The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-18 00:00:00

THE COMMON SENSE.

THI•IIINO, ON THE PROSECIITIOX Or COL. BERKELEY,

V. HAINP:R AND PRIAN.

Mr. Baoranssr, on a former day of this term, obtained a rule
to show cause why a criminal information should not issue against
the defer.dants. as the printer and publisherof the Commove Settee,
for a libel published In that newspaper on Colonel Berkeley.
The AVTORNET-tiENF.RAL showed cause. He said that he
was instructed to state that Mr. Brian knew nothing at all about
the paragraph, and never saw it till after it was published. With
respect to the other defendant, Mr. Hamer, he stated in his affi.
des i: that the greater part of the paragraph was copied from one
which appeared in all the morning papers.
Mr. Baot.t.tiA3l—We do not complain of that part of it.
The A T TOSINF.T.OENEIAL—AII to the rest, It was communi.
cited in the ordinary way.
The LORD CRIET JUSTICE—How is that?
The ATTORNEY.° s--They state that they inserted it
on the authority Oa private correspondent.
The Loan CHITA' JUSTICL—III that all they say?
The A T TORY IC-GENERAL—I was desired to state these facts.
1 certainly told the parties I thought they were no defence. I
base, however, stared them, and in so doing have done my duty.
The COURT considered this to be no ground for discharging the
rule.
Bole made absolute.
MR. WOOLER.

Just as the Court was about to retire,
31r. 11-oolcr rose to ask their Lordships lithe course of business
was onw such that they could name a day when they would be able
to hear him ?
The hostriCsstrrityrricr expressed his regret that they could
not at present. Ile asked 31r. Wooler if his application was not in
the nature of a mandamus to the Society of Lincoln's Inn to admit
him a student.
Mr. Wooler said that certainly was the nature of his intended
apolization.
The LoxisrusEr JUSTICE expressed a doubt whether they
would assist him.

Mr. Wooler—Mine Is a very hard case, and I hope you will, on
hesring the circumstances, think me entitled to a remedy.
The Loan CHIEF J Vla ICE—But I doubt very much whether
we have any power to give a remedy.
Mr. Wooler—l am not to understand this as being the decision
of
.lour Lordships, that you can give no relief?
The LOID CHIRP' JUST/CZ—Oh no, by no means.
Mr. Wooler—Your Lordships then are unable to name any day?
Mr. Janie'? BAY E Y—Ta-MOTIOR it a special argument day,
and Saturday is a special argument day. Monday is an open day,
but then there is the Bar to get through.
Mr. Wooler—l will take the chance of that day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WZSTMINSTER,
TRIVRSDAY, NOV. 17.

Sittings in Banco.
some prisoners confined for debt in the Fleet were brought up on
their petitions to be discharged under the Lards' Act, upon the
hearing of which the Court granted their prayer.

EX-PARTE MART CRESITELi, TNPANT.

Mr. Sergeant Wi Lax moved for a rule to show cause why a writ
of /*oboes corpus should not be directed to the mother of the infant,
Mary Creswell, commanding her to bring the child into Court. It
simpered that the father of the infant had by his will bequeathed
eertsin property to his wife for life, upon condition that she did not
again marry ; and after her decease or second marriage, the pro.
perry was given to his daughter Mary ; and the testator appointed
a guardian of the estate till she should attain the age of 21. The
mother, however, broke the condition upon which she held the pro-
perty, by marrying again. Since her second marriage she had very
much neglected the child. who was now five years of age, both u
regarded her person and her education ; and the property having
thus devolved upon the infant, in consequence of her mother's
marriage, it was the wish of her guardian to get her delivered over
to him, in order that he might place her under the care of a person
who would properly attend to her health and education. The pre.
not application was, therefore, made upon the affidavit of that
. aniividual, who was anxious to discharge his duty towards his
ward.

The Conn Cults. JtrsrtcE observed, that in consequence of
the property in question being, as he understood, of small value, he
thought it ',mid be better to grant the rule to show cause. though
3n strictnais he believed the Learned Counsel was entitled to the
writ of he6ea. rarrus in the first instsincc.
The rule nisi was accordingly gran•ed.
The Court rose at an early hour, and the Lord Chief Justice pro-
eeeded to the City to try causes at Nisi Prim:.

BROOKS v.DAV IS.

This was an action to recori•r 13t., being the amount of a bill
of eiehange drawn by the pluilitift on, and accepted by, the tle.
ler:dont.

The defence to the action wits, that the plaintiff had received a
quantity of cloth from the defendant, of the value of 141., in die.
charge of the bill.
The witness milled to prove the delivery of the cloth equivocated
eery mach, and in the course of his crons-exatnination said, that
although he knew the defendant was in the rules of the King's
hooch, yet he did not know that he was a prisoner, as be always
thought no man was a prisoner unless he were actually width' the
sal,s of the prison.
The plaintiff met this attempt at establishing a set-off by the
• evidence of the sheriff's officer who arrested the defendant while
apparently at large. On that occasion the defendant said nothing
mutterer against the validity of the debt, or that he had in any way
discharged it; but, instead of this, he claimed to be privileged from
• *Mat in consequence of being a prisoner confined within the rules
o: the King's Bench. The officer did not, however. credit this tale,
imumuth its the defendant was, to all appearance, living creditably
in the neighbourhood, and assuming to be conducting his business
edmolestedly. lie therefore took the precaution to go to the Rules
fiftee of the prison with the defendant, when the latter obtained
RA usual certificate that he was a prisoner within the rules.
The LORI) CR Iry JUSTICE put the case to the Jury upon the
vendibility of the defendant's witness, because, if they did not be-
Mese his story, the derma must fail.
• The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for the plaintiff—
. _

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Tffrotio•Y, Nov. 17.
Before the LORD CHIRP BARON.]
4nee 'VICAR OP P F.TTIVOT ON V. JACENON AND OTHEUS.
this case, • bun had been filed by the plaintiff, 'the Rev. Mr.
view of Pett.ngton in the county of Durham, for the put-
.
impelling the defendants, Ms parishioners, to pay certain
Waged to be due to biro. A distinct models of the whole

parish was set up by the defendants, amounting to 471. per annum,
payable in half yearly payments. After the interrogations to, and
answers of a number of parishioner had been read.
AIL Six earitsow rose, and addressed the Cotirt em heholf of
the Vicar of Pettiegton. Ilecontended that the 'nada, which had
been set up by the defendants must, like all other, he proved to
be an invariable sum, which had never been deported from since a
period of time. previous to the year 1169. Now, unexceptionable
documents would clearly and satifactorily prove the cannery/a have
been the rime; and that the sums paid far tithes had repeatedly
varied. In the first place, he would call the attention of the Court
to the endowment of the vicarage, which took place in the year 1213.
It was at that time directed that the vicar should receive annually a
sum of ten marks for tithe'', and if the tithes did not crake up such
sum then the rectory should sure iv whatever deficiency there might
be. This was fur altarage. There bRd been contests at several
times, which had arisen as to the meaning of that word a/fart:rt.
The meaning, however, attached to the word altaregium, in the
the text books, was '• a fee for taking care of the altar." That
this was for the tithe of hay and corn appeared Strom the exception
made of the tithes of wool and lambs. In the taxation of Pope
Nicholas, the amount was the same. The valuation made under
that Pope had been at times regarded with jealousy; but here it
was not merely the opinion of a churchman, but made or. the oaths
of 36 men. The value of these ten marks was 111.135. 4d., but the
amount of the present modus was 471. In the reign of Edwad 11,
in the year 1319, a new taxation took place, and under this note
taratio, the tithes were only worth 1/. a year. But their value lied
then fallen considerably, in consequence of the inroads which
the Scotch had made into the northern counties, Irving waste the
country as they proceeded. This diminution in their value took
place tour years after the battle of Bannockburn ; but four years
previous to this period it was found that debts were due from the
prior and convent to the vicar, to the amount of 181. 13s. 0., 81. of
which was subsequently paid, leaving a balance of 101. 13s. 4d.
against them. It might therefore be inferred, that as the prior
and convent had failed to make good the sum, the vicarage was
taxed without any reference to the demand the vicar might have
against them. Another document was of very great importance,
viz. the Ecclesiastical Survey, which proved not only that a varia-
tion did exist, but that the survey was made in a way which would
have been impossible had these moduses existed ; for the persons
employed to make that survey could not have been so ignorant of
their duty as to value the vicarage piecemeal ; yet it was found
that they calculated the tithe upon wool and iambs at 81., that upon
bay et 31., and even went so low as to estimate the tithes upon
pigs, geese, and hens, at 16s. per annum. The very stela valua-
tion—that of the Parliamentary Surrey—treated the vicarage as
fluctuating; at this period produce had risen in value, and it was
well known that that survey was made wish more care and accuracy
than any of the preceding. In this survey, then, the profits of the
tithes were valued at 331. A reference might be made to the entry of
the books of V leer 3lurray, by which it was clear that the parishioners
were liable to pay tithes of lambs and wool. If so the case for the
defendants was totally destroyed. It was also clear that two farms
paid no tithes whatsoever, and were liable to nnne, although they
occupied each 100 acres. In 1749, it appeared by the entry of
Vicar Shepherd that the amount of tithes of the township of Pet-
tington was for one half year 111. 7s. 2d. How then could this be
made the half of 271. 14s. 4d. ? With respect also to Shadforth,
there was a material variation. In 1772, it was 41. Os. 30. tin
1774, it was N. 18.. How was this circumstance to be reconciled
with the modus that had been set up? It appeared by all the sur-
veys that had been made, from that of Pope Nicholas down to the
Parliamentary Survey, that the rectorial tithe.' exceeded in value
those of the vicarial. Yet, during the Bth Elizabeth, the Dean
and Chapter of Durham let the rectorial tithes at a rack rent of IL
fis. Bd. How then was this fact to be reconciled with the modus
that had been set up ?
Mr. BICKERSTETEI followed on the same side, and contended
that several variations appeared in the tithes of the township of
Pettington, and in those of Shadforth, that the mains which had
been set up had bren disproved by evidence, and that it was clearly
without weight, and of non-effect. . .

Mr. JERVIS appeared on the part of the defendants, and con-
tended, that whether the moduses had, or had not been proved, it
was clear that the vicar had, by accepting at sundry times sundry
sums, proved some of them to be correct, and had, therefore, de-
prived himself of all right to take tithes in kind; that his Lord-
ship could not makes decree, even if he considered it proper, with-
out sending those modusea to an issue, and that an issue must be
directed to meet the facts of the case, as these facts had been proved.
lie would refer to the use of Provost v. Bennett, 4 Guillim, 1723,
for authority that the Court could direct an Issue to try a molts,
notwithstanding it had been made within legal memory. The
Learned Counsel then entered at great length into a statement of the
various points which he conceived bore upon the case.
The LORD CHIEF BARON deferred his judgment.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Tuunsoar, Nov. 17.
The Court was occupied this day in going through some cases
which stood over from yesterday, none of which were of any public
interest. The Court at its rising, adjourned to Friday, the 25th
instant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DUBLIN, Nov. 10.

A 3IILLINER'S BILL, 91111.!
LITTLE V. TRENCH. ESQ.

Mr. WALLACE applied to the Court on behalf of the defendant
for a conditional order, to set aside the verdict which was obtained
by the plaintiff in this cause, at the Sittings after last Trinity Term,
on the ground that such verdict was contrary to law and evidence,
and the damages given to the plaintif excessive. The action had
been brought by the plaintiff; who is a milliner, to recover the value
of a quantity of jewellery, millinery, and other expensive articles
furnished to the lady of the defendant, and a verdict of 948/.
damages had been pronounced in the plaintiff's favour. It was to
be observed that the articles which formed the ground of that
action had been furnished to the wife of the defendant without his
consent or knowledge, and at a time when the lady was known by
the plaintiff to be living apart from her husband, and when he also
knew that a provision of 8001. a year was made for her, and was at
all times ready for her acceptance, the plaintiff having been ap-
prised of these particulars, and having received a caution not to
give the lady credit. It would appear, on examination of the
nature of the articles, that they could not possibly be oonstrued as
neer:write.
The COURT granted the conditional rule.
_ _

Mr. WALLA(Cbegged to add, that in the space of four months,
no less than 6001. worth of jewellery and Castle dresses had been
ordered by Mrs. French.
Mr. CtusterON observed, that it would he rather alarming to
Gentlemen to find it decided by the verdict of a Jury that it was
neccatarei for their ladies to have three Castle dresses for one night.
Mr. WALLAcE—Yes, and wear them all on the same night.
Mr. Sergeant GOOLD said be would engage to uphold the
verdict.