The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-04 00:00:00

EC'JLESIASTICAL CONTEST.

The following' curious Anecdote, as reltted by
Archbishop BALDWIN, is given it) Sr;, Rick!Aiip
HOARE'S valuable Translation of that venerable Pre-
fate's Itinerary through Wales.—The Archbishop
was then Archdeacon of Brecknock.

" Having been settled only a few days in his re-
sidence at Landeu, near Brecknock, after a very la.;
borious journey he had taken to correct the
abuses that prevailed in the Provinces of Mely-
enith and Elven, he was surprised by the appear-
ance of two Clergymen, sent in a great hurry by the
Dean and Chapter of that district, to inform him that
Adam, Bishop of St. Asaph, was coming to dedicate
the chinich of Keri (which was situate on the con-
fines of the two Bishopricks, but of old had apper-
tained 'to that of St. David's), and that unless the
Archdeacon appeared there in person, nothing would
prevent his. taking possession of that church, or even
the entire province ; and • they intimated likewise,
that if no obstacle intervened, he intended to seize
the whole territory between the rivers Wye and
Severn, comprehending the. distriCts of Melyenith
and Elven. However harassed by his late ex-
pedition, and dissuaded by his former companions
and followers, who, more through fear of danger
than fatigue, refused to accompany him, he, never-
theless, immediately proceeded on hiS journey to,
wards the church of Keri. On the'. Saturday he
dispatched messengers to two Princes of that
Country, Eineon. Clyd and Cadwaihon, requesting
them to send some. trusty Men of their -families,
provided with horses and arms, to.assst him (if ne-
cessity required) in asserting- the rights of the church
Of St. David, as the Bishop of St. Asaph was re-
ported to be attended by a strong body ot mep from
Powys ; hoslept that night at Lranbist, and. oil. com-
ing to Keri early on Sunday mOrniug, fhund that two
or the 'Clergy, and the partizans of the Bishop, had
concealed the keys of the church : these.beiug at
length found, the Archdeacon entered the elruch,
,and having ordered the bell; to be rung, as a token
of possession, he celebrated mass with great solem-
nity. In the mean time messengers arrived from
the. Bishop, ordering preparationslo be made fur the
dedication of the church. .)lass being concluded,
'the Archdeacon sent some pf his Clergy, attended by
the Dean of the Province; to inform the Bishop,
".That,if came to Keri as,a neighbour and a friend,
he would receive him with every mark of hospi-
tality ; but if otherwise, he desired him not to pro-
ceed." The • Bishop returned for answer, " That •
he was coming in his professional capacity of Bishop
Of the diocese, to'perform his duty in the, dedication
of the church.". The Archdeacon and his Clergy
met the Bishop at the entrance to the church-yard,
where a long dispute arose abotit the matter in ques-
tioh, and each asserted their respective rights to the
ehuch olKeri. • To enforce his claim the more, the
Bishop dismounted from his horse, prated his mitre
on his head, and taking up his pastoral stall, winked
With his attendants towards the church: The Arch-
deacon proceeded to meet him, accompanied by his
Clergy, dressed in their surplices and sacerdotal
robes, who, with lighted tapers and up-raked cru-
cifix, came, forth in ,processional form : at length
each began to thccommunicate the other, but the
Archdeacon having ordered the bell's, to be rung
three times, as the usual confirmation of the sen-
tence, the Bishop and his train mounted their, horses,
and made a precipitate retreat, followed by a great
mob, and pelted_ with clods of earth and stones. This
resolute condudt of the Archdeacon gained him
the approbation of all .present, and. even of tlit
Bishop himself, who was a fellow-student with him
at .Paris.

The controversy at Keri being. thus happily ter-
minated,.Girahlus wtza, to the King at Northamp-
ton, and related what hi:d passed between him and
the Bishop of St. Asaph, who claimed a parish be-
longing to the church -of St. David, and which, in
at that time (the See being vacant) had lapsed
to -the CrOwn. The King commended -the Arch-
-deacon's conduCt 1-eSist ingthe claim, oft he Bishop,
and excited a generate laughter by telling the story to
his courtiers, who were'at that time assembled."

On Friday Messrs. MICHAEL and J AMES MoRRAIr,
Surgeons, Worthing, accompanied by. Ladies,
Lieutenant MAvoR, and a seaman, went to sea in
a pleasure :boat, off That place, but onset ving the
weather becoming foul, they put about to make for
the .shore ; arid jytst at the instant the boat wore, a
sudden squall of wind upset her. Very, fortunately
the Gentlemen were able to support the Ladies and
themselves, keeping hold of different parts ()Nile
boat, which did not sink, till they were taken up
by'another boat that put off from the shore imme-
diately on seeing the accident ; and in faheen mi-
nutes the whole party were happily relieved from
their perilous situation, without any material, injury:

. .
REPENTANCL:-=-A. Woman who travelled as a
hawker, bad, twelve years ago; stolen some clothes
from the Gleen of Ayr::: she carried them with her
toManchester, where she wi:nt and resided till she
died. • Three days 'before her death she presented
them to her landlady, • told her how'she had come
by them, and with sincere anguish requested her to
get them sent back to Ayr, dire6ted to •Dr.

!and to request him to advertise them, and she hoped
every one wouldget their own, as they were all safe
and sound. One part of them she said belonged to
.a Lady 'in the town, and these were packed up by
themselves, and have been returned. The rest lie
with Mr. .BONE, who receired the package last
week, till the owners shall claim them.

ANECDOTE.—Dr: PARR being asked his opinion
of certain Northern .Reviewers, who are peculiarly
charatlerized by lofty insolence and conteinptuou*
asperity, briefly but -smartly lisped from his pon-
derous wig—" Sir, they are Schoct-boys who have
never keen ;4:llipt."

One of the fine elms of the beautiful cluster of
trees in the Vines of RoChester was blown down by
the violent wind on Friday night.
Rvery day, almost every hotir, tends to increase
the high reputation and charader of the new Grand
Military Spectacle of The Brave Cossick, now re-
, preienting every evening, at the Royal Athphithea-
tre; with loud and-enthusiastic bursts" of applatise
indeed, such an HarleqUinade as Mother Bunch, and
such a produCtion as this Piece is (to say nothing Of
. avariety of other performances), we will venture ,
say, ere new; to be seen the course of one 4rici
the satin Eveniilg before.


-LAW REPOR7.

COURT OF CHANCERY, fuNE 3.

ATTOR:CEV GENERAL og-cilia NEWCOMBE, VULLAEVy
•

AND OTPIERS.

In this case, which excited very great, public.
'Wrest, as well as uncommon anxiety in the Parties,
the ArroteNtY GENERAL, on theinformation-of the
Rev. Richard Lendon,, and -several of the parishion-
• ers or the parisb'of St.. James, ClerkenWelle was
Mintiff, and the Churchwardens, Rich Newcombe,
Jeßtillard; the Rey. Hen. Foster, and other inhabit-
' iints -of the said parish, were Defendants, - The mai-.
ter iteissue has 'been sitrenuously litigated for near
three years, in this and the Spiritual Court; the ob-
Je t!A:being to try- the validity of an eleaion in that
paris!i, had in the year 1804, between the two cler=.
gy me a abovenarned, for the vicarage ofClerkenWell.
Mr. Foster was returned by--the Church Wardens
the successful candidate, and the information and bill
in this case were filed to try the validity of that elec-
tion, and praying an 'lnjunetion against the Rishdp
of London, to restrain him from eraming a licence
to Mr. Foster for officiating as the Vicar, .purSuanno
Such eleoion. The modes ainvestigating this elec-
tion were very unusual ,as suggested by the bill ; they
Were to go before the Master to examine the validity
of all the votes,•or to try, by a Jury each vote.sepa-
rately ; which must have been attended with infinite
expense, delayeand inconvenience to the parties. •
It appeared; that at the dissolution of monas-
teries, .the property in dispute came into the hands
of the Crown ; and on the-2d of June:; 1651 i, a deed
of ptirchae was obtained by the parishioners, and
• inhabitants of the parish, in. trust, to five several
trustees named therein, and to their- heirs for ever,
who were at all times to -eleta a Vicar upon every
vacancy, with a sum/of 41. 18. s. 6d. yearly; as a sti-
pend for the Curate. It happened that in the year
-1770, in the case of the Rev. Mr. Sellon,a similar
case to the present had been agitated between the
pai'ishioners of the same parish, and. a Decree pro,.
uounced by the Cdurt of Exchequer in favour of
the Plaintiffs, which directly applied to the present
case; as contended for by the Plaintiffs' •Connsel.--
The Churchwardens were' charged with pirtiality
and corruption in the Election, and much turned -on
the true meaning of the words " inhabitants" and
parishioners," which, tOe CHANCELLOR observed,
would, to an ing idotis mind, admit fifty diderent
constructions ; but the word " paying," not hereto-.
fore much disphted ainong LaWyers; became here cu-
riously interesting. Mr. Rion ARDS, for t hePiaintitis,
contendin;., that paying did mean having paid.. The
CHANCELLOR observed, that that might beta Welat
conStruction of the term, while MreßtexAans con«
tended, that, like the casein certain Boroughs paying
scot t and lots, to entitle a voter, he must have been six
previous months a resident, and have aaually paid ;
it did here mean, having paid the Church and Poor's-
rates, so thatit did admit that 'construction in Eng-
lish_ as well as Welch, and in Latin likewise.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, for the Defendants,.on the
contrary, forcibly argued, that the term " paying"
only signified here a liability to pay, or to being as-
sessed ; and humouronsly.reftited Mt. RICHAHDS'S
construetion of the term, by stating, that if the term
" paying" could mean " havi%,g, paid," the CHAN=-
CELLOR must prepare his mind, if he could, to,con-
•sider hint (Sir Ssmuitt.), then in the midst of his.
argument, 'as not• at all speaking, but as having al-
ready. spoken ; a circumstance, he thought, which
•
it would require Muth ingenuity in any counsel to.•
persuade his Lordship -of. Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY,
followed by tour other Counsel, two of whom sub-
stituted his argument for theirs,to save the time of
the Court, congratulated the parishioners of Clerken- ,
well upon the near approach, he hoped, of the final
termination Of a long; vindiative, and litigious con
test. carried on under the semblance or eolourof.re-
ligion, like other cases of the kind, upon their lips,
without the slightest the;:fure of it in their hearts ;
he added, that "no proof of partiality or-corruption
what-so,Ner appeared against the Churchwardens in
the eleetion or return ; and that even if there had,
t C9lrt had no jurisdiction over that question, as
It could not act, as tt 'Committee of' the House- of
Commons; that this was not /1 case of a charity or
donati{kii, tareet.private 'purchase, •t:-':to the stipend ;
and that the election was condueted not only with
the utmost fairness, but with unusual caution; that
the Decree of the Court of Ekehernier was unintelli- •
and should not he deiried a precedent ; that
the Defendauts should Have their costs ; and that, if
any ground had existed-for the -Plaintiff's to come to
this Court, under the Deed of Purchase,• or the trusts
thereof, such ground had been colupletely waived by
theMselves, previuns to the election, by. certain reso-
lutions regulating thciele,ttion, passed at a Vestry,
composed of • above todo persons, and which both
candidates unanitnottsly sent 'wand to every pa-
rishioner, without a single individual finding fault
with, Or obje.eting to any ono ofthetii.
The, CHANCELLOR being of this opinion, dismiss;
-ed the Information with costs.

COURT OF KING' BENCH, luriz 3.

1101.YtiEAU PACKETS.

THE KING U. JONES, COLLINS, AND OTHERS.

This was a reserved case upon an appeal against
the Order of the Court oi Session of W.des,-assessing
certain Poor-rafts to the Defendants, as inhabitants
of the parish of nulybead, in the 'lsland of Anglesea.
Mr. 1-161-aoyl)., to support of the Order,proteed-
ed to state, that the Defendants were. the Captairis'of
the Packets which carry the mail between Dublin and
Holyhead, and were 'assessed to 'pay Certain Poor's
rates upon persoml property' producible within. :the
said parish. The main questiOn was, whether the:
ships were of -that description of local and iisible
Vroperty within the. pariSh,l as carne within the theati-
in,g of tile Statuteof the.43d of Elizabeth ? He, there -
fore, meant to contend the point -upon the principles
'of the c<e e of the King v.:White..

. .
Lord -.E N -.Er observed, that there bad.
e.
been midi extraneous and coiLiteral matter intro-
duced,:ifito this Case;'such as these captains Meeting
with.bad \veather at sea, the-wind at such a point,
and their being obliged to turn back ; of some of
them going out of their track to Parkgate; in Order'
to take up some great personage or another; of their
going to take Mr. Lem, Secretary to the Post Of-

e . . .
tee, and !W ay °trier circUMstantes wholly. irrele-
_ OM to the question, before the Court. ' His Lord-
ship wished the argument to be confined - solely to
the qtiestion before them';
_and, as the case of- the
King v. White Was .relied Upon in support of the
Order. of Sessions, he wished to hear the other side
aS to that point.
Mr..PAattE, on' the other side; contended, that
from,a recent case of the King v. Collisson; although
the Court did not come to any final decision, they
seeinkt to throw out some observations Which went
to sh,ike the case of the King v. 'White in a con-
siderable degree. In the present case 'dr De,
fendarits entirely considered the Post Office as• their
master, they being bound to sail at their express
- desire for a stipulated Salary ; and as the Principle
was adtnitted, .that all salary for persqiiel labour is
not rateable, so in this case the party were-not rate-
able. The way in Which any profit arose from
these Packet-boats ;.vas from a there casual adven-
..,
. tare, in carrying\ passengers froth Dublin to Holy-
head and back, whiCh i'the 'Government 'mightre
Strain at any time, by suspending or disniissing,such
Commander froth their service. With eespecl to the
Register Ad, it did not it-fe& this case, as none but
tracking Vessels cane under the meaning of that Act,
all 4ng's Ships, and Vessels employed in the,King's
4erviee, being exempt.
-Mr. ABBoT, on the same side, contended, upon
.
general principleS, that Ships were not rateable, as
they certainly, were not peritimetitly Visible Within.
the parish, and as it was alone by 'voyages on the '
ocean that they became. produttive, !or its long as
they remained,in-port they must be unproductive ;
and being toneh oftener absent from port than in'.
Oa, they were not that description'of property which -
could he considered local and visible property, rate-
' able in certain proportions. It also beingslear that
all Vessels belonging to the Crown are not- rateable, ;
'and. these Ships inquestion being free froM all bar-
beur dtities, all' port duties, fight-hOuse; &c; for ,l
whiCh exemption the Post Office alloWs a certain sti-
pulatea salary ; and, therefore, under all these' cir-
cninstantes—first, that Ships are not property rate-
ablesecondly, from the particular service in which
they are employed for the public benefit, he sub-
mitted they were not lotal and visible property, such
as WaS subject to pOor's rates. -' ' • -
• Lord ELLtigliollOUGH, in giving -judgment, ob-
served,"that he could not see any thslinetion between''
this case mid flit ce,e of 'the
.King v. White : the
question being whether the Defendants are inhabi—
'tautseof the parish. in question --and whether these
vessels are-local and visible rateable prepertywithin the
meaning of the Act ? The pointofregiStration ,was
entirely out of the case. - It is evident it was local
and 'visible property, within the parish, .fora great •
part of the year. . The party here makes .hisecon-
trael with his passengers at Holyhead ; he- is -paid
at Holyhead by the passengers Coming from Dub-
. lin ; it is therefore a personal,prtiperty; producible
Within the pariShe and therefore rateable under the
Statute of Elizabeth.

The rest of the Court concurring in opinion with
his Lordship, the Rule for setting aside the'rate was
discharged, and the Order of &visions affirmed.

ne GOES.

THE LUNG V. SARAH SEAL.

This was a conditional Rule, on behalf. of the
Defendant, to quash a conviCtion for. keeping a
• Little-Go, or Private'Lottery, contrary to the Act.
MAit HYATT, in support of the Rule, objected
to' Me conviction upon these Bounds ; first, the
conviction did not set out the names of the,informer,
and‘of the person -.apprehending the' offender, ac-
cording to the -ACt,
,so that the party could not know
to whom the. penalty was to be paid, in order to
'her enlargement; secondly, the copviCtion did not
set out that the Magistrate before whom it took
place was' the Magistrate belonging, to that•
parti-
cular Police-OtliCe, ; thirdly,
,that the, Statute re-
quired that the person againA whorn the i.pformanon
was granted, should be hnutedlately- taken into cus-
tody ; when, in the present case, sne"Was not appre-.
headed. utitil three w)eeks after; and, Estly, that .it
did not appear that any Little-Go or private Lottery
• was discovered.
The COll/MON SElOZANT,irl'support of the con-
viction, stated that, he had only received his brief as
lie lett home for c6urt, this, morning, and was not
prepared to argue the points as he could wish, he
therefore. requested the induigende of the Court for
luture play ; Which was accurdingly'granted.

THE KING 'THE COMA ISSIONSH; OF SEWERS FOR

THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET.
This came on upon special argnment before the
Court, upon a return to a Mandamus directing the
said Commissioners to 'appoint a tieW rate for the
support and repairs of certain parts of the sea wall,
in that County. Instead of obeying the Mandamus,
the CoMmisioners made .a return to the Writ;
that they could. not comply. In ConsequenceOlsome
necessary, documents being wanted today before the
Court, the'special argument was .PcistpOned to a fu-
ture day. r.
- At -one o'clock Lord ELLENBbROtJOsT sat at nisi
PriUs, when the following, among other Ca 146.43,.
was disposed Of :
• WILLIAM WILLIAMS 11. MARY HARRIOTT, WIDOW.
This was an action upon a Bill of Exchange of
1771. and for work and labour amounting to 1471.
The Plaintiff was a carpenter formerly residing in
' tathboneplace, and the Defendant a widow, keep-
ing a public-house in Oxford4load; The Bill of Ex-
change was not given hi evidence; but the other
paft of the charge was proved. •
In answer to thIS -case,: it appeared that the
Plaintiff, soon after:the death ot. the-Defendant's
hutiband, insinuated himself into her good graces, by
the way (as she was now a single womanYoflook-
ing after 'her property for.her. He came to reside
in the ,house, used comitantli to serve the customers
with liquor, anti was in the habit of using the. house
AS his own,.going to the till and taking the contents
to pay.labourers, &C. 'He Went so tar as to otter
marriage to this Lady, until some inquisitive friend of
her's • disCoVered that he ha.: dwife and family'resici-
ing in Rathbone-plaCe; bin- being separated from
these, he proposed to live with the Defendant: At
one time she gave him the note in question, upon
couditicu that it was not to be' demanded until

otter her death; and he had almost persuaded her
4 tb cinit her. house in town, and go with him to re-:

• •
sicie
.at 'the Golden Lionpnblic-nblise, ttattsgite,
when he was arrested for debt, anci thrown into pri-
son. These parties bad frequent bickeringsabont
-coming to a seqlement of accounts ; and when she
accused him of being- in her debt, his constant
answer was " Where are your vouchers ?"

Lord El.f..F.Nßonouott 'left it to.the Jury to say,
under all the circumstances, whether they believed
this.was tretn the'Defeudant to the
Plaintiff? or whether,"by the latter residing entirely
in' the fortnels hOuse, and h'aving deceived various
sums of money„at different times froin.,her, the debt
might not 'have been liquidated ? -
. .

_ .
Tile Jury, after 'a moment's besitatioiljound.
verdi6t • fpr the .I)e' ferfciant.

Th 6 other cases ‘v ere of ,no public ItioinOlt.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTNIIN3TEr;kb
• ' JUNE 3.

DEAN V. BRETT.
Mr ;:.Serjeant SAEPLUEIIII applied
,for a Ruie to
show cause why a Mr. Sinith,,,arr Attorney, should
not pay ,to,the Peau„khe sum of 30001.
which, he liad received for the release of a bond
of annuity. From the statement made, it appearl.
ed that,. this Mr. had been formerly em-
ployetl, in his, .official capacity, lo .purchase an
annuity for 'Mr. Dean, from Mr. Brett. This
business he performed, made out the deeds accord-
ingly.> and received the annuity as Mr. Dean's At-
torney-, which he remitted to his Client. After a
considerable time had expired, Mr. Brett proposed
to release the annuity. Mr. ,Smith, as his Attar-,
ney, made out the necessary instrument of assign-
ment, and received back the -30001. from Mr.
Brett for the re-purchase; and 5001. of which
sum he iMmediately re-paid his Client. ' Some
time afterwards, hotVevery when applied to by Mr:.
Dean,for the remainder of the sum of 3,0001. he . re-
fused to pay it to hitn, alledging that he (Mr. Deat-ii'
his Client,) was tint ,in his sound "senses, and Was
therefore incapable of manao-ing his own affairs.
Rule granted.