The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-24 00:00:00

n 1~

L

Oise; but you called it in your count by the name of muni-
Lef t Maydays ;to at all events, you should have sheen in
pot counts but onedeed, which is at variance with the writ." His
Leaped Friend did not seem to think that this decided any thing.
He Mr. Sergeant Boaanquet) was of a different opinion. for, by
the opinion nrenounced by the Chief Justice, it was manifest that
the fatal objection to the writ was, net that a letter of attorney was
rot a deed, hut that the cas: on the part of the plaintiff tailed in
consequence of the omission in the count to denominate it so. and
thereby to render it conformable to the writ. An applcauol to
:wanner the writ was subsequently made, on the ground that a cleci.
W error had crept .n:o the count; but this the Court refuted, with
a eiminet le:time:on, that they refused it on account of the count
of being conformable to the writ, and that the power of at-
torney ought so be mimed as a deed to render it available..
lie ben next to call their Lordship' attention to the case ut
"Dodd v. Herbert Styles," Reports 449. That was an actiou
brought under the statute of Elizehede The action was debt on
bond to periorm award; there it was said that an arbitrament under
had and seal was not a decd. All that was there established was,
:bat thine might be an award without a stamp-deed. In amen: se-
teat ewe, Lord Ellenbormigh said, that he had only to prepare his
award, and have it ready for the plaintiff, as soon as he did that
ht beesmeJasctesgjfuits. But Mr. Justice lotirence on that case,
which was reported in 4th East, said, th t questions similar to the
resent have frequently been neitstell in this Court, and without de.
sermintng whether an award was a deed according to the COMMICtion
contendel fur, it might be made so by a deed-stamp, and having re-
ettorseto the customary fortes of constituting a deed. Suppose a
person were to key a line, the uses of that tine were set forth by
steed ; but here there was no contract, which it was so zealously en.
esairoured to establish as essential to the perfect formation and
co:atiavion of a deal. The next argument relied upon by his
Ltanted Friend was, that although the form of letters of attorney to
transfer stock seemed to comprise &distinct covenant with the Bank
es: England, yet that the nature of the covenant was such as to ren-
der it nugatory. This was explained by alleging that this was es-
sential to the ch=artee of the power of attorney, was not in the
Pam of a covenant. and was a way of expreaaig that the party
confitmed all such acts as should be done by his attorney after his
dsa:h. That a patty giving a power of attorney might bird him-
seer, he (31r. Sergeint Bosanquet) was ready to admit; but that
weld not extend to his execuors, much lees to his administrators.
:he cove tent was a built' fide one, entered into between the party
makeig it and the hank. It conveyed authority for sale, and
this as he before submitted, was ancillary to a :attract for sale.
Having endeavoured to show that the word deed was strictly and
ordinarily applicable to the instrument in respect of which the
Fiona was convicted, he would proceed to the other proposition,
telt the word bore that meaning on the construction of the Sta-
tutes of the 2d of Cleo 11. c. 2., 31 Geo. 11. c. 22, 78 and
sb Geo. ill. The Learned Counsel procceeded to read the
=Ste of the Ace, as above citedein the argumeut of the opposite
eL It was said that the conviction failed, inasmuch as this
Act enumerated the various elle:ices which were to become punish-
able by heavier penalties thin the law provided. In this velment-
thin the uttering a forged parser of attorney was not included
or specified, but there wes a previous specific enactment
toskmg such a offence a capital felony. To this he begged to
reply, that there was a section or clause in the Act of the 2d
Geo. IL continuatory of the provisions or the Statute of Bth
Mos. I. in which the penalty for utte:ing forged powers of
attorney was specifiel. It would no:, he presumed. be con.
uaded that the ear:native provisions of one Act of Parliament
were to be rendered inoperative, because they had been generally
intierporated into another Act ; nor would it be contended, that it
wet necessary to specify all the particular eases of offence to which
the dat Ac: provieed a remedy, as they were necessarily in-
tik:eat and meant by that part of the Act of '2 George 11., which
eontlimni the Bth of Geor;e I. The 31st of George 11. was en-
acted principally for the purpose of extending the protection of tae
Legislature to extend to the forging of any letter it attorney which
related to the transfer of foods or stock, established since the
passing of the. Bth of George I. The further statutes which pro.
sndsd against forgery were, the 411th of George 111 , the 4th of
George I I 1., and the 32d of George III.; of these, the first con-
s:stalks the most part of de re-enactment of the previous sta.
MOB, with additional provisions fee 'weenier offences; the second
was inindoced at the termination of the Bank chatter ; it renewed
tee provisions of the previous Acts to the Bank, end extended
them to the capital stook of bodies politic and corporate, to be
hereafter established by Parliament. The third of these Acts,
namely, the 32d of Gem,. 111. was introduced to meet a particular
offer es, namely, that of a man having &genuine power of attorney
who negleeteu to adjust it. In consequence of this neglect,
ha was obliged to forge the signatures of the two subscribing
Mtnesses; and it was to meet this peculiar case that the Act
was hr.:night into Parliament, which subjected this offence to
its penalty of transportation ter seven. years. The case was one
which referred to manien's wages, and tne Art was very necessary,
in order that the party who gave the power of attorney might have
ths benefit of a lento file testimony, and that the tame of the Act
of Parliament should be complied with, which required that there
should be two real eubsenbing witnesses. The Learned Gentle.
men having leerily adverted to the other acts of forgery
'eluded to by his Learned Friend, which were nut in his
flosanqnces) opinion, very applicable to the immediate
question before the consideration of the Court, proceeded to
address their Lordships on what had been invariably the
practice for years in eases of this kind, on which several comic-
bans 10.,k place, which were followed by subsequent execution.
In almost all of the indictments, the power of attorney had been
dertiatinmed a dtcd. it IMO almost invariably been introduced tin-
der that term in all the efficient counts of the indictment. The
first C.: se which he found rectrded was one in 1796, and there, in
two counts, this term was iutroduced as he had de-cribed. In the
eases art the King v. Weetun and the King v. Copland, counts to
a similar effect were introduced. They were convicted and exe-
gited. Another ease occurred in DIOS : it was that of Mary Ann
Berle. She was tried on four comes; the offence was precisely
the sante as die present. The indictment contained four counts,
one of steal was ter litrgieg a certain deed with attempt to deified
the Mae: of England. There was a difference between that case
and the present, that the power of attorney of which she was eon.
rented, and on which conviction she was executed, contained no
covenant vs the present did. In 1816 and 1817 J. Boyce, and
in lb/7 31..1. Jebb, were tried, and underwent the penalty of the
bier nazi:viler imlictineos, preferred in the same way, for similar
ofenc:". The King v. Wait, which was one well known to their
Leidship, and which turned chiefly on the competency toga wit-
ness, was among die many cases which were to be found to sus-
tain the propriety of the point in discussion before their Lordships,
although the Learned Counsel who on that occasion argued the
use on the part of the party convicted, did not rely upon any die-
tiection between a piece of attorney and a deed, but that the deed
sfas ono such a one as was contemplated or intended by the sta-
tute under which the indictment had been drawn up. It was
dies argued that it was requisite that a deed should be re.
voiced Ity a deer,. Time instrument created an authority to be,
peeked by parole; but this argument was not available, for it not
onfrequeittly occurren, :hat estates created by deed were revocable
by paw. t. The next case he would call their Lordships' attention
to, hid one on which he would mainly rely, was that of the King
w. Lyunt. That related :o the forging of an instrument, which was
regularly executed, for seamen's wage., as a deed, and he was tried
on an indictment framed under the 24 Geo. 11. There was a spe-
ctres Act applicable to this case, and it was contended that the con-
viction under the 2,1 of Gen. 11. and it was objected by his Coun.
:el. that it should have been tried under the specific Act that pro-
vided a reitedy for the offence, and not tinder the 2rl of Geo. 11.
which red not include his particular case, but provided remedy for
other esses of forgery.
Mr. Justice BATLEY said, that he was one of the few Judges who
set upon thst ease: the question for the Judges' decision there
was, weether the 2d of lien. It. was controlled by any subsequent
sueute as far as regarded the prisoner's ease ; and the second point
was, whether, it:controlled by any subsequent statute, that statute
VOA the 26:h of Geo. 111.:• Mr. Baron Graham was the only
Judge who was of opinion that it was controlled by. ant' subsequent
statute, and he only doubted it. He (Mr. Justice Bayley) and
Mr. Baron iliraliam were the only two Judges who were of opinion,
Pat if controlled by any, it was by the 26th of Geo. 111., which
was euppmed to have made a specific enactment for the particular
ire. The Learned Judge here mentioned the names of the other
tut Judges who dissented from them. The name of a single Judge
new upon the Bench was not amongst the names he enumerated.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to continent on this case which
rte considered a forcible confirmation of the position he at fine laid
down, ilea the affirmative words of former statutes were not af.
tatted or weakened by suhsequent enactments, which were but a
1110136T0110011 of them, whit certain additional movismet which it
may_ hate been found eepetn, it to introduce.
Mr. Justice Pima wished to remind his Learned Brother of a
MU of earlti. date than of those be had cited. It was the CIAO of
tispbiu Ptingk, wi, was tried in I;i'7, bet.reChiefJusti‘T Thorn-
man. lie ( r.Justice Parks happened to li , its possession of the
returned Cuii Javico's notes upon it. The I.:diet:neat agah:et her
was for meting a forged letter knowing it to be f•irged. There
were teed coons in the indictment. and in six of the counts this
instemm.at was described rs " a forged deed, purporting to be a
Sever of attorney." From the notes in hi', 1NP3,11,1441 it Linieared
teat the Late bad beeu submitted before 3lr. Jurttcel:ool.% 31 r.
Justice Grose, amid the Chief Baron, and that the term of the is.
extritent Led been approved of by them.
Di r. eee ;t.ant 11(..SANUU ET resumed, and recapitulated the arms-
meats he teut previously addressed to the Court, that there was
nothing i.ttu:ai,tent in the power of attorney being also a tired:
that the preamilik el the statute of Geo. /1. acceding to which the
indictment was drawn op., warranted the conviction, and that the
=misfit.: practice on which convictions had taken piece, supported
tee legaley of the form in which the indictment had been pre-
pared, d the ieveral counts introduced.
Mr. Beet u zaioa resew reply.—lle felt that lie met his Learned
Frieed on unequal terms. as he scented to have advantages of pre-
peraion oa the question to be discussed. which he (Mr. Broderick,
did not possess. He was therefore obliged to n ply as circumstances
im4phteartse.
Loon elftEr JUSTICE—As you seem to think you rise to
reply under icon means et preparation possessed
by the leaned Sergeant, and feel called upon to answer as tie-
comatarees might arise, the Court, if you should think proper,
rill give you an opportunity of preparation, and hear )tau in reply
to-morrow, at ten o'clock, as it is necessary we should meet early.
Mr. Siagcent /knee 4.IUST assured his Learned friend that he
did not possess any undue advantage; lie only received the pc,
listen weak hot been presented in Council, and that was not sent
him mail late yesterday.
Mr. lineonsitca disclaimed any invidious suggestion, as to any
am= of preparation, that were not perfectly fair and proper.
The Cousr renewed the oiler to lie. Broderick to postpone
hearing_him in reply uutil to-morrow.
Mr. 111101:1EltICK replied lie was too tensible of the duty he
mod his carat, Dot to avail himself of this indulgent offa.

L.4W INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, TVESDAT, Nov. 23.

The Court was this day crowded to excess to hear the decision
IN Till MATTER 01 TOE REV. ALEXANDER ELETCHER.
The Sottorrow.GLetnak was heard in continuance. The
novelty of a case. lie insisted, was no argument against its reception
or freshness in that Court. If this were so the eases he hail cited yes-
terday of Lady Howard and the Hammersmith Chapel, and Mr.
Colman and the theatres would not be heard. There were various
cues of patents in the same situation. A novel case was merely
one, the major proportion of which hail never beihre come wider the
cognizance of the Court. Example was nut a necessary ingredient
in enabling the Court to come to a decision. II e would refer brictly
to the subject, and he would feel himself justified, by its novelty, to
one • few illustrations. As to the propositions advanced by Mr.
Ilart, they would, if admitted, go the length of destroying all the
jurisdiction of the ('ours. This jurisdiction, in the case before the
Court, was fully admitted. This was decided in the cases of the
Attorney-General and Fowler, and the Attorney-General and Pear-
son. It was well known that such interference formed the essence
and characteristic of this Court; and as to the assertion that there
was no jurisdiction here over the manner in which a person dis-
charged his pastoral duties----
The Loan t:/IANCELLos—There is here no such complaint.
There was no difficulty in this part of the case. It was clear that
persons were severely punishable in another Court it' they pre-
vented a pastor from ascending his pulpit and preaching. The only
question was, as to his jurisdiction.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—When he heard the arguments
of the gentlemen opposite, he thought it right to look into the law
in the subject, and he not only found that there was a right ofju-
rtsdiction over a chapel, but even over a pulpit and reading-desk.
This right came under the cognizance of the common law ; and so
far from its being time shadowy right as represented by .Ir. Hart.
not tangible to an injunction; so tar from this being the ease that
the right to a pulpy or desk is made the subject of an ejectment. It
had been already tried and decided in the reign of James I. It is
reported in Salkeld, in the case of llolinphed and Brewster. The
executor of one brought an ejectment; and it was argued by the
Attorney-General of that day that the plaintiff had no right to a
possesslon. He was entitled to a right of entry for the purpose of
preaching ; that no declaration could be tiled by him as tenant in
possession, but that he could enter a special plea, claiming entry to
preach. There was nut a similar instance since the time of James I.
Therefore, when the gentlemen opposite said there was no authority
over the pastor, they should recellect that the l'ourt of King's
Bench granted to Dr. llolingshed, though lie did not claim the
freehold, to right of entry. THU was recognized by the common
still more properly would it fall under the jurisdiction of a
Court of Equity, where these tender and incorporeal rights are more
frequently discussed. Ile would rot extend his observations to the
time of this suspension ; he would merely state that .Ir. Fletcher
had bound himself by deed to be visitul by the Scotch Synod.
Reasoning by analogy, he has placed himself in a similar predica-
ment and situation with those other institutions who choose their
own Judges. and submit to their own visiters. It was a matter of
perfect indifference to him whether the subject was nested of as a
matter of trust or covenant within the jurisdiction of the Court, or
a mere matter of conscience on the part of the 31inister. He would
contend, that Mr. Fletcher, under the deed, was situated as any '
individual of a college would he who was subject to visitors. As to
his being ignorant of the conditions of the deed, the affidavit of Mr.
Elmsly proved Isis knowledge in the view he took of the case.
There was one passage to which he would advert.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Taking it for granted that Mr.
Fletcher is bound by the deed, is he not entitled as well to the
beneits of it as to the obligation ; and lie much questioned whether
he could free him from the obligation, though lie may be palpably I
wrong.
The SOLICITORGINEIIAL contended the case was made out
by his own affidavit.
The Lou, Cii ANCELLUR—M r. Fletcher's affit!avit is the best
you have.
'Toe SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought so too. There were how-
ever other affidavits, all ch went to prove his personal submission
to the Synod. The whole question was, whether he was bound by
the trust which he accepted, and it was clear by every legal and
conscientious principle that he was. He is himself a witness, and
proves by his own testimony his own submission. ( Ilere the Learned
Gentleman read the appointment of Mr. Fletcher: it stated that
the general body gave a call to that gentleman.) lie was called by
those to whom he was under subjection. This Mr. Fletcher him-
self publicly admitted. Ile declared that he was a member of this
church; that he felt firmly persuaded and convinced that this es-
tablishment was the only right one. This he acknowledged. This
was the gentleman who made this declaration (not certainly on his
civil with), that he was a member of this institution ; that he owed
it his allegiance and subjection. Ile did not state it upon his civil
oath, but by an unequivocal pledge given in the face of the congre-
gation. Ile declared this church to be his grand judicatory. Ile
admitted in facie rerksia that it had authority over hint. He did
not make the declaration on his civil oath, but by a pledge which
was held in that respectable body equivalent to an oatn. Arid now
he (the Solicitor-General) was told the gentleman knew nothing of
this body. He could prove it by many of his congregation, but
he did not want these supplemental helps. The deed itself proved
all. ile not only made this pledge, but he required it from all
others who were admitted to the chapel. It was requisite that all
those who were admitted to the congregation should niake the
pledge of submission, and it was the duty of Mr. Fletcher to exact
it. He did require it; and lie now wishes to throw of his subjec-
tion ; to repudiate this church; and his l'ounsel assert, according to
their instructions, or perhaps to their invention, that he never bound
himself to submit to the discipline or rule of this Synod. This
was monstrous—this wes intolerable—this was not consistent with
his exertions in the pulpit. These were, lie heard, eloquent and
keened. It was admitted upon all hand.: that he had discharged
all his duties as a gentleman and a scholar. Thus, therefore, Mr.
Fletcher, it was evident, trout affidavits, was nut only bound to
subjection higbelf, but he required the same from all those who
became met of his congregation. Does he, in any part of his
affidavit, deny his submission ? does lie deny toe making of these
pledges?—No such thing. He apologised for taking up the time
of the Court, but he would read a part of the original documents.
Before the deed of trust was engrossed it was read by 31r.NV ilks, at
a meeting of the congregation, and approved of by the 'tee. Gent. ;
and he now comes forward to say that he looked upon it as of too
tyrannical a nature to be obeyed. To this obedience he was bound
though all the rides and institutions of the Synod were expressed
is e Ise, and embodied in this document; and though he now
complains, he read the deed to his congregation for the purpose of
giving it validity and weight. slr. Fletcher was not in the %tete
of a man taken by utonishinent or surmise. Ile had prescience ;
he had pre-knowledge ; he was a member of other congregations
before he became the pastor of 3loortields ; he was well acquainted
with all the consequences of being subject to the grand judicatory
of Scotland. The Scotch, he knew, were eminent for their meta-
physical knowledge; but lie believed the idea of having till the
congregation bound and the pastor free; to have the deed an obli-
gation quoad the congregation, and none at all quued the
pastor, was too metaphysical even fur therm Ile contended the
defence was a libel on 51r. Fletcher; • contemptible equivocation,
full of scandalous subterfuges; • rejection of the plain meaning of
words. Such was his opinion of the notion that the pastor was not
bound, and the congregation were, by the deed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR-1f one of the congregation was
guilty of a breach of promise of marriage, could the Synod drive
hint front church fellowship? This was a question which was not
answered. _

The SOLICITOR.GENERAL could not just then answer the
question ; but his friend, Mr. Ilart, when he spoke of Algiers and
Morocco, forgot that the members of the two Universities were go.
serried in the same way.
The LORti CHANCELLOR—As to the visitors of the Universities,
the Court of King's Bench would make them perform their duty ; and
If it was clear that the visitors were wrong, a new trial would be
granted. Ile recollected one case, in which lie could not be mis.
taken, as he was employed in it : the object was, to compel the
Bishop of Lincoln to do a certain act. The question was asked, if
the Bishop knew of the proceedings? an answer could not be given;
and Lord 3lauslield said until this was answered, they could not
decide. . .

The Solite I TOR-Gt EitAL Whaled to impress upon his friend,
klr. Hart, that the laws of some obscure and barbarous ports in
the Mediterranean were those to which the members of the lllnlver-
sides were subject. There was no case which could be made out,
of outrage, oppression, or error, which could authorise Mr. Fletcher
to cast away his obligation, and throw ad his subjection to the in-
quisitorial power of the Synod. In the course of his argument, he
looked upon the powers of the Synod as analogous to those pos-
sessed by the visitors of Corporations and Colleges. The resem-
blance wax not perhaps strict, but it was a fair analogr. Relying
upon one of the prinapal :lumina of their own close, the question
could Lot be said to be extended front the jurisdiction of the Court.
Ile did not ask to have the darer of the Synod executed. The
Synod was nothing here; it was nothing more in this Court than it
was in Spain or Italy. Ile looked only to the deed; and this was
as complete, as to the Synod, as it its entire code, its eor•pus, were
comprised within its conditions. Mr. Fletcher, in his affidavit coo.
cormeg the breach of promise of marriage, did not deny the powers
of the Synod. Did he deny they possess the powers of suspension ?
Did he deny that the power of suspension was as much in the Synod
as that of appointing ? lie made no such denials; he merely said
that be was excluded from the chapel, to the peat disquietude and
uneasiness of the congregation, and to the injury of his own cal.
runs, as he submits, in direct opposition to the rules and consti-
tution of the Burgher Associated Synod. Will he deny on his oath
that he tendered the religious pledge to his congregation ? If he
swore this, Mr. kletcher's character would be gone. His Court-
ed may argue the question lustily ; no language could be too strong
fur them ; none could on this subject be too weak fur Mr. Fletcher.
If these matter were denied on his oath by the reverend gentle-
man, he (the Solicitor-(leneral) would say, as a lawyer and a ;so-
'• Here are conflicting affidavits, let the balance incline in
favour of Mr. Fletcher ;^ but there was no balance in the case.
He blamed Mr. Fletcher for introducing the custruvcrsial word
" submit," which hail no meaning whatever.
The LORD Coactczt colt —Hoes aoy thing the Synod please
amount to converse in conversation ?
The Sot. tcyron.tlitu &Amt.—Mr. Fletcher. as an old member,
should point out that the charge against him wit not nialverse.
The LOUD (:eta\cEr.t.oa—lle isnot bound to negative it..

The SOL IC I T OnAlENEltat,—lt is 'won to alai a brooch of
promiae amounts to eitalverae conversation.
Thr LORD Cita sti.i:Lr.rin—A breach of any promise, or a
breach of premise of marriage ?
The Se Ivo it-GEN En at.—. There itt an affidavit that a breach
of promise is considered, according to the ecclesisatic criterion of
their church, as 'cottoning to bong malversc in conversation. This
is sworn to; and if the person i•ttkwg this affidavit awese Abel!)