The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-19 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

Henry 111., the parishes of St. Peter's and the holy Trinity
were separated anti divided, and in the fifth of the King; as to the
valuation of Pope Nicholas produced at the other side, he contend-
ed it did not prove that the parishes were united. They were not
entered as united parishes, but were entered together as parishes in
the gift of the Crown, not by any means as parishes emu:eel. The
presentation of Ralph d'Odium, as put in for the plaintiff, he
contenthel was not correct. He should lay before the Jury
the first presentation of Ralph d'Odium, antecedent to that put
in for the plaintiff. and which proved that the said Ralph d'Odium
was first presented to St. Peter's. The plaintiff's Counsel had
put in the presentations from 1303 to 1340, but these presentations
were to the Holy Trinity alone, and afforded no presumption that
St. Peter's was united. Though the King may have weaned
the two parishes to the Fame person, the parishes were not the
more united. If the plaintiff's Counsel proved that the King had
united the parishes, it would have been satisfactory, but therewas no
evidence of any act of the King's. If the King exercised his right
of presentation to the two parishes, by presenting them to one per-
son, it was no proof that the parishes were not separate ; but if the
King had ever presented them separately, it was decisive that the
parishes were separate, although they might, for convenience, have
b.en allowed to go together on one or many occasions. Now he
would prove that in 1330 there was a separate presentation of
Geoffrey tie Hardwick to the parish of St. Peter's. This was one
of the presentations which the Learned Sergeant had omitted to
bring forward, with ills usual dexterity, because, in his discretion,
he conceived it bore against the interest of his client. There was
another presentation in twerity.nine yearn atter also, omitted to be
produced at the other side. It was a presentation of a person named
Roland to the width of St. Peter's ulone. It was true that at the
other 'sidle they had produced four successive presentations to the
parish of the Holy Trinity with the parish of St. Peter's annexed.
There was no question as to the. right of the King to present both
golviehes to the Salle person if he pined, but did that prove them
united ? Though he had presented beat to the same person forty
times, and afterwanis made a separate presentation, it was evi-
dence that there was no union, which could only be effected by the
consent of the King. As to the Act of Parliament which was pro-
duced, and which rendered the dissolution of unions impossible,
the King was rot bound by that Act unless his name was men-
tioned in it. But even if it was admitted that the Patron was
bound by the Act in question, there was no evidence of the Patron's
assent to the union. It was true that a presentation to IRA
parishes, about lour years after the date of the Act, was produced,
but indistinct documents could not he confided in ; and even if
they were, the documents in this case went step by step to elm,
there was no union of the parishes. In all the documents, the parish
of the Holy Trinity appeared with ironic Whitfield annexed, but
there was no instance of St. Peter's being annexed in any document
that could be relied on. At making the grant of presentation to the
Corporation, the parish of St. Peter's was not named; only the
parish of the Holy Trinity, with Frome Whitfield annexed. It
was impossible St. Peter's could go under that grant. In 16.10,
when the ecclesiastica survey took place, the return was matte for
both parishes separate! y. This made the whole matter clear, if it
was doubtful before. But he should show more. Ile should prove
that the Rectors of' the Holy Trinity had themselves treated St.
Peter's as separate. Other documents could probably have beep
produced to support the defendant's case, but for a tire which took
pine at Blandfard in 1731, when all the documents belonging to
the Bishopric were destroyed. But he could prove that the Rector
of the Holy Trinity had taken nut the sequestration the the
!mesh of St. Peter's. 31r. Templcson. the Rector of the parish
of the Holy Trinity, died in June 11113, when 3lr. Richmond
took out the sequestration. Upon the Whaled the documents. he
insisted that it was proved that the parishes were not united. Now
as to the other point, that the close was in the parish of the lloly
Trinity, all the probabilities of the case were against such a con-
clusion. Its local situation proved it belonged to St. Peter's, and
this was further proved by the fact that St. Peter's had no other
glebe. It may be that Mr. Templeson believed it belonged to the
Holy Trinity, but he might be mistaken. Ile had erroneously
signed himself Rector, when only sequestrator ; anti as to the
Churchwardens, they signed the terrier, when applied to by the
Rector, without examining its contents. This he would prove by
one of the Churchwardens now surviving. In addition to this, he
should prove from Templeson's declarations, that the close in
questian belonged to St. Petes'e. His account.bnoks also proved
that the close was in St. Peter's, and was designated the Bowling-
green. Now with respect to .Mr. Coleon's return to the Commis-
sioners of Queen Anne's Bounty, it was easily explained. He
returned that St. Peter's had no glebe land• because at that
time he was ignorant that the glebe belonged to St. Peter's.
In conclusion, he cautioned the Jury against being led away by the
reply of the Learned Sergeant, and begged of them to confine
themselves to the facts of the case. Ile theughe they should be
well satisfied before they consented by their verdict to take away
the only piece of glebe which St. Peter's had, and to add it
to a parish already possessing a glebe.
Documents were then produced in support of the defendant's
case.]
The first document orodneed was a book compiled from inquiei-
lions taken in the reign of !leery 111. It was compiled in the
reign of Edward V., and described the Chtirele of St. Peter's in
the Borough of Dorchester as being in the gift of the King.
The presentation of De Hardwick to St. Peter's W4S then put in.
The returns made by the parish of St. Peter's, in answer to the
inquiry of the Commissioners in MO, were also produced. It
stated that there was no parsonage or vicarage in the parish—that
there was no other parsonage or living helongirg to St. Peter's,
and that it had no parish church.
Mr. Smith. the Bishop's Register, produced the grant of segues.
tration to St. Peter's, token out by Mr. Hubbard ; also a seques-
tration to the Holy Trinity, dated 4th June, 1732. In 17131
sequestration was granted to Mr. Templeson for both parishes,
and on his death, in 1813, sequestration was granted to the church
besides of both parishes. It wen afterwards granted separately to
Mr. Richmond for St. Peter's.
The presentation of defendant to St. Peter's, dated 26th Nov.
1824, was then given in evidence; also hie presentation by the
Crown under the Great Seal.
It was also proved, that in the account of the procuration fees
the parish of St. Peter's and the Holy Trinity were charged and in-
serted separately.
I Mr. Henry John produced the institution of Mr. Hubbard, in
1781, to the Holy Trinity alone; of Mr. Richmond, in 1813, to
the parish of the Holy Trinity, with the Rectory and chapel of
Forme Whitfield annexed ; and of Mr. ('olson, in October
1822, to the parish of St. Peter's, vacant by the death of the last
incumbent.
John Bascow, one of the Churchwardens who signed the terrier
produced by plaintiff; was sworn, to prove that he signed it without
knowing what it contained.
Justice Lyre eetteett said he thought it of no great use to call
as old man to disprove what he had signed 40 years before.
The Rev. 3lr. Oakley was then examined—He knew 111 r. Tern.
pleson; assisted to keep his accounts. Mr. Templeson told witness
that he was never inducted to St. Peter's, but held it by sequestra-
tion from the Bishop. (The account books of the parish were here
prollarell.) Witness knew Mr. Templeson's hand-writing. The
*mourns were chiefly written by him. The field in question was
charged all through as belonging to the parish of St. Peter's, and on
no occasion as belonging to the parish of the Holy Trinity. Mr.
Templeson told witness that he kept St. Peter's separate, fearing he
should be celled on to produce his accounts as sequestrator.
James Pittman examined—Knew 31r. Templeton. He told
witness thnt the living of St. Peter's was not worth accepting, for
that he had nothing by it but the bowling-green glebe and the
Easter offering.
Crows-examined—Witness did not say he could not recollect such
a conversation with Mr. Templeson. IVould not swear he did not
say so to Mr. Coombe (the plaintiff's attorney). Did. say to
Mr. Coombe that be had given only a shilling, and that Mr.
31ansfield (defendant's attorneys had given him a guinea. In say.
in"relfileatcausteit nheatvs had
jogcltoosi the
edd
atbotrutitili.
sides,
Mr. Sergeant W IDE replied at great length.
'f he beamed Jenne then summed up the evidence, and left
it to the Jury to find—first, whether the living of St. Peter's and
and that of the Holy Trinity were held together Imin the earliest
times .o the passing of the statutes in the reign of Henry VIII. e
ereondly, whether, if they were held together before the reign of
Henry Vlll. they had been held together subsequently ; thirdly,
whether, if held to ether subsequently, they had been held with
the consent of the patron, ordinary, and incumbent; fourthly,
whether, if held with the consent of the patron, ordinary, and in-
cumbent, they lied been held under the presentations and institu-
tions proved. or under the grant of sequestration • and law ly,
whether the field in question was or was not a parcel of the glebe
land of the Holy Trinity, though locally situated in the parish of
St. Peter's.
The Jury having found all these questions in the affirmative,
verdict was taken generally for the plaintiff, spbject to the opi.
nion of the Court upon the case.
This record occupied the Court from nine o'clock in the morning
until nearly ten o'clock at night, anti appeared to excite a consider-
able degree of local interest, from the situation of the parties, and
the nature of the evidence adduced. The Court was crowded dur-
ing the entire day.
The above case concluded the Assizes for Dorset.