The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-29 00:00:00

A SIMILAIL APPLICATION.

Mr. GIRDLESTONE, jun., stated,;l;;lt was with great
reluctance, after the severe manner in which his Honour
had observed upon the former application, that he had to
make a similar request to the Court. The circumstances,
however, of the case, were different. He appeared as
Counsel for the defendant, who was suing in forma pauperis.
The solicitor, in his affidavit, stated that he had directed
his clerk to watch the cause, which he undertook to do, but
through forgetfulness he had omitted to watch the list, and
the cause came on to be heard, without any person appear-
ing on the part of the defendant Martha Landsley. The soli-
citor also stated that the claim of the plaintiff was doubtful,
that the defendant was a widow, and that he had under-
taken her cause from motives of humanity, and that•he
did not intend to call upon her for the payment of any costs.
The Ali rrEit of the ROLLS thought the destitute situa-
tion of the poor woman was a reason why the solicitor
should have been more diligent.
Mr. TIIESLOVE asked for the costs, which
The MASTER of the ROLL: declined giving any account
of, its being a pauper cense.
Mr. TRICSLOVE observed that his Honour could give
the costs in this instance, as the solicitor bad stated it was
not his intention to charge his client with the costs.
His HoNoust dismissed the application without costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
Nothing of any public importance took place in this
Court to-day, previous to our reporter's leaving.
Sir Charles Wetherell took his seat this morning with-
out the bar, the Learned Gentleman's patent of preee-
.leney having expired on the death of the late King.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
istasiDA3LUS...—NOVEL •PPLICATION.
Mr. COLERIDGE applied on behalf of a gentleman named
Blackmore, residing at Devonport, for a mandamus,
directing the Rev. J. St. Aubyn to bury the body of a
child, which be bad positively refuted to do unless his fees
were first paid. The short facts were these :—ln No.
Ivember last Mr. Blackmore lost a child, and he being
Anxious to bury it in the same vault in which its mother
and some other members of the family hail been previously
*nterred, and which vault was situated in the church
card belonging to the church of which Mr. St. Aubyn
was Rector, applied to that gentleman for leave to open,
the ground, but Mr. St. Aubyn refused his consent, un-1
fess a fee of 21. 16.. was first paid him. This was re-
fused on the part of Mr. Blaekmore, and the consequence,
was that from November to the present time the child]
remained unburied. A suit has been commenced in the
Ecclesiastical Courts to compel Mr. St. Aubyn to bury
the child, but the Judge of that Court recommended, as
the suit was likely to take a long time before it could be
decided, to pay the amount of the fee demanded into Court,
and to make an application to the Court of King's Bench
for a mandamus. This course he particularly pressed
to avoid the scandal that attached to the body not being
buried. The fee had been paid into Court, and when the
corpse was taken to the church-yard, although the Rector
did not object to the spot of ground, lie again positively
refused to bury it, unless the money was paid to him. It
became therefore absolutely necessary to make the present
application. The Learned Counsel contended that a
Clergyman was not entitled to his fees until after the
burial service had been performed. The vault in question
had been built at the expense of Mr. Blackmore, and
the Rector could not, nor did not dispute his exclusive
right to it, but insisted that the ground should
not be opened until his fee was paid. Their Lordships
would recollect, in the case where a Clergyman refused to
inter an iron coffin, the Court granted a mandamus, and
Lord Tenterden, on that occasion, said, " That if a
clergyman refused to bury, that Court would grant a
mandamus, although it certainly came within the juris.
diction of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; yet the progress ef a
suit in those Courts was so slow, that it justified the inter-
position of the King's Bench." He hoped, therefore, the
Coast would take into its consideration the feelings of a
parent under such circumstances, and grant the mandamus.
Mr Justice BAYLEY said, he considered this an appeal
to the feelings of the Court, and not to its legal jurisdic-
tion. He did not think they should be justified in grant-
ing a mandamus to compel a clergyman to bury in any
particular spot of the church-yard, they certainly could
direct a course to put him in motion, but they could not
point out any specific cause. If the Court were to di-
rect a body to be buried in any particular vault, it perhaps
might be doing an act in direct violation to the just rights
of the clergyman ; that was a question of which that inde-
vidual and the churchwardens could onlybe the proper judges.
His Lordship, in conclusion, said he thought there might
be no objection to grant a rule, calling upon the Rector
to ebew cause why he refused to bury.
Mr. Justice LITTLEnaut was of opinion the Court,
ought not to entertain the motion. It was a very unusual]
thing for a clergyman to refuse burying a corpse, particu-
larly when it was to be interred in a family vault. Thel
clergyman certainly was the proper judge of the proper
spot for such purpose, and if the Court granted applica-I
tions like the present, one part of the church-yard might
be crowded with graves and three fourths of it unoccu-
pied. He thought the rule ought not to be granted.
Mr. Justice PARE—This in my opinion is a matter en-
tirely for the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Courts. If
the party hare a legal right it can only be enforced in,
this Court by an action at law, and not by mandamus.l
He thought the rule ought to be refused. —Motion refused.
Lord Tenterden did not take hie hat in Court this
morning.