The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-08-29 00:00:00

AN ACTION FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO
CHARITIES.

At the Lutterworth County Curt, a cause, " The Rev. F.
Morgan Payler, Rector, and the Churchwardens of Willey v.
Elkins" has been heard:—

Mr. Owston (for the plaintiff) stated that this was
an action to recover £7, a subscription promised by the
defendant, a parishioner at Wilby, towards the erem
tion of a parish school there. In the year 1864, at a
vestry meeting at which the defendant WM present,
resolutions were passed agreeing to the building of a
school, and that, in accordance therewith, the school
‘1711.4 afterwards erected, under the direction of the
rector and churchwardens. A subscription list was
started to meet the expenses, headed by the rector with
£3OO. other parishioners subscribing according to their
means and position, and the defendant added his name,
opposite to which he wrote as his subscription. On
the faith of these subscriptions the undertaking was
commenced aml carried out, and there could be no
doubt that defendant was liable to contribute the
amount promised towards the expenses.
Mr. Payler and other witnesses were examined in
support of the case.
Mr. Haxby (for the defend(ant) then called the de-
fendant, who stated that it was understood that the
school was to be free and unsectarian, and it was on
that ground principally that he refused to pay his
subscription. Mr. Haxby addressed the court on the
part of the defendant, contending that the production
of the deed by which the school WM conveyed put the
plaintiffs entirely out of court, as it was distinctly
provided that the conduct of the school was to be
strictly in union with the church of England, and the
teaching in accordance with her doctrine, and was it
not likely that his client, who was a consistent
dissenter, would subscribe under such circumstances.
He had expressly stipulated at the vestry that rules
should be framed to carry out his views as to the
school being entirely free and unsectarian.
Mr. Owston, in replying, observed that the defen-
dant must have known that a school vested in a rector
and churchwardens of a parish would not be conducted
on any other than church principles. The fact was, as
he (Mr. Owston) had no hesitation in saying, that all
Mr. Elkino stipolatod for at the time was that no child of
a dissenter should be disqualified from attending the
school, but that it should be open for all the children of
the parish, notwithstanding the religious creed of
the parents. Hail not the rector promised that the
school would be open to all, and was it not the fact
that no single instance hail occurred of any refusal to
admit the child of a dissenter? Hail not the rector
stated that the catechism, or the tenets of the church
would not be enforced in respect of children whose
parents were not of the established church! In point of
honour and in point of law, the defendant was bound to
pay his subscription.
His Honour summed up at great length, and remarked
that he had nothing to do with the motive of the defen-
dant for withholding his subscription, but that it was a
pity the rules referred to inithe subscription list had not
been found. In their absence, and in the conflict of
evidence as to what actually did take place, and bearing
in mind that the plaintiffs were bound to make out the
affirmative, he could only come to the conclusion that
the defeadant's promise was coupled with a condition
that the schools were to be entirely free. The deed
produced showed the contrary, and therefore he must
nonsuit the plaintiffs.