The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-24 00:00:00

e
~4'

TITHES OF' &T. OLAVE.

_ .
ir then.) roughs au action against the Bank to recover the e.n ~,,, nt
act the stoe k thus impeoperl, transferred. The declaration coa-
tainest tr.o sets of counts, one of which MRS fur having illegally
trppectr t 1 the stock in 1019, and the other for refusing to transfer
under the plaintilf‘s order, in lieu. The rase had been twice
tiled. and especial verdict had been found, sating the (Ovum.
stance., anti declaring that, in the opinion of the Jury, the plaintiff
Itad not aclortrel the act of his brother, unless the corm alment of
the forgery trom March to St ocinber 1022 amounted to inch an
Opinion.
1 he else was argued on Thursday last, by Mr. Sergeant licelow
the tl.e plaintiff, and by \lr. Sergeant Lens,tier the dt lendant.
The question being whether, on all the facts f the case. the plain-
tiff bad not deprived himself of the right of recovering by his con.
ttalment of the forgery.
• The Coull7 took time to consider a question which they stated
II be of nn entirely novel kind, involving points of considerable
tfillicelty and importance.
'On this day their Loyd hips said the ease had been very well w-
elled. but they conceived It to be of such importance, that they
prefer hating it re-argued nest Teruo, when tie Court
would be full.
'The Cot Arr rose at about one o'clock, and the Chief Justice
troceedcd to London to try Nisi Piles eases.

airs I: e. YAW IIAWDAV•
M r•Want YAWL:IIAM stated, that this was an action brought
by the plaintiff to receiver compensation for a lengthened imprison.
opera ahieh he had auffercd through tilt misconduct of the defend.
ant, an attorney. The plaintiff had been the subject of an ee.
non ionimenced by a man named Fowler, for a debt of 251., iii
wrOich a Mr. Prior, the plaintiff's attorney, bad undertaken to
give it cognoyit, but had failed re perform his undertaking.
present defendant, in his character of Fowlsr's atiorney,
thin mewed fur and obtained an attachment of contempt against
Prior, and emceed up juelgment against Rose, whom he took in
ilecution in Sept. 11122. Negotiations were canted 011 with Van
Sandau fur the liberation of these parties, and a bill for 601. was of-
tered and refund, Van Sandau insisting that all incidental ex-
pense., should be paid. In llee. 11112. the parties came to an ar-
dtvganient. liv which Van Sendai' agreed to take an approved bill
for 851. and rii discharge both Prior and Rose. This bill baying
been given, Van Sandau sent the two discharges, and l'rior oh.
lined his liberation. But as Rost was confined in another prison
( Whltecross-street), and as the keeper of that prison was not at-
ritininred with Van Sandau's hand-writing, he sent an officer from
tin secondaries' office to ascertain whether the authority for Rose's
rnste4arge had really been given by Van Sandau. The validity of
the disc/tinge was acknowledged, but the words " upon "etymon
sifthe p lege" were interlined in the order, and on being taken
back to the prison, the keeper refused to discharge lime, rxettpt
upon compliance with that condition. Now, io the execution ice.
sued agsinst Re.: was an exenition against his person and not his
goods, Van Sandau was properly liable to the payment of the
poundage, independently of which it would be proved, that Van
Sendan had accepted the &lA. bill in payment of the debts, cost.,
I.^d all incidental expenses. In consequence of this alteration tit
Pie order, Rise was detained in custody till the 28th of Feb., when
lie ebtained his discharge by paying the poundage fees, and he now
lihned compensation lithe bands of the Jury, for the additional
imprisorment of 87 days which he had suffered, in consequence of
this breach of Van Sandau's agreement. The case for the plain-
tiff would he shortly proved, and he should then call on the Jury
door /inch temperate damages as the nature of the case required. A
jetlguient, and a warrant of execution indorsed to levy Id'. 12s.
ant then put in.
The keeper of Whitecross-street prison proved, that the plain-
tit! came into his custody in September, lied, alid was liberated in
fehruary„ 1821
Illy. 'rids stated, that be had called on the defendant to nrgn.
ciript the plaint Ors liberation in October, 11122 ;in liceember the
arrangement took place. Eighty pounds were to lie given by an
apmovail bill ; a first bill was offered and refused ; a second,
offer some deliberation, was accepted by the defendant, who, how.
ever, said, its amount must he made up to B.W. to rover all inc.'.
dental expenses: a bill was Coen given to that amount. !The die-
Gimp was here abeam to the witness, who recognised it as the
Woe given to him by the defendant when he received the bill.)
Ilk words, " upon
„payment of poundage" had been since added.
Cross-examined—The bill was given to corer all incidental ex.
pe!ses • thee were the word. of tlic defendant. No person was pm.
.sertfrift'sm this bill was given : the discharge was given when the
• wig received ; witness received the bill front 51r. Prior ; did
ntwArrow Mr. haul, the drawer of the bill, nor Mr. Watson of
*.Betkatiy-sirare, the acceptor ; witness is an accountant and inter-
preter, rod r.g at No. 19, Melinaplace, Westminster-road. When
ebb ffischarge see given, it was nut agreed that Cie poundage
ti
he paid.
/dr. W. Ripon carried a letter about the tith of January from
the plaintiff tit defendant. The letter, stating the intention of the
plitintifftn take proceedings on account of the alteration in the di..
arts then read. il'itners called a second time, when the
dept dart said he would run the risk of an action

Atephea Hunt, clerk to the Secondaries, received the discharge
from ; having no knowledge of the defendant's hand-
writing he took it to his office, and when he received it again, the
words " on payment of potindage" were added.
trowetanunecl-I)efendant was not at home ; a clerk was
three ; witness handed him the paper, asking if it was in defend-
ant's hand-writing; the clerk answered " :" witness then asked
who wig to pe) the poundage ; the clerk said it was not the inten-
tZof the defendant to pay it ; the clerk then wrote the added
; witness cautioned hint against inserting them. The order
of discharge, dated 30th December, was then read, and the plaintiff's
cake rinsed,
'Mr. Sergeant PELL addressed the Jury for the defendant. This
win a stngular case, and had been singularly conducted. Why
had not the plaintiff' called Prior to chew the nature of the trans-
action ? Why had be relied alone on the testimony of Lewis,
nicest he might have strengthened it by Prior's evidence ? Lewis's
ateldence however, would be contradicted. It would be ',hewn that
it Was pat of the original agreement that the poandage should be
paid by the plaintiff Rose. That Lewis, at least, was mistaken,
was proved by his statement that Ice received the order of din.
drake when he gave the bill for 85/. Now they were of different
dates, pfd consequently :acid not have been transferrttl from one
nettle °threat the same time. And what was this Mr. Watson. the
acceptor ? Itquiries had been made after him, and he multi not
bd pound at Iterkeley.square, the address given on the tare of the
bill ; and no doubt could be entertained that this bill had been paid
rarely for the purpose of the present action. If the Jury should
think the plainntrentided to their verdict. he entreated them not to
Mie thrplaintiff damages for all the time he remained In person, as
lit:might have obtained his discharge either by paying the pod ntlaFe,
o-'if the ease was really an he wished it to be believed, by going
bellati • Judge at (lumbers. That he had not done so was pre.
rut:toiler proof of the weakness of his present claim, and seemed to
thi opinion that this action had been resorted to for the our-
poke of leltubursing himself for the debt and costs of the suit in
which he had been taken in execution. . .

Mr Al'. Nl'Daniell, a clerk to the defendant, swore that the terms
at tir‘t ofi'mcd of agreement for the plaintiff's liberation were the
n:vi-g of a bikl for OM. Defendant said he had been at a great ex.
I,e:se with ,brae parties before, and they must pay every expense
sn their docharge.
Mr. Lewis afterwards called, and offered other terms, which were
; witness was not present when the terms were agreed on.
was left for sane few days at the office, for the put.
t mak; itg some inquiries about the acceptor, Mr. Watson.
thq'n.ciAlit aas satisfied with the result of these inquiries, and
the diseharine was given. When it was brought back by Hunt,
defendant was in the country. Hunt whist about the payment of
tit'. imundrige; witness still defendant would not pay it; Hunt then
advisci him to write th it ia the coder ; witness Mil so on his own
17,•!,1 ;city. without the authorit v of defendant • witness never could
tendan. such Is as 31r. if anion, of Berkeley-square.
!Ur. 'John —Now the defendant's partner, and fot-
o:10v hia der's, had made inquiries in February, WTI., at
Derkeleyoquare: the dour was answered by a mars, alto stated that
o sorb person lived there. %fitness was then shown into Mr.
IS•te's r:mn, when that gentleman said the only person in the homee
ne.itlea himself was a Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Dore aufwenuently
...MI 'et: believed there was a person of the name of Watson residirg
a! Bali), but SE he knew of him was through Mr. Waotiti's wife,
who had plated a lease of property at Elthani in his hands for the I
put:, tf thapcsal.
Craimeassuired.—The bill has been paid; the deed produced by
Mr. Dore ass a lease potportinf to be granted by SIT. Watson ;
beam dearriberl as of Million, Esq. Witness was not present at
mit, conversation respecting term*.
Al`lkuinell was called for the purpose of being questioned as to
:be entotarilsawatarived at Flerkeke-square, which had induced the
4-temant to take the bill. but he did not answer to his name, and
rite Aeleadmit'ok rue clotstl.
Mr. Sergeant V 74114 II AS, it reply, contended, that as no reason
I; ol been given be the difeedant's witnesses why the bill was to be
...:ceased from MI)!. to 111., it was evident that the increase could
only have been nod: iJf the purpose of cowering the incidental c'.
posses.
The Lord Chief Justice REST thought this ease clearly made
net on the part of the plaintiff, and remained unrontradieted by
the defendant's eviderce. The two persons who had been xe-
mined on hie behalf. had very candidly atknowleilvd that they were
tot present, whet the temp on which Rose and Prior were to ob-
:Ain their discharge had been agreed on. The conduct of Van
sani!ati appeared to have been rather of a screwing nature. Ilia
esemition was indorsed to levy sixty-two pounds, hoot which he
Lad risen in iiiehty, and front thence again to eightyaiie; and as
he lied not given any account of the cause of this increase, there
existed a strong presumption in favour of .Me. Lewis's testimony,
that the addivonr.l money was given to cover all incidental es-
t If the Jury wet: of thia opinion, they would give such
t: 'magi.% as they deemed ',toper, nest remunerating the plaintiff fur
imiwisonnient, if it bed been lengthened by his own olotinner.
.t remembering that it could not br charged to obstinacy if he did
Poetess die memo of paying the poundage, watch, though
s -Ali in itself, might have witch beyond his means to raise.
le it:, of damages they would be moderate, as an oppo-
•.;.•line tit torched would be in Matice.
try, after re suiting about a quarter of MI hour, returned
v rthct tor the ylaintifT —Damages,

-
u, :UHT OF EX(11);(114:11, ..4 ..,ATITID•Y, MAY 22.

'Chas 1111,1 a mater at :wine between the Rev. H. It. Owen,
licesar of St. ()lave, and Mr. Frederick Noden, residing within
it-- brains at the Rectoty. who refused to pay the Hector the stint,
04 2%. :.41. in the pantryi, by the Clergyman tar his tishc.
A hill was tiled by the reverend plaintiff, paying that an account
should he taken of the limner, t'ue as tithe for ground held by the
dinenclant wit:sin the limitsgif the Rectory, since March. 10:1, at
Cie rate of Cs. lid. in dispirits& Upon the value of these gourds
ehellemand yes mail?, under the Act of Henry VIII.. the object
.co irtileh was the rci,-ulation of tithes in Isordon. The bill stmeil,

that plaintiff was the Rector of the perish of St. flare, regularly,
formally, and legally 'inducted. The defendant lived within the
Rectory, at 23, Crutched-friars, 111141 had nut made the required
payments since March, 11W. The defendant refused to pay the
, demand on various grounds, especially because the agreement
I made by the Archbishop nf Canterbury was not enrolled a. the law
retjuired • and because different customs hail been long known to
most in the parish of St. ()lave upon the subject of tidie. This
was the substance of the plaintiff's bill. The defendant demurred
to the entire: and in consequence of this demurrer, the matter
came to be argued befo:e the Court.
In support of the demurrer. the CO lIMON SM•GEANT main-
tained that the plaintiff advanced claims in tlifell different shapes.
rot only inconsistent nith, but destructive of each other. lie did
not rely much on the quantum of tithe, as regulated by the law of
the land. but he seemed to depend upon some ancient rule, which,
according to the averment of the plaintiff. gave him a right and
title to 2s. ltd. in the pound front the inhabitants of his rectory. Ile
first supported his right by the Statute 37tit of Ilenry the kaghtli.
This, he maintained, gave him a right to 2a. ltd. in the pound ; and
even if his title by this Act was weak and had, he would produce a
still older, which gave him a right to 35. ; and in case of failure
in both these attempts, he advanced a thirst right by particular cus-
tom, to another sum. The quemMii in the lint case wes, which of
three three claims established a modus. Thin was yet perfectly
uncertain, and was a matter for antiquarian speculation. It was
incumbent upon the Rector to make out a fixed and specific
title. This he was bound to do, and then the defendant would ,
knew the ground upon which he stood. Ile would know what tide
he should admit, and Oolitic against which he deemed it advisable
to struggle. The three claims at preterit advanced by the plain.
rill's were incompatible with, and destructive of, each other. For
obese reasons the defendant had demurred, and would persevere in
his demurrer until the Rector haul stated his par.ictilar right, and
mentioned the particular made of chum upon which lie intended to
rely. This choice must be made, this selection must be taken, be-
fore it was necessary for the defendant to answer the Rector's bill.
Until the platntifi made his specific, and accurate, and defined
claim, and advanced it in the Court. it was the duty and privilege
of the defendant to demur, and by dustmen* protect himself from
the enormous and unnecessary expense which a vague and inde-
terminate defence must entail oil him. There was another mode
reword to in the bill, which he sulintitual must be fatal to it. The
Rector had set up an alternative claim : this was of itself a novel
proceeding ; it had never occurred to him in the course of his peat.
tire. In addition to the novelty of these alternate claims, they
were inconsistent with, and destructive of, each other. In the case
of "Harrigan amt !loge," alder:try question, where the property in
certain books claimed by one of the parties was evaded.
the t'emurrer was allowed by the Court, because the alle-
gation,' , contained in the bill were inconsistent with each
other. In the case of " Ki.tgleon t'. White and others,"
in which insurances were effected on five vessels, the 4101111,Tel'
TAW allowed, because the pleadings in the original were multi.
rations. How mach yawner, therefore, ought the slenuirrir he el.
lowed in the present atm, where the allegations in the Bill were not
only multifarious but inconsistent and incompatible. The case of
the Attorney.lieneral a'jsinst she Corporation of Caruarthen, for
the misapplication and abuse of certain charities, was also in point.
'Fhe demurrer was supported because the allegations were multi.
furious, contntry to the rule t.f pleadine, and because claims were
made on taunts destructive of each other. The situation of the
defendant. in the present action, was peculiarly disagreeable. It
was to the last nfl ammable to require of him to point oat to
the plsintiff wlitree %i
of the three counts it. Ida Bill was the best to act
upon. The ground taken by the Rector was not distinct or defined.
Ile was bound to make sonic certain proposition, and then his client
would hare the opportuaity of meeting him. The plaintiff' was to
come forward with a certain claim, and with on accurately defined
title. The defentli.nt was wit bound to moist hint in the making
out of his case.

Mr. Baron the Ait Au said the plaintiff's cilia' was clear and do.
he claimed as Rector.
The Cosmos StagraNT said lie was not therefore entitled to
tithe by common law.
11r. Itsron llrt.t.oca said, he had not the right by common
law; he might by custom.
The Coirsiox It(IEAN T thought he should assert his usage.
Mr. Baran Llaaitair said,the Rector, in his bill, put forward tbe
amount of his usage.
The Commox-SEacEaxT said, he would take the liberty of
reminding the Court, that the mode in which this wax done was
one of the grounds upon which the demurrer was moved. The
manner in which the Rector claimed was threefold; this involved
thr defendant in a great and eiromiuus expense, which would not
be the case Wane title was put forth. In the second of Vesey, jun.
a demurrer was sustained upon the plea of multifarious counts.
The pinintirs claim was alternate; how was it possible to meet
such a claim ? The plaintiff could have but one right; upon this
he was to stand or fall; why then should he be allowed to advance
thr.' if the plaintiff' had, as in the present case, alleged three
rights, two of them must be clearly unfounded.
The Loan CHI Er 14110 N—if your argument be correct, and
admitted to the extent to which you wish to carry it, would not the
result he, that the plaintiff would be enabled to tile three distinct
and separate bills, and maintain in each bill his distinct and sepa-
rate right?
The Cox stow—SERGEANT was ready to admit that such may
be the me; but the Court would also recollect, that the defendant
need, upon principles of equity, reply but to one of the three.
This was, lie said, his argument in support of the demurrer. lie
rejoiced to find he would be followed by other Learned Gentlemen,
who would do greater justice to the argument than he could.
Mr. AnEat Bostic concurred in the arguments of the Conn.
mon Sergeant. It was the practice of all Courts to allow a de-
' murrer when a claim was not specific.
Mr. Baron UaAllA3l was of opinion, that the Rector was, by
construction of law, entitled to tithe when the amount was decided
upon trial by the ordinary proofs.
Mr. Row E followed Mr. Abercromby in defence of the de-
RIUITVT.

3lr. MARTIN, in support of the bill, wished to know upon what
principle the demurrer was brought into Court.
The Cit 'Et. ItAit N said, the chief objection seemed to be that
the bill was multifarious.

MARTIN 'would deny the bill was multifarious; it could not
be impeached upon this account. The plaintiff simply states, he
is entitled to a certain sum in the pound in the parish of which lie
was Rector. The demand was made, and the nght grounded upon
a decree or stipulation passed in the reign of Henry VIII. In
answer to this plain and simple claim, the defendant endeavours to
maintain, that the decree not being enrolled, it was productive of
no advantage or benefit to the plaintiff. It would, however, be
proved upon trial, when this demurrer was, as he knew it would
be, disallowed, that the decree was acted upon as it it were en-
rolled, until the defendant thought proper to refuse the payment
and demur to the Rector's bill. In the demurrer much was alleged
and asserted which was not allowable in a Court of Equity. The
jilkitntitra claim was simple; it was not multifarious; tithes were
due to hint by several of his parishioners, and his only question
was, 110 W he should support Isis claim.
The bouts tuner LAaaN said there was no occasion fur pro-
ceeding farther. The Court was unanimous in its opinion against
the de rev. There was nothing multifarious attach*! le to the
allegations in the Rector's bill; it was perfectly tree from any defect
of the kind. The plaintiffmaile his claim for tithes under the Act
of Parliansent by which these titles were regulated • it was under
the Act. the demand whether right or wrong was ;lade. It was
the decided opiaion of the Court that it would be a violation of
all the rules of equity to allow this demurrer, and therefore it could
nut be sustained.

111 r. Gaanam coincided with the Chief Baron. His
Lordship acknowledged the ingenuity by which it was attempted to
sustain the demurrer, but, itt hts opinion, this ingenuity was wasted,
as tic original bill was not in the least affected or weakened by the
rises cited in support of the demurrer; it was scarcely necessary for
Idol to state, that when a plaintiff came into a Court of Equity hie
title must be clear and without impeachment; this was the ease in
Lir twiner 1 dime the court. Plaintiff rested his claim upon an Act
of Parliament ; in stipport of this he referred to the decree of the
3;tli Ilen.V I 11. This Act gives, it was admitted, the Rector some-
thing. Ile acts to the beat of his judgment under this decree,
and lie supposes that obedience to his Act, and the fulfilment of its
blibb•:rinns on the part of his parishioners, was equivalent to an
enrolment. It was under this conception the Rector had made his
claim, and he made it in a Court of Equity. as it could not be
supposed at common law. The claim was therefore properly
made. The bill should be allowed, and the demurrer was not
maintainable.

The other Barons were of the same opinion.
Time was then applied for by. anti granted to, the defendant, to
put in an answer; eonsequeptly the ease will be tried on its
merits.

71IE ARMY.

The 2a division of the 7l; (Highland Light Infantry)
received indent to embark at Cork, about the 17th instant,
on board the ('ato and Prince of Orange, transports,
for Canada.

The td envision of the 3tth (or Cumberland) Regiment
of Foot embarked at Portsmouth on the 19th instant, on
board the Princess Royal transport, for Dublin.
The 99th Regiment of Infantry has very nearly com-
pleted its establishment.
The strength of the 914th Regiment of Foot amounted,
accor.ling to the last returns, to 3;0 men.
Detachments of recruits marched from the Recruiting
Department in Westminster, for Chichester and the Isle
cf Wight.
Major-lleneral Sir Janis Kempt, G.C.B. and G.C.11.
has errired in England from lialitax.

Dr r. 70 rt. t. A c :)) N T.—Saturday morning a dreadful
accident took place in Crowil.strcet, Soho, which nearly proved
fatal in its eonoccoenreo. sevt cal biliourcrs were tmployed in re-
pairint; the front of the Red Lion public-house, in the alio% e street,
and while standing on a scatiolding, which was erected a, high an
the second floor, one of the putlogs gave way, in consaimetee of
whielt the boards by which they were supported, and on wlich the
labourers were standing, furred over, and two or the individuals. a
Mall rained Wcedon and • boy mimed Hall, were precipitated
to the ground with the greatest violence, end were citrried to a
surgeons in a state of iosensibilil, and dreadfully hijiired.
Th. unfortunate boy broke his leg arid aria, and was otherwise
much I ruised. and the man now lies in a deplorable condition.
A third PrnelkOas seriously injured by the fall. A fourth had a
very Han"w escape with his life; on the suffoldieg giaing way.
he caught hold of the sill of the window, by which hr hung lino'
go. istance arrived, and renativesl::im from his perilous simetion.