The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-12 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

now set lip, that no right could be shows foe its reaction ; a Bill
was tiled on the part of ties lunnobent, to which answer was
put in ; but when the ease tame cm to be baud, defendant did not
appear, and decision was given in favour of the claimant. In re-
gard to this case, the Learned gentleman observed, that he did not
rely much on it, as the merits of the question were nut fully dis.
cured; however, it went to show that the Court recognised the
principle set out.
John Reeve, the Collector of the Itectorial Tithee, proved the
demand being made at the house of 31r. %Veep on the 24th of Aug.
1824. and posiuted out ado: receipt-books, with an entry written
by witness—" Denied to pay, 210) August.—J. It."
On eross-examtnation by Mr. HARMER, the witness admitted
thnt he only called at certain hoses; that there were many persons
on whom he had no direction to call. Witness did not know that
those tithes were considered as a compensation for heater Offerings,
or that Easter 011irings were paid by those gendeuten to show lie
presented receipt*.
Mr. Griffiths, the vestry clerk, was then sworn.
Mr. Ilan ate a—lb all the houses in the parish pay tithee ?
No, certainly not, though the tithe is demandable.
Mr. 11.111)1ER-1M not those very persons and niany others of
the parishioners pay what is termed Lester Offerings?—Most ea-
Mr. Basler a—AVere those Easter Offerings or Oblations a To-
luntary gilt ?-4Yes ; I think no.
Mr. GARNER—You allow, then, that they hate not been paid
an et' CORIUM!! tight ?-1 do.
Mr. HA II MT:it-110e% it not appear, then, that they were first
pail in lieu of something of common right—personal tithe, for !Is-
stutter ?-1I turn not prepared to say precisely, but I think not.
Mr. 11A/tut:it then stated, that it was in fact quite unnecessary
to obtain any further evidence on the question. Ile should, with
I.,Tellt respect, submit to the Bench, that in his mind, the very eases
cited by the Learned LOUOS,I (31r. 111trewether), in support of the
claim, would have quite &contrary tendency as regarded the present
Cane. Ily the 7th and 8411 of Wiliam HI. cap. 11. the recovery of
small tithes was provided for in these worda;—" According to the
rights, customs, and prescriptions, commonly used within the said
parishes respectively." Now, if the Learned. Gentleman intended
to rely on right and custom in support of his case, lie (Mr. Harmer)
did not conceive that the case cited proved the existence either of
the one or the Mini, as compared with the present question ; in
fact, lie (31r. II.) had to Clank the Learned Gentleman for men-
tinning the cow of 1)r. Grant—there the universality of the de-
mand throughoot the parish was distinctly proved, and on that
ground alone the decision was favourable to the incumbent's claim ;
and yet, it appeared, as was admitted by the learned Gentleman
himself, that Coke, en ingenious and accomplished Lawyer and
Judge, had, in a note, given a sort of indirect dissent front that
decision. Mr. Harmer then adverted to the other cases cited, and
°burred, that lie did not conceive them to be at all in point. The
second would be resisted precisely on the same grounds as that of
Dr. (mat's; and in the third, that of Barton and Ibbartson, there
being no derision, it wan scarcely worth consideration. Mr. Har-
mer then alluded to the Easter Gift, which had been already re-
ferred to, and hewed to read tin extract from Bacon's Abridgnient,
title Ti tbe,let ter .11. which would give a tolerably clear view of its in.
tent slid meaning ; it w•oild not have the less weight because coming
tam Cie Lammed Chief Baron Gilbert. Speaking of personal
tithes, he says, "'!'hat the enstomary payments 'made at Easter,
under the denomination of Eater Offerings, were at first a com-
pensation fur personal tithes ; for it cannot be reasonably supposed
that an Easter (Miring is due of common light, unless it be at the
same time aupposed,that it was at first paid in lieu ofsume thingduc
oh common right, and it stems more probable, that it was at first
paid in lieu of the tithe of personal labour, rather than of
any other thing." Ilere there was a very distinct opinion on
that subject from a very high authority. It is dear, that
Easter (Brerings are given in lieu of the very thing now claimed,
which offerings or oblations have been paid Cy the persona
stimmoned on this occasion. ledependent of this, which might lie
deemed a fatal objection, lie (Mr. Harmer) could undertake to show
the partiality that existed In the parish of St. Andrew, because
there were some persons who had not paid fur forty years before,
that were now called on for tithes. Was it, then, surprising that
they should not question a right, if it was one, which was suffered
to raisin dormant so long ? It was urged also, that many who
now refused had paid tithes before: so they might ; but then, they
found that they had paid it in their own wrong, and when they dis-
covered their error It was their duty to correct it. But, waiving
every question of right (observed Mr. II.), I shall now, with all
due submission, object to the Magistrate's jurisdiction in this case,
because I conceive that it is only what are called small tithes,
recognised in common law, that are contemplated in the statute.
Personal tithes are dente which arise front the labour and industry
of man only, being the ter.:h part of his clear gains in trade, which
are paid when due, by custom, thought but seldom, in England.
This opinion, in regard to personal tithes, is derived front Jacob's
Law Dictionary. and it appears very dearly that they were not
contemplated within the meaning of those tithes which conic under
the above denomination, to which the Magistrate's jurisdiction
a; phes.
Mr. Al rRZWETIIr R repiied at sane length, and Millet cal, that
Mr. flamer ',tented to have fallen into a mieconeeption as to his
(Mr. M.'s) views in regard to Dr. Grant's case. Ile (Mr. Mere-
srether) relied on the principle of usage bmadly, without taking
into consideration any o 6 the localities which might have been urged
against it.

Sergeant Sreenn—Then you do away with the authority
of parnelii,l usage; it is necessary to show • distinct understanding
as to that point, if we are to decide the questism.
Mr. Mtn tw Ernest resumed—The variation of sum claimed
did not do away the right, because it was not the house that paid
the tithe, but the person who occupied it, and consequently the
aunt must necessarily be variable in proportion to his capability.
It was laid down by Prideaux, a very ingenious and learned writer,
who published a treatise on tithes, that every persou or handicrafts.
man, should contribute to the support of the Rector of the pariah
in which he resides', in proportion to his earnings. There heel also
been a miseatieeptiun of the statute of Edward VI. as regarded this
subject ; there were particular exeeiptions fur London, Canterbury,
Norwich, and Coventry, Irmo the customary payments of certain
tithes, but those esemptione did not at all apply in the present case.
The Learned Gentleman then concluded with expressing his belief
that the object of the parishioners was rather to ascertain the precise
right, titan to withhold from their Rector a fair remuneration for
his labours; and in that conviction he would merely express a hope
that such an amicable arrangement might be conic to, as would
prove satisfactory to all parties.
Mr. Sergeant fi !Alm x commenced by saying, he could have
wished that a ease of such importance had not been submitted foe
decielon to him, as ore of the !tench of Magistrates. It was one
of vast consequence, rot merely as regarded the individual pariah
in which it originated, but to a certain extent might be considered
affecting the nation sit large, and was entitled to thy attention of a
higher tribunal. lit regent to the immediate question, whether it
should lie disensued before them, lie conceived there was stronger
validity in the objections urged on the part of the parish, than
might on a cursory view have appeared. On referring to the Act,
it did not clearly seem to hint that it see the intention of the
Legislature to submit such a momentous question to a Bench of
Magistrates ; he rather conceived that the object contemplated was,
to relieve the Rector front the expenses attendant on litlga.
thin in small cues, where the principle was clearly defined
and acknowledged, and payment rx suited, either through obstinacy
or any other motive; but the present question being altogether of
• different character, as it is for the eleablishment of the right to
("Rini that the parishioners eciaiend, the jurisdiction of the Magis-
trates admitted sonic doubt. The question, however, after all that
had been advanced. sae extremely narrowed, as the Learned Coun-
sel who condieled the plaintitrs cue seemed rincipally to rest on
established usage; he eertairly agreed in Mr. planner's view of the
case which was first cited by the Learned I ientlenian. With respect
to the second ease, quoted front flunbury's Reports, it appeared
that each patishioner had paid a distinct sum of twelve shillings
front time immemorial. Here was no partiality of claim, or carn-
ation of aunt, as app..are in the present cages respect to the
argument advanced, that if Rectors must necessarily have some
composition for the rnodur upon certain lands, when
built on, that they would of course lose those tithes which they
Previously received for such lands, he thought that very objection
seemed to give additunal weight to the argument respecting Easter-
gifts, for instance, on looking to the Duketif Iledford's estates. parti-
cularly in the parish of St.Pancres, it would be seen that the Rector's
income omit have immensely Increased, because, when • whole
acre of land paid, perhaps, only ris. more by those voluntary contri-
butions, the site of a single house returned les., Ifs., or probably a
guinea, iteeonlieg tii the feeling of the occupier. The 'seamed
Sergeant, after a very luminous and comprehensive view of the
question in ell its details, concluded by again expressing his revile, '
that the !lector hail not, in the first instance, broughtthe question
before a higher tribunal ; but, as both parties concurred in the yid-
iiion that every argument haul been employed, he would, with the
consent °lbis lituther Magistrates, withhold his final opinion fur
anolier week.

The other Magistrates fully concurred in this sugzestion, and
Thursday next was fixed fur the delivery of their judgment.

A r•Nariem. ASSANSINATION.—On the 'nth August
a native 1. North America, by trade a shoemaker, who
had some time before arrived in Mexico. was standing at
his shop door when the Mist passed. The people, 19 is
usual in Homan Cathelie countriia, knelt, seeing the pro-
CeSlion. A man fell on his knees at the dime of the shoe-
maker, and the shoemaker hanself knelt on a chair in di,:
interior. The rust at the door called upon the shoemaker
to kneel like himself, on the ground, without any regard to
where he stood at the tittle, and a dispute arising between
them, 11.:. fanatic drew out his knife, and killed the North
assassin made his escape, no doubt favoured

POLICE.

GL'ILDIIALI.

FLAW is Ma. ACT.—Mr. frffklea, • respectable
carcase butcher, who purchases very largely in Smithfield market,
had he. taken into custody by Matthews. • city officer, on Mon-
day, ut the instance of Charles Wheeler, 'Mr. Martin's Inspectnr,
fur ill-treating an ox in she market. Mr. lit MC ft IC YS, the So-
licitor, was to have attended on his behalf before the Magistrate that
slay, but being prevented by business, the hearing was adjourned
rill yesterday, two respectable lousekeepers unuertaking for Mr.
Wilkins's appearance to answer the charge, and he accordingly ap-
peared yesterday, accompanied by Mr. Hu /111.111LEYS, before die
Siting 31agistrate, Mr. Alderman lIEYOATE.
Wheeler was entering into • description of the facts of the
cruelty used, when he was interrupted by
Mr. HUMPHREYS, who required him to state first, generally,
-.

what i.ffence he charged against Mr. Wilkins.
It'lletler replied—lll-treatin an ox.
Mr. 111 etTs--I'llen I' object that the magistrate has no
jurisdiction. inasmuch as my client is not legally before him. Mr.
Martin's Act gives no authority to any person to take an offender
into custody upon view of the offence; and however different the
practice may have been, the Act expressly directs a complaint on
molt before a magistrate, who may thereon issue his 5U1141710111 or
warrant at his discretion, to bring the Daniel so complaints' of be-
fore hint IT any other Justice of the Pcace within the jurisdiction.
No such complaint has been made on oath in this Instance, and my
client ought Cot to have been taken into custody.
Wheeler, on this objection, shifted his ground. Mr. Ilum-
platys, he said, was mistaken. Ile was not proceeding under Mr.
Martin's Act, but under what is called the Smithfield Act, Elst
(ieo. 11. which gave authority to any person to apprehend the of-
fender.

31r. IVPII 'CT.—Then I ohject that under that statute you
are not a competent witness, inasmuch as you are the person
'linking the complaint, and on conviction, one taoiety of the pe-
nalty is by the Act awarded to you; you have, therefore, an an.

tereit in the conviction, and cannol

Mr. Alderman LYO ATE—Then, according to you, as an
offender may rot be taken into custody, no proceedings can be had
against hint without we know his name. this is but a bungling
Act, for while we are applying to learn his name, he may escape
altogether. Ido not blame you for taking these objections, but
when the law is endeavoured to be evaded by technicalities, it is
the duty of the Magistrate to watch more narrowly, and I shall
thereto:. desire the City Solicitor to attend.
A messenger was then sent for Mr. Newman, the City Solicitor.
Mr. t:strunscs said the provisions of the Act, though it was
rather a bungling one, were nor very extraordinary ; for it was not
till the last Police Act that • person seen in the streets with lead,
however strong the suspicion of his having stolen it, could be
stopped anti taken into custody between sunrise and sunset.
Mr. Alderman II EYGA TE asked Wheeler if there were any other
witness,* who had semi the act of cruelty, with which he charged
Mr. Wilkins, except himself.
Wficiler said No, but the officer could prove how grossly
he I.l't been abused hy Mr. Wilkins, and the persons around him ;
hut, said be, cannot I give up the penalty, and make myself in law
what 1 really ant in fact—a di.intetexted witness I I ant very ready
to give lip the penalty. It was never my object. I don't want it,
and I will give it up to Mr. Humphreys.
This proposition excited come laughter.
Mr. }lusteitures said the penalty must go to the person who
should prosecute to conviction.
Mr. Alderman Next:Ayr —I bate beard of persons being m-
imed in order to give evidence.
Mr. II u urn nEys—Nes, Sir • but never in eases of this sort.
You must award the penalty according to the Act, and nobody can
release the person directed to receive it. What he chooses to do
with it afterwards is quite another thing.
By this time the City Solicitor had arrived, and on the elifEcul.
ties of the case being stated to him. gave it as his opinion that the
objections made by Mr. Humphreys were fatal, and that no pro-
ceedings could be had as the case then stood, either under Mr.
Martin's or the Smithfield Act.

IVheeler instantly applied for a snostnor.s against Mr. Wilkins,
under 31r. Martin's Act, for wilfully ill-treating an as in Smith-
field on Monday last.
The City Solicitor said it was hard to ruts man in jeopardy
twice for the same offence.

Mr. Alderman H r VOAT e—ls it few the same offence as the one
we have just been inquiring into, and dismissed ?
Wheeler replied Nu. The summons he was now applying far vas
for a distinct ofrence.

Mr. Alderman 11EVOATT—Then let his complaint be taken on
oath, and a summons be homed.
Mr. Wilkins and his Solicitor then made their bows and retired.
The objection made by Mr. lilt metier TS renders Mr. Martin's
Act altogether nugatory ; for there a scarcely one case in fifiy that
have come before Magistrates where the offenders would riot have
escaped punishment entirely if they had not been apprehended
upon the spot. Scarcely any but the drovers, who happened to
hare their badges on, could ever have been brought to justice
under it.

QUEEN-SQUARE.
Yesterday James Rod, John Reynolds. and Jobs Enirry, the
three peranns in custody, charged with stealing lead from the pow.
der magazine at Chelsea College, were brought up toe further elm-
tnination.

J. Bicknell, Esq. Solicitor for Greenwich and Chelsea Colleges,
attended on behalf of the Admiralty, and submitted to the
Magistrate (Mr. Nemec), that from the evidence adduced on
the former examination, of finding the prisoner Mead on the top
of the buildings, endeavouring to screen himself by lying fiat on
the roof, and of Reynolds and two others being seen outside
the wall, there was no doubt of the prisoners' guilt.
It appeared that on the evening previous to !lead's being dis-
covered on the premises, a quabtity of lead had been ripped or
cut, ready for removal, which had been removed by the foreman
attached to the hospital the following afternoon, weighing about
1,34/0 pounds.
Mr. Bicknell considered a case had been made out against the
prisoners.
The Magistrate said, the priminers had been remanded, in es.
pcctation that further evidence would he brought forward against
them. Ile should not conceive himself justified in committing all
the prisoneni, who had a right to a fair and impartial investigation.
He would, however, remand them to a future day.