The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

Ltgal.

CHARGE OF SACRILEGE AGAINST THE
CHURCHWARDEN OF GUMAGE ST.
MICHAEL. -

ARCHES' COURT, MAT 22.
(Before Dr. Lesnrscrox.)
DEWENEY r. GOOD AND FORD.
This was a suit brought by the Rev. George Devolney,
rector of the parish of Gusaage St. Michael, in the
county of Dorset, and diocese of kialisliuryipageinet
George Good, churchwarden. and Henry Ford, a
loner, on on the ground of sacrilege. The facts of the came
are es follows —Mr. Good wished to make wine alter-
ations within the church, and on the 2,il July,lB6o, he
went to the rectorN house and demanded the keys of
the church, which Mr. Dewrinev refused to deliver to
him, but the defendant intimated that if he did not ob-
tain them he would break into the church. The re:tor
refused to deliver up the keys, and expressed • hope
that the churchwarden would nut proceed to that extre-
mity, and that it would be better to communicate with
the bishop of the diowne, and afterwards the rector sent
a inesaage to the defendant Good, stating that his co-
churchwarden (Mr. Kendall) had received a letter from
the bishop, advising him that no alterations could be
legally effected without a faculty. Mr. Dewdncy also
wrote to Mr. Good that he objected to any alterations
being made in the church without the authority of the
bishop. The defendants, however, obtained a crowbar
and broke into the church, and made several
alterations therein, and changed the position of the
pulpit.
The counsel for Die defendants admitted that they
, were in fault, but plead ii that there were several pal-
' listing circumstances. A vestry meeting had bete held
on the 24th of May, 1860, consisting of five or mix per-
sons, when a resolution was pulsed that the pulpit and
reading-desk should be placed in the same position they
were in previous to certain alterations made by the
rector in consequence of a monition issued by the
Bishop of Salisbury in 1855. The defendants also alleged
that they were not aware that the bishop of the diocese
bad expressed an opiniou on the matter in dispute
between the parties.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey wore for the
promoter ; and Dr. Twigs, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the
defendant.
Dr. Loshington, in giving judgment, said there was
no question as to the law of the case, for it was beyond
all doubt that no man, be who he may, was en-
titled to break into the church and remove the pulpit
or make any alteration without proper authority. The
learned judge went over the facts of the Case, Rnd in
dealing with the palliating circumstances pleaded, ob-
served that the act could not have been committed heed-
lessly and without consideration, as the defendants had
received written notice from the rector forbidding their
proceedings. The sMegation that three years 'before
this occurrence the promoter had exceeded his power in
the alterations he had made, consequent on the bishop's
monition. and that these were generally disapproved by
the parishioners, could not be entertained as a militia's-
tive Cause, for the answer was that a compbint should
have been made to the archdeacon or bishop of the
diocese. The question was not whether Mr. Deivdney
was right, but whether the defendants were right.
Another ground relied upc.n by Messrs. Good and Ford
was the resolution passed at the vestry meeting. The
rector has the legal custody of the keys, though he is
bound to give them up to the churchwardens for a legal
purpose, lard should he refute to do no he can be com-
pelled only by legal meaeures. It would be datigeroue
if the impression elioulcl go abroad that a vestry could
give such power. The learned judge ordered the church
to lte restored to the condition it was in before the pro-
ceedinge took place, and decretil for coats ; but the
judgment, so far as regards the restoration of the
church, to be subject to any representation that the
Bishop of Salisbury may think proper to make to the
Court.