The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-27 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR sat at Lincoln', Inn
and took motions to. day.

VIGERS V. LORD AVDLEY.

This case came before the Court upon motion to discharge
an order made in August last, by which a Commission for a
sequestration against the noble defendant was directed to
issue, in consequence of his Lordship not having answered the
different bills filed against him and his father, the late Lord.
The original bill was filed by the plaintiff as Chairman, in the
name and on the behalf of a Joint Stock Company, formed
for the purpose of working mines belonging to the late Lord
Audley, for the specific performance of the contracts entered
into with them. The late Lord Audley died before
he answered that bill, and the present Peer was made
a party by supplemental bill. In consequence of the
change of parties, the filing of other bills became ne-
cessary, all of which the plaintiffs called upon the de!endant to
answer, which he declined doing, on the ground that he had
not been furnished with the office copy of some of the bills,
which the plaintiff declined to give him. In consequence of
the refusal of Lord Audley to answer, application, was made
to the Court for a sequestration. which was granted, and the
discharge of that order was the object of the present application.
Mr. JACOB and Mr. TOLLER, supported the application.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE, Mr. WAKEFIELD, and Mr. ROGERS,
opposed it.

The case was proceeding when our reporter left.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

The Court sat this morning in Banco, for the first time
under the new Act, the Nisi Prius sittings having been for-
mally adjoutned till Monday next.

PARK V. TAPLET, CLERK.
Sir WM. FOLLETT said this was an action to recover a
penalty of 100/., brought against the defendant, who was
Vicar of the living of Crewe, in Northamptonshire, for having
acted as a justice of the peace without being duly qualified.
It appeared that the defendant held the living of Crewe,
which was valued at 500/. per annum, and that a writ of fc. fa.
had been issued, to which the Sheriff had returned that the
defendant had no goods or chattels in his bailiwick, and
he further certified that the said defendant was Vicar of
the living of Crewe, in said county. On production
of an examined copy of the Sheriff's return relative to the writ
of fire facia*, a writ of sequestrari facies was issued
out of the Court of King's Bench on the Bth of April,
1834, directed to the Bishop of Peterbirough, marked
for the sum of 2,2761., and on the 18th April posses-
sion was taken under the sequestration. It appeared further,
that another party had taken possession under a previous writ
of sequestration, and that a sum of 1201. per annum was al-
lowed the defendant out of the rents and profits of the living
by the Bishop to provide " for the service of the church," and
that at the time the action was brought, no portion of the
rents or profits of the living had been received under the last
sequestration. The important question which their Lordships
had to decide was, whether or not sequestration having issued
against the living, which was supposed to constitute the quali.
fication of the defendant, and the sequestrator having entered on
possession, and it having been made public, that living was any
longer a qualification to the defendant, entitling him to act as
a Justice of the Peace. That would depend in a great mea-
sure upon the words of the Statute, the 18th Geo. 2d, Chap.
20. The first section, after reciting " that it was of the ut-
most consequence to provide against persons of mean estate
acting as Justices of the Peace, and the law not being suffi
cient for such purposes, it be enacted, that from after the 25th
March, 1746, no person shall be capable of being a Justice of
the Peace, or acting as such in any county, riding, or division
of England or Wales, who shall not have eiiher in law Of
equity for his own use and benefit, a freehold, copyhold, or
customary estate, for life, or for some long term of years, in
lands, tenements, or hereditaments, lying and being in
England or Wales, of the clear yearly value of one hundred
pounds over and above what would satisfy and discharge
all incumbrances affecting the same, and over and above
all debts and charges arising or payable out of the same."
That was the part of the statute which referred to the de-
fendant's case. He would now call the attention of the
Court to the effect of a sequestration. The writ of sequestra-
tion entitled the party taking possession to all the rents, tithes,
and profits arising out of the living, until the debt was satis-
fied ; and he would ask, how could it be contended that under
such circumstances the defendant had any interest in the
living, or was entitled to :any of the rents, tithes, or profits
arising therefrom ? After sequestration the defendant was
413 far out of possession that he could not bring an action of
ejectment upon whom he had served notice to quit. The
Learned Counsel Cited the cases of Doe Dem. Morgan v.
Pluck, 3d Campbell, 447; and Atterley v. Kelly, 6, vol.
Barnevvall and Creswell, 630, in support of this point.
With respect to the fact of the Bishop' having appointed him
stipendiary curate at a salary of 1201. a-year, be contended
cthleargttyhmeadn efendant could not be said to hold it in right of any
freehold tenure of the land, because it was held by the Bishop's
license, which might be revoked at any time, and another
appointed. Under all the circumstances, he sub-
mitted that at the time the defendant was acting as a Justice
of the Peace, he was not duly qualified.
L. was contended on the other side that the defendant bad
never lost his interest in the living, and that the Bishop had
not the power to remove him, and appoint another person.
The sequestration could no more be considered a deprivation
po fr
Aftervi interest t
te hr
ee
as
lt
av,
ent
rdh
ylaonlrednthogfethpheiunstettd aeriintlg.of bailiffs into a house could de-
gument, the Court took time to
consider its decision.

EXCHEQUER COURT_(THIS DAY.)

brought for the
( Sittings at Nisi Prius, beforethe Lord Chief Baron and a
Lsrt.a—tedwattLaEt athivs
areatirsoNtiv:aAsTß
Middlesex Common Jury.)
Mr. THEAZAav
purpose of recovering compensation in damages for an alleged
assault and false imprisonment inflicted upon the defendant, a
young woman, under aggravated circumstances. The Learned
Gentleman then detailed the circumstances of the case as they
appear in the evidence following. He said his client - was not
altogether to be defended on the score of morality; she had
unfortunately made a slip in early life, but he would prove
that there was not the slightest foundation for imputing tiara
course of life to her which would appear upon the police sheet
at the instigation of the defendant. He trusted the Jun
would show by their verdict that even the liberty of the unfor-
tunate could not be played with with impunity.
Elizabeth Challingham, examined by Mr. MARTIN._
She resided at Ply mouth : said she knew the plaintiff In
June last witness came to visit her at Cleveland-street, Fitz-
roy-square. On the 10th of July they were in Cleveland-
street, where there was a procession of children. They stood
to look at them, when the defendant came up and said,
this is in commemoration of the Queen?" suppose Plaintiff
said, " Indeed, Mr. Pennyfather I" Nothing further pa'sed,
and they separated. Witness and plaintiff went down Grafton
street and again met the defendant in Howland street,
when he and a policeman crossed the street, and
plaintiff was given into custody by the defendant, who said she
had annoyed him. She was taken to the station-house in
Little Albany-street. The defendant walked with them and
said he would give her a night of the station-house. When
there he said if plaintiff would beg his pardon he would not
press the charge ; but she refused, because she had not an-
noyed him. When she was locked up the defendant said,
Never mind, Jane, it won't be long; I will get you bail my-
self." Witness went and obtained hail, and got her out about
twelve o'clock. Mr. Pennyfather did not appear at the
Police-office, and plaintiff was discharged.
Cross-examined by Mr. PLATT—Plaintiff did not keep a
shop, nor was witness aware of any private fortune she en-
joyed. She then lived in lodgings, but received no visitors.
Witness got her living by working at lace-work for a factory
in Nottingham, and resided with her friends. Mr. Penny-