. the Lady of Sir Richard Jephs..n; , ilart—of a son. On Wednesday last, in Judd-street, Brunswick-square, the Lady of Robert Gillespie, Esq. of Montreal, of a clauOiter. Same Oay,.in'Grosreuor-square, Mrs. , Fuller Ma tiund, of a son. MARRIED. On Wodnesday,the Od inst. at Upper• Deal Church, in Kent, Lieutenant Waller, of the Royal ,Nary, to Miss Mary Har °wood, of Deal. On Tuesday last, J. R. -Farre, to Johannes, youngest daughter of the late John Ciarlie,, Esq. of Barnadoes. Yesterday , rnorning, at. St. Margaret's Church,WeUminster, by the Rev.' Mr. Chirol, Chaplain to - his Majesty, Frederick • Henry I'vrret, Esq. to Charlotte Ernestine, second daughter of the.lt.te Francis Fauclie, Esq. of:Neufchatel, Switzerland. I DIED. On the 16th inst. at Woolwich, General Lloyd, after a few days illness ; and three days after Mrs. Lloyd had' the aggra vated•affliction of losing her only surviving son, Lieutenant-. Colonel , Flnlier, aged 33.;Their remains were interred at the .same time in the:same.grave, - . At Stonrbridgc, Worcestershire, aged 84, Mn. Eleanor Tice, wife of Mr. Benjamin Tice, to'w•hoin she had been mar ried 60 years. On the 7th inst. .at Leamington, where be went for the re covery Of. his, health, in the 36th. year of his age; Jobo Swaine, Esq. of Holborn-bridge. On Tuesday last, at ~his; residence, Ham, .S:urrey, .Joseph Bradney, g q . in the 79th yearaf his age. LONDON: .Printed by J. B. CARSTAIRS, of No. 29, Great Ornmo&strect, Queen-square; and published by W. A. SCRIPPS, Of. No." 7, • South :1101ton-street, at THE SUN Office,' No.: 112 y Strand; where Adveliiseintnts,- Jar.derA, Letteri, &c. (post-paid) must be addressed. 1