The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-20 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 2O, 1641.

STANTON LACEY HOUSE, SHROPSHIRE.
TO BE LET, READY FURNISHED,
with immediate Possession, an excellent MANSION
HOUSE, with extensive Pleasure Grounds, Walled Garden
well stocked with choice Fruit Trees, Hot-house and Green-
house, Coach. house, Stables, and Out-buildings complete,
beaudfullisituated, within one mile of Ludlow. Adjoining,
and belonging to the Mansion, is above 50 Acres of fertile
Meadow Land, the whole or any part of which the Tenant
may be accommodated with.
For further particulars apply to Mr. Humphrey Salwey, So-
licitor, Ludlow.

910 BE SOLD, pursuant to an ORDER of
A- the HIGH COURT of CHANCERY, made in certain
Causes, of LIVESEY v. LIVESEY, with the approbation of
JOHN EDMUND DOWDESWELL, Esq., one ef the blasters of
the said Court, at the Clarendon Rooms, South John-street,
Liverpool, on WEDNEsnAir, the 24th day of March instant,
between the hours of One and Twe o'clock in the Afternoon,
A FREEHOLD HOUSE and PREMISES. The Pre-
mises are in the occupation of Mr. Grapell, Bookseller, situate
No. 46, Church-street, Liverpool. The House is three stories
in height, and contains a frontage of 27 feet, and in depth, in-
cluding,the yard at the back, 115 feet, and comprises—On the
Ground Floor, a good shop, with private entrance, staircase,
kitchen, and scullery. On the First-Floor, good drawing and
dining rooms, with two small bed rooms over the kitchen and
scullery. On the Second Floor, three bed rooms in front,' and
two small ones. The yard at the back of the house opens
into Brookes's-alley, and contains a stable, privy, ash-pit, and
coal store. The Pre.niscs also contain good cellarage.
Printed Particulars may be. had (gratis) at the Master's
Office, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane ; of Messrs.
Grane and Son, Solicitors, 23, Bedford-row ; of. Mr. W. W.
Hastings, solicitor, 3, Harpur• street, Red Lion-square ; of
Mr. Samuel Fysen, solicitor, 28, Tokenliouse-yard, Lothbury ;
and of Mr. G. E. Custard, solicitor, 3, Berkeley-square, Lon-
dorr; and of Messrs. Winstanley and Sons, Auctioneers, Liver-
pool. CRANE and SON, Plaintiff's Solicitors,
23, Bedford-row.

PROMOTER LIF
ANNUITY CON PAP
friars, London. Established in

'E ASSURANCE and
IY, 9, Chatham Place, 81ack-
.1826.
•TOIL,S.
1 Robert Palk, Esq.
John Louis Prevost, Esc
S,muel Smith, Esq.
Le Illarchant Thomas, Esq.

DIREC.
W. Goodenough Hayter,Esq., M.P.
Charles Johnston, Esq.
John Towgood Kemple, Esq.
John G. Shaw Lefcvre,

TRUSTEES.

John Deacon, Esq., John G. Shaw Lefevre, Esq., P.R. S.,

Charles Johnston, Esq.

The leading Advantages of this Office are—
A low rate of Premium, without profits, er an increased
rate of Premium, with participation in the profits of the Office.
The following are the annual Premiums required for the as-
surance of 1001. on a healthy life in either case:—

lotion on the subject, as, according to that opinion, any Com-
missioner signing a warrant might be placed in a situation of
considerable difficulty. He did not think the Court, after the
legal opinions taken on the subject, more especially the opinion
of Sir W. Follett, was open to any animadversion for including
every description of property in the rate, according to the pre-
sentment of the Jury. After the Court had shown so great
a desire to act impartially on the subject, by including churches
as weil as chapels, he thought that the Court was bound to
carry out the law as far as they could, and if, as it appeared
according to Dr. Phillimore's opinion, there was a peculiar
protection thrown round churches, that was the fault, not of
the Court but of the law, and that they were bound to levy on
chapels and proprietary churches. After that opinion, he ap-
prehended no Commissioner would venture to sign a warrant
to levy a distress on consecrated property. He therefore
moved, that, on consideration of Dr. Phillimore's opinion, the
Court resolved that no warrant shall issue against consecrated
churches, chapels, and burial-grounds. tunic
111 r. Caacr. seconded the motion.
Sir G. FARRANT----I would oppose the motion if it meant to
say that warrants were never to issue. It required a higher
authority than that of Dr. Phil imore to set such a question at
rest.

A COIIIIISSIONF.R Supported the resolution; but after hav-
ing done so, he could not conscientiously sign a warrant for
levying distress on Dissenting •plaer of worship.
➢lr. MutuNs thought they ought to ascertain what eccle-
siastical censures were before they suffered themselves to be
frightened by them from carrying out the statute law.
Mr. J. WHITE thought the motion was premature. It would
be quite time enough to consider it when payment of rates
was refused. Parishes get a profit from churchyards, and thus
became traders, and how could property employed in trade,
and from which a profit was derived, be considered inter res
sacras? Churchyards derived great benefit from sewers, and
had no right to steal out of paying their just share of the ex-
pense. If they did, they ought to be refused every benefit of
sewage ; and if the parties claimed this exemption, let them
plead it.
Mr. THISTLETON DYER was certain that the adoption of
this motion would tend to disarm a considerable portion of that
hostility which was felt by the public against the Court. He
hoped the case had been drawn, as all cases ought to be drawn,
by the solicitor from the minute-book. He believed they would
have had no application for postponement from Mr. Butt to
the 7th May had this resolution been passed. That delay was,
in fact, settling the question.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir G. FA ItILANT, notwithstanding Dr. Phillimore's opi-
nion, ,could sign a warrant it it would have the effect of raising
a question in a Court of Law.
Mr. CRACE supported the motion, because it did notexclude
proprietary chapels from rateability, from which a profit was
denved. _ _ _

Mr. ATECKETT said if they were right in law, the Eccle-
siastical Court would be told, by a writ of prohibition, that
they had no jurisdiction in the case. He should, however, sup-
port the motion, because he thought they had no right to rate
any of this sort of property ; but if they were to exempt the
churches the Dissenters would have cause to complain.
Mr. GUNTER -would join Sir George Farrant in signing a
warrant of distress unawed by any ecclesiastical censures.
Mr. LESLIE wished to know whether this was the real caso
and opinion, because such had not always been furnished.
They had returned a case into Parliament from that Court
with an opinion which had never been given upon the case.
The opinion of Sir John Campbell was diametrically opposite
to the one returned by the Commissioners to Parliament.
The Cu Alnsimi said the worthy Commissioner had found a
mare's nest.—( A laugh. )
Mr. LESLIE thought they would find it not a very easy mare's
nest to make a false return to Parliament ; they might depend
they would hear further of it.

Several Commissioners rose to order, on the ground that Mr.
Leslie's statement had nothing to do with the motion, and that
he was disorderly in imputing falsehood and fraud to the Court.
The CHAIRMAN said the solicitor was in attendance, and
would answer any questions that might be put to him. In the
case alluded to Sir W. Horne and Sir J. Campbell had given an
opinion, which it was thought by those acquainted with the
law of sewers was wrong. A consultation was held with those
gentlemen and they revised their opinion, and the revised
opinion was the one alluded to. In the present case, how-
ever, the Clerk had answered that the case and opinion were
correctly given.
Mr. LESLIE said that the carrying the resolution was sign-
ing the death-warrant of the Commission. They had made
the decrees, and now this resolution went :to rescind a portion
of them. The decree had gone out of the Court. It was
the final judgment of the Court, and there were others
interested in, the decree who would see that they did
carry it out. The question ought to be tried by a higher
tribunal. He believed they could rate no one but land-
lord and tenant, yet the Commissioners had been
induced by the opinion surreptitiously obtained from Sir W.
Horne and Sir John Campbell, that they could levy a distress on
any goods on the premises ; but the opinion of Sir John Camp-
bell positively said that he thought the Commissioners could only
levy on the goods of the persons rated. He had always urged
the Court to try the question at once. They had gone on with
delay after delay. until atlast they would be beaten, because they
would have the wrong parties before the Court ; and if the
Court decided the late to be illegal they would have to refund
every sixpence to the ratepayers. He was the best friend to
the stability of th Commission who, when their rights were dis-
puted, urged the to try it at once. In allusion to his former
statement of the 1 rong opinion and the wrong case, he begged
to state that a cas was submitted to Sir W. Horne and Sir J.
Campbell, who had each given an opinion. A second case was
drawn up, and their opinion taken upon that. The second
opinion was attached to the first case, and returned to Parlia-
ment. It occurred in 1833.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY rose to order. The case had nothing to
do with the question of churches.
Mr. LESLIE contended it had, as the opinion had been
quoted when it was first proposed to rate churches, and in that
opinion they had proceeded to rate the premises instead of the
occupier, as they were bound to do according to the opinion of
Lord Coke, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Tenterden, and. Lord
Denman. Who was the owner of St. Giles's church ? who
derived the benefit from it? who was the landlord of
it? who was. the tenant of St. Giles' Church ? No
one ; and that was the reason their predecessors had never
rated it. He had at every stage of the proceedings warned
the Court. He believed that the public would not eventually .
suffer, but the Commissioners going beyond the authority
of the CoThmission would has e to pay the expense themselves ;
and he hoped it would be so. Was the mode of their pro-
ceeding one that ought to be adopted in a Court of Justice?
They had originally been misled into the adoption of the course.
He did not accuse the Court of fraud ; he believed it ad been
deceived. They must try the right, and the Boone hey did
it the better ; because if the rate should be decided against
them they would have the money to refund.
Mr. SMITH, the Solicitor, on looking over the case of 1533,
said it was evident that Mr. Leslie was right.
Mr. LESLIE said it was now admitted by their own solicitor
that the Court had returned a wrong case and opinion to the
House of Commons ; and on that wrong case and opinion they
had been induced to adopt their present course. He could
not vote on the present occasion, because he held their whole
proceedings to be void ab initio.
Mr. T. H. JOHNSON thought the error admitted by their
Solicitor was a most serious one, and he believed it was upon
that opinion that the traverse Jury had been misled. The law
had always appeared to him an extraordinary one.
The CHAIRMAN said in the first case, Sir W. Horne and
Sir John Campbell differed in opinion : in the second, addi-
tional arguments were submitted to them, and on those further
arguments being given, Sir John Campbell changed his mind,
and agreed with Sir W. Horne.
Mr. THISTLETON DYER thought it behoved the Court to
have the matter cleared up. It was a grave charge, that of
having made an improper return to the House of Commons.
Mr. FULLER said the simple question was whether the judg-
ment of the Court should be arrested upon the bare opinion of
Dr. Pli'llimore ? Could they by law make a distinction be-
tween a licensed place of worship and a consecrated one ? If
they thought the rate bad let it be abandoned ; if they thought
itlgood let them support it at all risks. He should not vote on
the question.
Mr. BEACH c:Aild not support the motion, believing, as he
did, that all property was liable to the Sewers-rate. He could
not, on the single ipse digit of Dr. Fhillimore, consent to
abrogate the decisions of numberless majorities of the Court,
and he should vote against the motion. Let them appeal to the
Court of Queen's Bench for instructions how to proceed, or
failing that, to petition the Legislature to bring in a Bill ex-
plaining whatever was difficult of understanding in the pre-
sent law.
Captain BAGUE thought that if this motion were carried, it
would stultify all their proceedings. He should certainly op-
pose it.
Mr. WILLOUGHBY replied, and the Court divided—
For the motion ..•
Against it
Majority against the motion

Mr. WILT:OUGHBY said he presumed :the Court would not
separate without coming to some decision as to what they
would do.
A Ir. LESLIE said the question, in fact, was decided by the
negativing of Mr. Willoughby's motion.
Sir Joint HANSLEft rose for the purpose of explaining the
reason of his absence when his motion relating to Special
Juries was called on. That motion had been postponed by the
Court to a day on which he had to attend a licensing meeting
of Magistrates. As soon as his business had been transacted
then be came to this Court, and understood that his notice
had been passed over, and that he must renew his notice, and
when he had been told that he left the Court.
The Court then proceeded to hear the reports of the sur-
veors, and having disposed, of some other ordinary business
adjourned at half-past five o clock.

juries, which shortly afterwards caused his death. He did
not see either of the prisoners actually strike the deceased,
but they were bosh active in the affray.
The surgeon who bad been called in to sttend upon the
deceased was then examined, and he. proved that his debar
was occasioned by injuries to the brain. These injuries
might have been the result of a f4ll on the stones LI- from
a blow, but he could not take upon himself to state posi-
tively which was the most likely to have occasioned them.
Mr. ESPINAFSE said, he did not propose to call any
more witnessses. The charge of assault, at least, api•eared
to he clearly made out.
Mr. BODKIN rerated his former statement relative to
the regret of the prisoners for the unfortunate occurrence,
and he at the sane time admitted that he could not defend
them from the charge of assault.
The Learned JUDGE having briefly addressed the Jury,
they returned a verdict finding the prisoners Guilty of an
assault'.

Mr. Baron PARRS tben said that taking into considera-
tion the eircumstabees of the case, and the fact that the
prisoners appeared to have already undergone some im-
prisonment, be thought the justice of the case would
be satisfied by the infliction of a fine of one shilling upon
each of the defendants, and that they should also be im-
prisoned for three days.
William Pearse, 45, was charged with the manslaughter
of Anne Hills.

It appeared from tl:c evidence adduced that the prisoner
and the deceased had a dispute about some trifling matter,
and the deceased threw a tea cup at the prisoner, and he
struck her. She then, it appeared, bit him, and in the
scuffle she NI to the ground, and injured her head so se-
verely that she died shortly afterwards.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and Baron
Parke, on consideration of his having already been in
prison several months, sentenced him to a further impri-
sonment of one month.

CIVIL SIDE.
SHOEBRIDGE V. WARD.

This inquiry was a prolix one, which related to the tithes in
the parish of Tenterden, and the question was whether the
clergyman was entitled to tithe in kind, or by way of modes or
composition.
Alr. THESIGER for the plaintiff, contended that the dis-
tricts of the different kinds of land had not been defined.
Lord DENMAN, who summed up considerable length, took
the same view of the case. _ - _

The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
There was another action against the same Rev. defendant
at the suit of Mr. Weld. The Solicitor-General consented to
the same verdict as in the last case, upon the same summing
up, and a verdict for the defendant was recorded.