The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-20 00:00:00

Before the blaster of the Bolls.

---
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CXV9CHILL.—CHARtTT PRO-
Esarr.—This information was filed to enforce the payment
by the defendant, William Rush Hallett Churchill, of an
annuity of 401., charged by the will of ;Daniel Elliott, made
in 1628, on a manor called Shurminater Marshall, in the city
of Dorset, and which manor had come into de possession of
the above defendant. The sum of 201., pert of the above an-
nuity, was directed by the testator's will to be paid to the
minister and preacher for the time being of Bee Icy, in the
county of Southampton ; and the:residue was directed to be
paid to some able and sufficient preacher, to be chosen by the
parishioners, to read one lecture a week throughout the year
in the parish of All Hallows. Bread-street, ',melon, on
Thursday afternoon. The liability to pay the annuity was
not disputed by the answer, and a decree wee made accord-
ingly, the principal question being as to payment of the
costs of the information, which the court held to have been
made necessary by the defendant, and he was ordered to pay
the coats occasioned by himself.

Pekes the Vice-Chaneellor of EngtateL
SNIT'S V.THZ EAST INDIA COYreNT.—SALE GF COTTON.—
P•TXBN T or FEEIONT.—This wee a suit insti.utei by Capt.
Smith, the captain of an lndiaman, against the East laths
Company, to obtain the benefit of a bondentered into by the
plaintiff in respect of certain transactions relating to the sale
of a quantity of cotton to the plaintiff by the company. The
question arising in the suit is, whether, under the negotia
tions which took place at the time of the sale between the
plaintiff and the marine board at Madras, the plaintiff was
bound to pay for the freight of the cotton from Madras to
Canton, where it was to be sold, or whether the said anima
was to be conveyed in the company's ship without payment
of freight.—The arguments were not concluded at the ruing
of the court.

Before Vice-Mancenor Knight Bence.
ATTORNET-GENERAL O. GARDIVEH.—SCO77I6I3 Klan.—
It may be remembered that the informations and 1:11a in this
cue were filed for the purpose of having a Scotch church at
Birkenhead used as a place of worship according to the doc-
trines of the established church of Scotland ; it being alleged
that the building bad been devoted to the use of the free
kirk, contrary to the trusts of the deed, executed when the
land was purchased by subscription. At the hearing, an
objection was taken, that the requisite enrolment was want-
ing to render the deed valid according to the Mortmain Act;
and on this ground the inLrmations and bills were dismived,
We WILI wants dcaisaog dm opportunity hick •h• court
offered them of trying at law the legal validity of the deed.
The court however reserved the costs ; and the question as
to these was now discussed, the defendants contending that,
although they had succeeded on a technical ground, they
had on their aide the merits of the case, on which no decision
had been given. According to the allegations of the intor-
motto= and bills, the congregations of the various kirks or
places of worship in Lancashire, in connexion with the
established church of Scotland, had been united into
a presbytery under the name of the Lancashire Scot-
tish Church Presbytery ; and that, at the sante
time, various presbyteries in England were united
into a general synod, which was admitted in 1839 into
formal connexion with the Church of Scotland. The infor-
mations and bills also stated that several earns of money were
contributed and received by a treasurer named John Walker
(who was one of the defendants), for the purpose of pur-
chasing land and erecting a place of worship, according to
the proposals contained in a certain printed circular. A
piece of land was accordingly purchased and conveyed to the
treasurer who executed a deed of appointment, dated May
31, 1839, whereby the land was appointed to trusties upon
certain trusts thereby declared, according to a hick they
were to permit the building which was to be erected open
the laid to be used as a place of worship in connexion with
and according to the doctrine, forms, usage and dissipline
only of the established Church of Scotland, and for the
watching and expounding of Goers most holy word, accord-
ing to the doctrines and tenets of the same church, as set
forth in the confession of faith agreed upon by the Assembly
of Divines at Westminster, ratified by acts of parliament
Ice 1* and 1690; the worship being conducted by a minister
Ice ONIIIIIIIIIiOII with the church. And it was provided
dist the minister!, should be licentiates or members of the
established church of Scotland. The informations and bills
Meted that the defendant, Mr. Gardner, the minister, had
'pined the Free Kirk, and had on that account been deprived
et his license by a proceeding in the presbytery of Glasgow.
—Mr. Holt and Mr. Selwyn, for some of the defendants, con-
tended that the litigation on the part of the informants was
uncalled for and improper, sad that they ought to pay the
costs. The trustees did not think that they were betted to
turn out nine-tenths of the members of the church at the
bidding of the other tenth. The subscribers insisted that the
purchase-money was their own, and they also maintained
that the trusts of the deed of 1839 had in no respect been
violated. The established church of Scotland, to which the
deed referred, was the church as it existed at that time. If
that church changed its character, the trusts would no longer
apply to it. The question of patronage, and that of the
power of civil courts in spiritual matters, were the great gnu-
, tions jn dispute, and the church to which the defendants ad-
hered was that which was ratified by the acts of 1649 and
1690. Dr. Hill, professor of divinity, had given it in
evidence that the power of the general assembly in
Scotland to recognise churches m connexion with
the church of Scotland did not make such churches
constituent parts of the church of Scotland. No
vote of the grand assembly could affect the defendanta'
rights as regarded the church at Birkenhead. The inform-
ants alleged that Mr. Gardner was not a licentiete, but the
answer to that statement was, that be was elected by a pres-
bytery in England, and that, according to all principles of
church polity in Scotland, there was no jurisdiction in Soot,-
land to remove him. Mr. Gardner was not an ordained
minister of the church of Scotland, but • probationary mi-
nister, afterwards ordained by the presbytery of Lancsabire,
and be could only be removed by the presbytery by which
he had been ordained. He received his license in Glasgow,
whence he went to Paisley, and was admitted a member of
the presbytery there, which would have jurisdiction over
him rather than that of Glasgow. The license must be con-
eidered as merged in the ordination by the Lancashire pres-
bytery. The evidence on this point showed that a person
who became a probationary minister, under the license of a
presbytery, was regarded by the church as a layman, and a
cue was stated of a chaplain to William 111., who
had been ordained by the presbytery of London,
and was nevertheless 'geld by the church of Scot-
land as a layman only. Mr. Gardner had not raised
the objection on the ground of the statute of Mortmaio, but
the trustees, as representing absent cestuisque.trusteat,
thought it their duty to take every proper objection which
the law allowed. A considerable portion of the expense of
the suit had 'teen occasioned by the allegations that Mr.
Gardner anti his friends had departed from the doctrines of
the Church of Scotland, but which allegations ;were
altogether unsupported. The defendants were neither mem-
bers of the Established Church of Scotland, nor of the Free
Church, they only sought to retain the usages of the Presby-
terian Church. The charge that Mr. Gardner had seceded
from the Church of Scotland could not be true if he had
never belonged to that church. Another charge was that be
belonged to the Free Church, which, however, was fully
rebutted. The evidence adduced by the defendants showed
that Mr. Gardner and his congregation had strictly ad-
hered to the standarth of faith of the Church of Scotland.
Besides the argument already adduced, that the Glasgow
presbytery had no jurisdiction to deprive Mr. Gardner, they
contended that the proceedings of that body could not be
called a sentence; it was merely a sentence or deliverance,
the presbytery having pr seeded without libel and without
evidence. The Vice-Chancellor said, that if the informants
wed plaintiffs desired it, the dismissal might be without pre-
judice to any bill which might be hereafter filed by the
plaintiffs, or either of them, not founded upon any charting"
trust, or any charitable title; not however without prejudice
to any fresh information, or any fresh information generally.
—Mr. Russell and Mr. Itoundell Palmer, for the informants,
declined uking for any such qualification.—The Vise-Chan-
calor then said that the question aeons only renamed, and