The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-17 00:00:00

NEW COMIC ANNUAL.

Thts day was pu! Med, price 12s. elegantly bound in
morocco, and illustrated with Ninety seven beitutiful
Engravings an Wood,
THE NEW COMIC ANNUAL,

for 1631.
It is from first to hot a budget of drolleries-,..fu1l of
pulls, curious conceits, witticisms, in Pale and
verse."— Despatch.
" The ditlication, preface, contents, plates—all are
good."—E.dinhurgh Literary Journal.
" The head and Tail pieces are extremely humorous, as
well as abundant, and the whole volume is replete with
fun. ".• :
I
Bell's
Bunt, Lie frs
ti Lath:.
London
Church lard. and Clot.,Sit. Paul's
Where my had a Nov Edition of
'WHIMS awl ODDITIES, Second Series, by THOMAS
HOOD, price 10s. 6d.

!MOPING COUGH CURED wITHota INWARD

• - -
111V(DICINE. -
TN consequence of the beneficial effects of
ROCHE'S EMBROCATION for the Cure of that
distressing Complaint, the HOMING COUGH,
Majesty's Letters Patent were granted t ) J. 1101:11:%• to
secure to him his valuable campnoitiomr
Many thousand% of children are Cared *Annan!, by this,
rettleitY; On the first attack, en immediate aPidieatitn..l of
the EMBROCATION will prevent the ronoOlitit tatting
any huld of the constitntion, mkt ;f w tunes may com-
pletely cure. ku tin 41%3 r,betinate cars, perseverance
will Nothing' the desired effect, and no remedy CAA be so
tivell calculated for children as this, for it requires no me-
dicine to be taken iuwgrdiy, In no cog* c4ll 004 tuo-
ilicine he geunine unlesi hived on tko. veruppee, J.
Roche."

Sold by It. Edwards, 67, St, P.iure, London, (who.**
144cOtt itturaddress 14 engraved on the Stimp,) in itottlesa
prime 4r. ; and Strndling, Exvlionge Gates, Corahil4;
awl way aho be purebinied of the tiookarlie.r. apt.' 1)01100'.

This .was an fiction under the statute of the 2titl,
of Henry' VIIL, c. I I, to recover the value of the
profits of the Rectory of Woolhampton, in Bellt•
shire, which were claimed to Moog to the plaintiff
as rector, during the alleged vacatiost of the church.
The ease was tried before Mr. Justice DAMN,
in the absence of Lord Tenterden, at the sittings in
Nliddlesex, in January, 1829, awn a verdict was
entered for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of
the Court on several questions of law, which now
came on to be argued on a special csce. . •

The facts appeared to' be these 1782, two
sisters, waned June and Harriet Deane, became
seized of the Avowson of 'Woolhampton in grass,
as of fee-tail in copurcenary. Harriet, who was the
rungest sister, intermarried with the Rev. Lancelot
Greenthwaite Halton. Jane Deane who, us the
eldest sister, was . entitled to the next presentation,
sold her .intorest to Mrs. Muria Cove, in 1799, for
3,251!.. In February, 1800, the church haring be-
curie raeatit by the death or: the. last incurn-'
bent, Mrs., Cove presented Iter4-4toin, the Rev.
EdWard Cove (the defendant), and he was accor-
dingly instituted and inducted, having., at the same
time, accepted another living, viz, the Vicarage' of
Brimpton,into which he was admitted without having
obi ainedfrom theßishep any dispensation to hold both
livings together. Each of them was below the
yearly value of 8!. in the King's books. Jane, the
eldest sister, who, after the sale of her moiety to
Mrs. Cure, had married a person of the name of
Fowler, died in September, 1801, without issue;
and it turning out that the advowson had descended
in tail, Mr. and Mrs. llalton became seized of the
entirety in fee tail. On the 8h of July, 1823, they
presented their son, the Rev. Lancelot Miles Halton
(the plaintiff) to the Bishop for admission to Wool-
hampton, as having become vacant by the de-
fendant's acceptance of the vicarage of Brimpton.
The defendant having continued, de facia, in ph-
session of Woolhatnpton, and the Bishop having
refused to admit the plaintiff on the ground thut the
church was full, Mr. and Mrs. Halton brought their
writ of qunre impedil against the Bishop and the
present defendant, returnuble in Hilary Term,lB26.
The proceedings were continued until Hilary Term,
1827, when the defendant, Mr. Cove, having with-
drawn
his plea, and confessed the action, the plain-
tiffs recovered their presentation. A writ of
admittendumeterieum was then issued to the Bishop,
commanding him to admit the present plaintiff to
Woolhampton; and he was accordingly edmitted on
the Bth of February, 1827. A writ of inquiry was
also issued to ascertain the minuet veloe of the rec-
tory, and by the Sheriff's inquisition taken thereon,
the value was found to be '2251. 7s. 1 Id. a-year.
Judgment was then obtained against the defendant,
on the genre impedit, for 1121. 13s. I IV., half 14
year's value, which sum the defendant paid.
The plaintiff's right to the tithes and emolu-
ments of the rectory arising during the ullegod
vacation, or to the value thereof, wits claimed to
be founded on the statute of the 28th Henry VIII.,
cap. 11., " for the restitution of the first fruits in
time of vacation to the next incumbent."

The defendant pleaded nil Met, and a set-uff for
work and labour done by him, in preaching and
celebrating divine service in the chtttoh of Wool-
hampton, and also inuollectius the tithes, rents,
and profits, &c. •

At the trial, a verdict virus forsnutlet. thetplaintiff,
for 2301., for one year's value of the rectory, sub-
ject to the que.tion whether the action would lie,
and with leave to the defendant to move the Court
to order u verdict to be entered for him if they
should be of opinion that the action would itot
and also, with leave to the plaintiff to More to'
increase the verdict found for itim by the sum of
11a, for a further half.year'a value of the rectory,
if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintif
was entitled, under the circumstances of the case,
as found at the trial, to more than one year's value
thereof.

The questions now were; first, whether the ac-
tion would lie; and secondly, if it would, whether
the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the Bth
of July, 1825, the time of his presentation, or only
from the time of his bringing the quire impedit.
Mr. Sedept Russum, for the plaintiff, observed,
that the operation of the presentment was in the
nature of a re,entry. on a voidable benefice; and
the benefice in question, which bad before become
voidable, was made void on the presentment of the
plaintiff. The tithes and emolument* of the living
which were now sought to be recovered were in
the nature of mesne profits, and if the Resentee
could not recover them, they would go to a
wrong-doer.

Mr. TaLvouttn was heard on the other bide, and
in a long and able argument (for which he was
complimented by Lord Tenterden) cited a variety
of cases, and referred to other Aota of Parliament
to show that the vatattion contemplated by the
statute was where the living was vacant de factu
as well as de jure, and did not apply to a case
where the living was de facto full.
Lord TENTERDEN, at the conelasion of the argu-
ments, said that the Court would consider of the
case before they gave their judgment.