The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-12 00:00:00

ALEXANDER V. BURCHFIELD.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 90/.,
the amount of a cheque upon the bank of Young and
Co., given by the defendant in payment for two horses
bought by him from the plaintiff at an auction in the
" Repository," Barbican. The sale took place on the
10th of March, and on the morning of the 12th, shortly
before the cheque 'was presented, the bank stopped pay-
ment. The defence wa:, that the cheque had not been
presented within a reasonable time ; the plaintiff's case
being that he took the cheque w!th the un-
derstanding that, as it was too late for presentation that
day, he should cross it to his own banker, and hold the
defendant liable. Conflicting evidence as to the hour
when the cheque was given to the plaintiff, and as to the
conversation which then took place between the parties,
having been adduced at the trial, the Jury found for the
defendant. Sir T. Wilde obtained a rule nisi for a new
trial, chiefly on the ground of surprise, alleging that if
he had known the defence which was to be set up, he
should have been prepared to rebut it, and to prove
more completely the lateness of the hour when the sale
took place.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL!. this day showed cause against
the rule ; and after hearing Sir T. Wilde in reply,
Their LORDSHIPS said it was a very important case to
the mercantile world, and they would take time to con-
sider their judgment.

. CON SIS TORY COURT, Nov. 10.
SCALE AGAINST VELEY AND JOSLIN.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE stated, that the church of
the parish of Braintree, Essex, being in a dilapidated
state, and the Churchwardens having no funds to effect
the repairs, and a rate for that purpose having been
several times refused by the parishioners, a suit was
commenced in this Court by the Rev. Bernard Scale,
the Vicar, against Messrs. Veley and Joslin, the Church-
wardens, and the parishioners in general, and the Court
issued a decree, citing the churchwardens and pa-
rishioners
to appear and show cause why a monition
should not issue against the Churchwardens to take the
necessary steps for putting the parish church into re-
pair, and for providing necessaries for the decent
celebration of Divine service, and to call a vestry,
at a time and place specified, for making a church-
rate for the current year ;
,and against the parishioners,
to meet and make a rate. The Churchwardens ap-
peared to the decree, and alleged that they were ready
and willing to submit themselves to the lawful orders
or commands of the Court ; and, the parishioners
not appearing, the Court decreed a monition agreeably
to the tenour of the decree. On the Bth of September,
the Proctor for the Churchwardens alleged that his par-
ties had, in obedience to the monition, convened a vestry
meeting at the time and place mentioned therein, and
that they had, together with the vicar and certain other
parishioners, made a rate of 2s. in the pound, but cer-
tain other parishioners then and there present had re-
fused to join in making such rate, or to make any rate.
'rule meeting first assembled in the Vestry-room, but,
being numerously attended, it was adjourned to the body
of the church, the Vicar being in the chair. Immedi-
ately after the adjournment the Churchwardens produced
a survey and estimate of the repairs necessary to be im-
mediately done to the church. and of other expenses ab-
solutely and indispensably requisite, amounting in the
whole. to 733 E The necessity of the repairs was not
disputed, nor was any objection made to the amount
of the estimates. Mr. -taley, one of the Church-
wardens, then proposed a rate of two shillings in the
pound, which was seconded by a parishioner ; where-
upon an amendment was moved by Samuel
Courtauld, and seconded by Edward George Craig,
two parishioners, to the following effect :—" That all
compulsory payments for the support of the religious
services of any sect or people, appear to the majority of
this vestry to be unsanctioned by any portion of the New
Testament Sctiptures, and altogether opposed to, and
subversive of, the pure and spiritual character of the re-
ligion of Christ ; but that for any one religious sect to
compel others, which disapprove their form of worship
or system of church government, or which dissent from
their religious principles and creeds, to, nevertheless,
submit to support and, extend them, appears to this
vestry to be a yet more obvious invasion of religious
freedom, and violation of the rights of conscience, while
also it appears to be a gross injustice to Dissenters, as
citizens, to compel them to pay for the religious ser-
vices of others, in which they have no part, while
they build their own chapels, support their own
Ministers, and defray the charges of their own
worship ; that- compulsory Church-rates, and more
especially such rates upon Dissenters, thus appearing
to be, as a tax unjust, and as an ecclesiatical imposition
adverse to religious liberty, and contrary to the spirit of
Christianity, this vestry feels bound by the highest ob-
ligations of social justice and of religious principles, to
refuse to make a rate, and does refuse accordingly."
Upon a show of hands a great majority was in favour of
this amendment, which was declared by the chairman
to be carried; no person demanding a poll ; and no
other motion was made. The majority of the Vestry
having thus refused to make a rate, as required by the
monition of this Court ; the Church Wardens and certain
monition,a majority of the meeting,
and in discharge of the
the parish by the law and custom
oinb otherlgbae
tdri
ioaentne
c-cepaas
t3t;
oen not
of the realm, did, at the meeting, and while the
the Vicar, the Church-
e. The Learned Queen's
pa-
rishioners continued in vestry, make a rate of 2s. in the
signed
ep
ay by
rs
pound,r Church-
wardens, e s whichand v
otheras rate-payers.
Advocate, on affidavits of these facts, moved the Court
to decree all the parishioners of Braintree to be cited
to appear, and show cause why the said rate, made on
the 15th of July, in obedience to the monition, should
not be confirmed. The rate had bean made in this man-
ner in consequence of a suggestion from a high quarter,
the Court of Exchequer, in the case of " Burder v.
Veley and Joslin."
Dr. LUSHINGTON—The point was not decided.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE—No ; therefore it becomes
necessary to cite the parishioners to show cause why the
rate should not be confirmed. It is laid down by PH-
&aux and other authorities, that, rightly and properly,
all Church•rates should be confirmed, and it was re-
commended by Sir John Nichol], in the Stanmore case,
as the proper mode of proceeding, to take out a monition
against the parish.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON—I have followed hitherto exactly
the steps taken by Sir Herbert Jenner, in the Head-
come case (on the 22d of April), and I should be pre-
pared to continue to do so ; but I find that that case
:tends still.

The PROCTOR for the party proceeding in the present
case (as well as in the lleadcorne case) said, that in
that case, the rate due from none of the parties who had
refused payment amounted to 101. ; consequently, it was
necessary to summon them before a Magistrate ; that the
Churchwardens,being afraid to incur expenses which might
fall upon themselves, had declined to go on with the
suit. The Judge had, therefore, struck the case out of
the book. In this case the Churchwardens were going on
with the suit.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—The difficulty I have is this-4 am
afraid that we are going to complicate a matter extremely
difficult per se. In the first place, lam not aware of
there being any precedent in modern times. I apprehend,
with Sir John Nicholl, that whether a rate be confirmed
or not, you have a tight to sue for it in these Courts.
In this case there are these two points :—Suppose the
decree to issue, and be returned, and there be no appear-
ance, whether the confirmation would produce the effect
of closing all objections to the rate ; secondly, whether
I can confirm the rate under the circumstances. Now I
am ready to confirm the rate instanter, and then you may
sue for it ; and then will come the question, which must
come sooner or later, whether a rate made by a minority
is good or not. I shall confirm the rate without hesita-
tion, but I shall consider the whole question hereafter,
for I entertain considerable doubt whether, by issuing a
decree at: this time, .I could include the whole body of
the parishioners.
The Court, accordingly, confirmed the rate, the heading
of which did not set forth that it was made by-the minority.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER' Nov. 11.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MOULTNETT.
In this case Mr. Erle bad obtained a rule nisi for a
new trial, and the late Attorney-General (Sir Thomas
Wilde) had obtained a cross rule nisi for the production
of certain books. On its being called on this morning,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Sir Thos.
Wilde) said he was happy to inform the Court that upon
eonversation with his Learned Friend they would be
spared a long argument, as they had agreed that both
rules should be discharged.
Rules diaoharged accordingly.
TAYLOR V. ALTAREZ.
Mr. C. JONES moved to set aside a verdict for the de-
fendant which was found at the trial before the Secondary
of London. The plaintiff had been a sailor in the ser-
vice of the Portuguese Government, and brought his ac-
tion against the defendant for 191. due to him as prize
money. The defendant was an agent of the Portuguese
Government. The plaintiff's attorney called upon
him, and he said, if the papers were left with
him they would be examined, and if fourid
correct the money
would be paid. The papers were
left with him, and after two or throe calls the defendant
said they were all right, and if the plaintiff called him-
self he would pay him. The plaintiff called, but pay-
ment was refused. He (Mr. Jones) contended that the
promise to pay was sufficient to show that the defendant
had received the money for the plaintiff, and was enough
to bind him. The defence set up was that the defendant
was not the prize agent—that that office was filled by a
Mr. Waring. Now the evidence showed that although
Waring held hiMself out to be agent for prize money, he
was poksessed of no funds ; that in fact be acted as clerk
to the defendant, to whom the whole of the funds for the
payment of prize
money was entrusted by M. Mendi-
zabal, and was the only responsible party. He sub-
mitted that his promise to pay bound him.
The COURT thought the verdict
was perfectly right.
The action had been brought against the wrong party.—
Rule refused.

BRADBIIAw v. lIRADBHAW.
This was an action brought to recover 55/. 19s. Bd., An
excess of composition paid to the defendant. The plain-
tiff was insolvent, being indebted to the defendant. A