The Express.
London, England, 1866-07-07 00:00:00

LAN IN'

(Tillf3 DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Beton Via-Chancellor Sir R. T. Kinder'ley.)
airman THRSVIN.-.4 PARISH CHURCH DIRPUTZ.
. . . .

This suit was instituted for the purpose of aetermuung—r.
the title of Mr. and Mrs. Frewen, as lord and lady of the
manor of leklesham, near Rye, Sussex, to the freehold of
the south chancel of Icklesham Church. The claim had
its origin in a question of repair, the vicar and church-
es/dens holding that the lord of the manor was liable for
the repair of the chancel, although be had no right to the
exclusive use of it, and the proceedings taken by the par-
ties in vindication of what they considered to be their
right Mel caused considerable excitement in the neigh-
bourhood. Mr. Frewen endeavoured to exclude the
parishioners from using the chancel during divine ser-
vice, and an attioi brought against the vicar (the Rev. H.
B. W. Ctiurton) was decided in favour of Mr. Frewen. Sub-
sequently the following notice was served upon the congrega-
tion se they entered the church : " Take natio, that you are
not to traipses into the manor chancel of loklesham Church,
as it is the exclusive property of the lord and lady of the
manor, and all persons entering the said chancel without
permission are liable to be proomded against as wilful
trespassers. An adios was sustained against the vicar in
the count y court of Rye for wilful trespass into the chan-
cel in the math of May, 1866." In April, 1864,
four of Mr. Frewen's servants demanded, by a
writing, signed by him, the church key, and on their
being refused they broke open the door, and proceeding
into the church emptied the chansel in question of the
benches it contained, and placed them in the body of the
church to the great inconvenience, as it was alleged, of the
congregation on the following Sunday. Certain of the
school children, as well as the churchwardens and vicar,
continuing to use the chancel, three actions of trespass
ware brought against them and these proceedings the bill
sought to restrain.
The bill was filed in June last, and claimed the right to
the chancel as well as to the rest of the church, subject
only to the right of the Beclesisatical Commissioners, as
lay rector, and asking for &declaration that theparishioners
were entitled to the use and enjoyment of the chancel,
and that it could not be considered as appendant to the
manor or manor-house.
The defendant's case was that from time immemorial,
the chancel in question had been repaired by the lords of
the manor, that it was built in fact -by an ancestor, and
was a private chapel, as shown by mural and other monu-
ments, and it was never an integral part of the church,
but had been used from time immemorial by the lords of
the manor.

The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said there
weld be no doubt that it was the practice in ancient times
for persons of note to build chapels as places of family
sepulture, and many instances of the kind were to be
found even in the present day. It was also beyond
doubt that the church of Icklash= was founded by
the lord of the manor of Icklesham, and it had been shown
that the Lord of the Manor in the time of Henry 111. was
the patron of the church. If then the chapel was con-
temporaneous with the original church, there was no doubt
that it belonged to the Lord of the Manor of
Icklesham. From a careful consideration of the
vast amount of ancient documentary evidence which
bad been adduced, he tame to the conclusion that
their chancel was anciently and probably at a time coeval
with the foundation of the church or private chapel be-
longing to the lords of the manor, and that the family
who through many generations were lords of the manor of
Icklesham were the Winchelsea (11nch) family. The repairs
of the chancel had always bean done by the lord of the manor,
and there were wills, remains of altars for the perform-
ance of masses, and monuments indicating that the chan-
cel was appendant to the manor house. It was much to
be regretted that Mr. Frewen, in order to exercise that
which was his undoubted right, should have authorised
the indecent act of breaking open the church door, and it
wee also extremely to be regretted that he should have
seen fit to print and publish a very ill-conditioned letter.
Still these acts could have no effect upon the decision in
the suit, and it was evident that the pariah had no right
whatever in this chancel except with the • 'on of the
lord of the manor for the time being. Under these cir-
cumstances, he must dismiss the bill with costs.
Mr. Giese and Mr. Wintls appeared for the plaintiffs ;
Dr. Stephens, Mr. Chas. HO and Mr. Trail for Mr.
and Mrs. Frewen ; Mr. Lindsay for the lay rector, and Mr.
Sturges for Mr. W. Briars's, the reversioner ; Mr. Frewen
being only tenant for life.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guildhall.—(Before Lord Chief
Baron Pollock and Common Juries.)
• TAYLOR V. _ BOAR&
. . _

This was an action brought by • journernan painter
against his master to recover damages for injuries sus-
tained by an accident.
_ _

Kr. acton and Mr. R. Rigby were for the plaintiff ;
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Shaw, for the defendant.
On the' th March last the plaintiff was employed in
washing • ceiling at 37, Hyde-park-gardens, when the
scaffolding on which he stood gave way, and his ankle
was sprained by his fall to the ground. He was prevented
working for seven weeks, and had not yet entirely
recovered. It appeared that the scaffold consisted of a
plank resting on a ladder and a pair of step., and that
it had been erected by a labourer named O'Neil,
by the directions of the defendant. O'Neil stated that he
had constructed it precisely according to the defendant's
instructions, but the defendant was not present when
the materials were put together. The particular negli-
gence alleged wee in not fastening the plank with nails.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. O'Malley
submitted that the plaintiff ought to be nonsuited.
The Lord Chief Baron said he was of opinion that there
was no evidence of negligence, and directed • nonsuit.
Nonauit accordingly.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
GERRARD C. GERRARD AND BLANDRRT.
Mr. G. Brown and Mr. Searle for the petitioner ; Mr.
Inderwick for the respondent; Dr. Spinka for the co.
respondent.
The petitioner, Edmund John Gerrard, was • schoolmaster,
in the neighbourhood of Hanley, Staffordshire. In
November, DM, he married Ann Newman, the daughter
of a person of some property in the same locality. After
* cohabitation of a few months there was a separation, and
the respondent returned to her father, her husband agree-
ing to make her an allowanoe. Sheafterwardsleftherhome,
and on the 31st of May, 1865, she committed adultery with
John Blandret, who had been a royalty master, but who
was at that time keeping a beer-shop.
(The ease was not finished when our report left.]

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
szslarrsG THE POLICE AT HER MAJESTT.9 THEATRE.
Jesse Mills, footman, of No. 2.i, Upper Grosvenor-street,
was charged before Mr. Knox, with resisting the police on
duty at her Majesty's Theatre.
Sergeant M'Hugo, 4 A, said he was on duty at Her
Majesty's Theatre yesterday evening at 6 o'clock,
there being a large attendance, and in consequence a large
number of servants present,. To prevent confu-
sion a place Wail set apart at the theatre
by the Commissioners of Police for servants to
wait in, but the defendant refused to go there, and stood
at the door. He told the defendant that if he did not
obey the regulations he should have to remove him, but be
still refused, and on aaempting to remove him he resisted
a good deal, and caused all the servants to come out, and
II consequence created great disorder. He then took the
defendant into custody.
In answer to Mr. Knox the sergeant said the defendant
had been drinking.
Police-constable 5.59 A, corroborated the sergeant.
The defendant said he was treated very roughly by the
sergeant, thrown down, and his clothes were torn.
The sergeant denied this, stating that the defendant's
clothes were torn through his resisting being taken into
custody.
Mr. Knox said be did not believe the defendant, and he
should fine him 10s., or seven days.

WORSHIP-STREET.
A CLERK CHARGED WITH STEALING POSTAGE STAMPS.
BAcrt Potter, 23, respectable in appearance, and described
so • clerk, residing in Buttesland-street, New North-road,
was charged wfth stealing 339 postage stamps, the pro-
party of his masters, Messrs. William Palmer and Co.,
Patent candle manufacturers, at the Victoria works,
Green-street, Mile-end.
The prosecutor stated that the young man had been six-
teen mouths in the service of the finn, that recently sus-
Pkiou attached to him with respect to the subject matter
of this charge, and it became apparent by examination of a
book, the figures in which are relative to such expenditure,
and in the prisoner's handwriting, that he had falsified the
amounts inavery ingenious manner. The duty of the cashier
Wu to supply him with stamps for business purposes, and
lu own duty was to render an account of their appropriation ;
this had been done, but after the various items had been
summed up, and carried out, and the same were signed
fc't bl KDO.her clerk, the prisoner had introduced other
figures in the total, sometimes in the shilling, and occa-
"tonally in the pence column, thus making Is. lls., by
pURN( a stroke beside it, or 7s. 175., by the same
Process. Another employe was directed to keep a private
account of the stamp expenditure, but that plan was un-
estlsfactory and he (Mr. Palmer) at one time was fearful it
would be incumbent on him to place two of his clerks
before the magistrate. It was a matter that for the credit
of the whole establishment he felt bound to pursue and
prosecute. He asked for a remand.
The prisoner who appeared to feel keenly his degraded
ppennon made no reply to the charge and was remanded as
rtquired.

FATAL OMNIBUS ACCIDENT AT lAVEZPOOL.
Yesterday an omnibus accident occurred at Liverpool in
consequence of the hones running away. A peas/Am and
Wow haw were killed.