The National Register.
London, England, 1817-03-17 00:00:00

ROGER 1111 lit:Or NE.

This %sus an action of a very nose' as well as of a very extra-
ordinary description, and cseited a emisiderable degree of
interest throughout the county, Dr. Free, %% ho is rector of
Sutton, appeared iu court, dressed in his canimirals, and was
prepared to take part in the conduct of his own cause. The
Court throughout was crowded almost to sallocation. The
jury, wliiele %vas common, having been sworn,
Jattiesson said, it became his ditty to detail to the Court
and Jury the particulars of this case. The plaintiff was rec-
tor of the parish of Stilton, an:l the defendant was lord of the
matter in which the said parish was situated. The action was
brought to recover penalties under the statute of Elizabeth,
for ;Jou-attendance at di% time worship. at his parish church,
thereby, iii consequence of his example, spreading contagion
around the country in which he resided. It was his wish to
abstain altogether from a statement of the eirciunstaliees
under w this action had tp.N.ii hmiught; he should, there.
fore confine himself to the sanpl't observation, that the plain-
tiff, in coining forward as the acettin of the defendant, was
solely actuated by a desire to enforce the laws for the ob-
servance of religious worship. The statute under which this
action was brought was the 2:01 of Elizabeth, by the fifth
section of which it was enact e.l, that all persons in England
absenting dualist Ives from divine worship, either at their own
parish church, or some other place appointed for public
prayer tier one month, forfeited a penalty of gUI. lie should
be enabled to prove, in this case, that the defendant had ab-
sented hintselt from his parish church for ninetet wombs;
and having done so, lie should be entitled to a verdict far ilie
full amount of the penalties, or in all events for twelve months,
which was the period within which the statute requited the
action to be brought. Witnesses were then called to prove
the case.

_
After which Mr. Sergeant Illossett addressed the jury on
the part atilt! defeudailt. Without entering on the coati-vic-
tims of the statute, he should be enabled to meet the plaintiff
in the most conclusive manner: tor, in the first instance, he
should be enabled to prove, that fur several months of that
period daring which the servant of the reverend pluintiffliad
so positively sworn that she had regularly attended Sutton
Church, no divine service had been performed in the church
at all: he meant the months of June, Jul, August, and part
of September ; during which months the plaintiff had so
shamefully neglected his duties, that he had received a moni-
tion from the bishop of the diocese. Ile should also prove,
that at other periods, the reverend plaintiff was so inattentive
to the performance of the religious service of kis church, that
his parishioners were constantly in a state of uncertainty as
to the hour at which service was to continence, or whether it
would he performed at all. Independent of this, it was
no very pleasent thing for the defendant, when he did go to church,
to haw a sermon delivered. which, instead of inculcating divine
truths, was made the vehicle of personal abuse to himself. With
these facts before them, the jury would be able to firma a pretty cor-
rect judgment of the motives of this action. The next ground on
which he rested, with confidence, on tl s goodness of his own cause,
he derived from the game of Elizabeth itself; for by the statute of
the lit of Elizabeth, which was embraced by the 41d, it was enacted,
that where the defendant in a qui tom action, such as that now before
the Court, could assign a reasonable excuse for absenting himself
from public worship, and s!asuld afterwards contbrin to his religious
duties, the action should be quashed. On this head of defence he
'honk' be enabled to prove that Sir Montague Burgoyne, who was a
General in the British service, had returned from Gibraltar in eSIA,
in a moat precarious state of health, and bed continued thus afflicted
down to the present day, a circumstance which he hoped, in addition
to the uncertainty of the performance of church service at Sutton,
would tsmsidered a sufficient excuse for his non-attendance. With
regard to his sentiments on the subject of religion, those would be
best proved by the evidence he would adduce of its being his invaria-
ble practice to read the church viewers to his family every Sunday,
when capable from the state of his health so to du; and it' unable
himself to perform that duty, to call upon Lady Burgoyne to read
for him. Ile should also prove, that pruyers were frequently read in
his house by the itev. Dr. Hughes, in his occasional visits to his
family. There was another ground on which he was still more de-
cidedly entidsd to a verdict. This was to be found in the statute of
the Ist James 11. c. 4, whereby it was enacted, that uny person of-
fending against the statute of Elizabeth by a non-attendance of di-
vine wors:iip became exonerated from all consequences, by conform-
ing to the rules of his church before judgment was obtained, and de-
claring himself publicly to be a faithful stun of the I. hunch of Eng-
land. This Sir M. Burgoyne had done in the presence of the Bishop
of the diocese himself, and was there ready again to declare openly in
Court his high veneration for, and accordance in, all the principles of
the Christian religion.
Evidence was then called to support the defendant's case, and
Nlr. Baron Graham being of opinion that a reasonable excuse for
the non-attendance of the defendant at his parish church had been
proved, Mr. Sergeant Blossett did not call any more witnesses.
His Lordship abstained from snaking any remark upon the mo-
tives by which the plaintiff had bled actuated in this action; but at
the same timetemarked, that so liberal mind could have construed
the statute of Elizabeth in the manner in which it had been con-
strued by him. He left it for the Jury to say, whether a reasonable
excuse had not been proved for the non-attendance of the defendant
at church, and whether, in other respects, the (sue of the plaintiff
had not received a complete answer.
The Jury without hesitation found the defendant—Nut Guilty.

The Avizes for Oxfordshire commenced on Thursday week.
Hr. Justice Park sat on the Crown Side, and Mr. Justice
Burrough on the CI% il Side.

William Archer, an °indent farmer, aml John I lityrock, a
respectable farmer, were both capitally convicted, and sen-
tenced to dead., for set.tag tire, in July, !Mk, to a clover rick
and barley rick, the property of Aun Burkett, their neigh-
bour, at the parish of Great }Murton. —The circumstantial
proofs of their guilt were—footsteps traced through the dew
to Archer's house, and threats of vengeance from both pri-
soners, in consequence of some precious grudge—Archer was
proved to ha% e said to others, that he %visited his right arm
might drop Flom his shoulder blade, it' he did nut do the
ilacketts a private injury"—and Haycock used these ex -
pressions—" that the liuckeits blamed hint and Archer I'm
stabbing their horse (they had a horse stabbed); tiny had
better take cam what they said, or they would have another
injury dram them that night or the next, and their ricks unclad
be set on tire the next MA!, -- his heart."—Not the slightest
hope of mercy was held out to them by the Judge.
J. Becher was capitally indicted for wilfully and malici-
ously setting tire to a !rid. In a seroad indictment he was
charged with stealing front the sail will a gnu, two jean
ock•, awl three ferrets, the property of T. Ilai% kes and E.
oods.—Respecting the evidence as :41)03 inz to the charge
of arson. Mr. Josiire Park observed, that there was art a
1.. le of es idence to prose that any malice existed between
6, wit:otter and proseec:oe, or tact lie was cell near the
pt. ibises on the night of thy tire. The Jury fouLd

.A._