The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-19 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Fri. 18.

LIABILITY OF SERJEANTS%INN TO THE PAYMENT OF
POOR? RATES.-9ERJEANT LENS V. BROWNE AND BUR..

NELL.
This-was an action brought against the overseers of the pa.
rish of St. Dunstan in the West, for having illegally seized a
table of the vable of lit., the property of the plaintiff:
Serjeant VAUGWAN, for the plaintiff, said he felt exceedingly
anxious that neither the interests of his clients nor the interests
of the learned body to which he belonged should sustain any
injury. The plaintiff, the Jurymust know, was the King's
ancient Serjeant, who had retired from the bar, to the regret of
all who knew him ; and the general sentiment of the profession
towards hint was comprehended in the powerful words of
Shakspeare—

take him for all in all,
" We ne'er shall look upon his like again."
The defendants were the overseers of the parish of St. Dunstan
in the West, and the question whether Sergeants'-inn, a place
in which the sages of the law resided, was not liable to the poor-
rates, was conscientiously raised by them. For the first time
the provisions of the 43d of Eliz. cap. 2, were enforced in the
case of Seajeant's.inn, and they resolved to try whether it was
to be considered extra-parochial, or liable as parochial, to the
payment of the poor's-rates. Although the question was of
immense importance to both parties, it must be decided by the
mere fact of locality. There was a strong presumption against
the parish in the circumstance of their having permitted their
now avowed claim to slumber for nearly two hundred years.
The inn was as remarkable for its architectural beauty as for
its antiquity. From the reign of Richard 11., which recog-
nized it as the residence of the sages of the law, its history had
been brought down. It formed part and parcel of the posses-
sions of diocese of Ely. To ascertain the antiquity of the
division of parishes must be matter of difficulty. The year 630
was pointed out by Camden as the time of the division, whilst
Hobart laid it down that parishes were enacted in 1179. How-
ever, as bishopricks, archbishopricks, and dioceses were esta-
blished before parishes, the presumption was, that this land,
which was in the see of Ely, was possessed of all the privileges
and exemptions which at all times belonged to the church
lands. 'file see of Ely was possessed of the very powerful dis-
tinction jury regalia, and probably held the right of total ex-
nLtgroauvbelaens
mideeamorofe the authority of the
emption.
Than Buckingham, with his rash leviedstrength."
:hies h:oaygio:fyoEfl
The Learned Sergeant then quoted a lease granted in 1430, to
prove that Sergeants'-inn had been from the first inhabited by
law; the natural and only deduction from
which wastthat it had been invariably exempted from parochial
burdens. The case of the plaintiff must almost exclusively
depend upon documentary evidence. In 1646, a Parliamentary
ordinance was issued, for the suppression of certain bishopricks,
and the sale of certain lands ; but it contained a special exemp-
tion in favour of Sergeants'-inn, mentioned as ecclesiastical
land, and of course not liable to parochial assessment. The
report of the Commissioners appointed in 1640 to ascertain the
number and value of all parsonages and vicarages, defined the
boundaries of the parish of St. Dunstan. It said the parish
was divided into two parts—the one in London, the other in
Middlesex; that the parsonage of St. Dunstan's in the West
was in London and the Rolls liberty, and the other was in
Middlesex ; that there was but one church in the parish, and
that the inhabitants of the Rolls liberty were greatly in want of
a church of their own. It could be proved that Sergeants'-inn
always contained a church in which the full service was per-
formed. If, therefore, it had been within the parish, this second
cinirch, the church of Sergeants'-inn, must undoubtedly have
been mentioned in the report. Service had been performed there
within his memory, and he had even preached there in his turn.
No rates had been levied to maintain it; neither was it a cha-
pel of ease; neither had the inn been called upon to pay any
other rates than marked it as dependent upon, or incorporated
with the parish of St. Dunstan in the West. The 4th of Wil-
liam and Mary, which first established the land-tax, was im-
portant in this case. Under it Sergeants'-inn was treated as
a privileged place; separate assessors were appointed for the
rates, which were paid to distinct collectors, and the inn was
not scheduled as the parishes of the city were. The parish
had shown, in a late document, their inability to confirm their
claim ; for in an Act of the 3d of the present King, to con.
vert the vicarage of the parish into a rectory, and to provide
for the rector, all the houses in the parish liable to contribution
were scheduled, and yet in the schedule annexed to the Act not
one of the tenements in Sergeants'-inn was included, except a
coffee-house inhabited by Dagnell Ells, which was not to be
considered as an authority for extending the rate. The parish-
officers, in perambulating the bounds of the parish on Ascen-
sion-day, never went into Sergeants'-inn as part of their parish,
except once; and then they were turned out. The inn was
accustomed to bear the burden of its own poor. A bastard
child was upon one occasion dropped in the inn at the door of
Mr. Justice Fortescue—en accident which might happen in
the best regulated societies—but it was well known that the
Learned Judge could not have been the father, and the parish..
.officers were applied to, that they might remove the child. At
a vestry-meeting, however, it was decided that the parish ought
not to be burdened with a child dropped in Sergeants'-inn, as
the learned body, residing there, did not contribute to the
parish rates. The learned body was therefore obliged to main_
tarn the child. A lunatic had also been maintained at their
expence ; and on the occasion of a funeral which took place in
the inn, the parish-officers charged double fees. In conclu-
sion, the Learned Sergeant expressed his confidence that the
proof on the side of the plaintiff would be irresistible.
The Learned Sergeant then produced documentary and pa-
role evidence in proof of all he had stated.
Serjeant PELL, for the defendant, denied that Serjeants'_
Inn had been exempted from parish rates, and considered it
evidence of a weak cause to argue upon a two centuries' for-
bearance, when a right positively existed. The fact was,
another Learned Body—the Society of Lincolns'-Inn—had
been in a similar situation for 200 years, and had not during
that time been assessed ; but in the year 1821, by the decision
in the case of " Clayton v. Pope," they were compelled to pay
the rates. In 1822, the learned Society of Clifford's-Ina, which
since its origin had enjoyed a similar exemption, was compelled
to contribute to the payment of the parochial expences. No
prescriptive exemption could be set up by any of these societies,
because the statute by which they were made liable was only
two centuries old. There was no ground for surprise that the
right to asses should, in certain cases, lie unexercised : but in
times like these the parish officers were bound to make every
species of property available for the relief of the poor, and they
brought the case into the Court, in the firm belief that it would
be tried fairly. They_ manifested their confidence, as every
serjeant who practised there was interested in the question.—
He (Serjeant Pell) was now endeavouring to impose a burden
upon himself ; and even his Lordship who tried the cause would,
if the verdict was against the plaintiff, be obliged to pay as an
inhabitant of the Inn, the suns he might be assessed at. If
they were not extra-parochial, as he contended, they ought to
pay. There was no positive documentary evidence to prove
that Serjeant's-Inn had ever belonged to any of the monastic
institutions. When England was under the Catholic controul,
the church had obtained peculiar privileges and exemptions,
which had been retained in many instances up to the present
time. The church was then grasping, with iron hands, all
privileges and immunities that might render it independent.—
The priests said, " The ground our houses stand upon is sacred
and cannot be made liable to payment." The church was an
exclusive body, but the law was an open body, and possessed
no exclusive privileges, of the existence of which their posses-
sion would be evidence. The Learned Serjeant, after some
further observations, produced a number of records to chew that

payments had been made by Judges resident in the Inn for the
support of the poor of the parish—that in many ancient a5547,d
ments for various purposes the serjeants had been included, a'
had paid the rates as belonging to the parish. • _a the
The evidence was exceedingly voluminous, and occupicv•
Court for s.,,veral hours.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEE. 13.
Before 211 r. Baron GAll Am.
THE KING V. SYKES AND AIIJIITAGE%
Mr. WALTON having opened the pleadings,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated the case. It was an ja'
' formation, charging the defendants, as manufacturers alt
scowerers of cloth, in the neighbourhood of Huddersfield, With
defrauding the revenue at various times. The defendants, in
the course of their trade, are obliged to use a considerable qu33,,"
tity of soap, for which they are allowed a drawback, becOs'
soap pays a duty of 3d. or 4d. per pound at the time of its 11';
w. nufacture. The Act requires, that the person who is allowed
the drawback should keep an exact account of all the soap 116
purchases, as well as to produce the invoices to the oti:cer, In
order that the amount of drawback might be allowed; in d'"
fault of which a penalty of 501. is attached to each otfence•-"-
The defendants had besides altered the invoices, stating tl"
larger quantities of soap had been purchased than had actuaat
been, for which another penalty of Sol. is imposed ; so teat
the fficer was deceived as to the quantities of soap the de;
fendants had used; and these offences having been committro
on various occasions, a great number of penalties were Ott
sought to be recovered.

The Learned Counsel called several witnesses, from wil°se
evidence it appeared, that upon the visits of the officers to the
defendant's premises at different times, they saw the soap'seli
lowance book, in which were various entries of soap porches
at different times of Mr. Downing of Hudderfield, and on be'
ing required, they produced invoices to the full amount, so as
to correspond with the soap-allowance book.
Mr. Downing and his daughter deposed, that all the invoice
produced had been altered from s►xall quantities to very WC
ones ; the defendants had purchased of Mr. Downing goal'
quantities, and received invoices for every parcel ; but the
figures relating to the quantities, as well as the prices, 1:114
been materially altered.
Mr. Thomas Burman, a soap-manufacturer of Hudderfield,
on being shown an invoice in his name, declared he knew r.O
thing of it whatever.

Mi. MILNER said he could not object to the six first counts
of the information, provided the evidence was satisfactory W
the minds of the Jury; but he put it to the Jury to say wile"
ther two respectable men like the defendants would have beetle
guilty of such a fraud, indeed nearly a forgery, for the sake O'
gaining a trifling drawback ; or whether it was not more prO'
bable to have been the act of the servants of the defendants'
particularly as no evidence had been called to prove the hew'
writing of either of the defendants.
The Learned JUDGi having summed up the evidence,
The Jury found a verdict for the Crown, in penalties to the
amount of 3001.

PREROGATIVE COURT, FEB. 18.
nonsox, FORMERLY PATTLE AND WAKEFIELD, AGAlllgr
ROCIOE AND ANOTHER.

Sir Jotter NICHOLL, in giving sentence in this long-depend'
tig cause described it to be one of much importance, on lga
count of the magnitude of the property, amounting to nearll
200,0001.), the nature of the papers that had been pleaded, the
sort of evidence to be considered, and the unusual application
that had recently been made to the Court. The Learned Judy
then entered into an elaborate recapitulation of the eeidenera
which he observed had been very carefully taken by one
of the most intelligent and able examiners in the profession ;
but of a sentence which occupied three hours in the delivery, rfc
have no room for the most contracted report. The der-
ceased in the cause was Mr. Thomas Charles Pattie, wan
died at Macoa, in China, on the 26th of November, 181®'
leaving behind him, in England, a widow and an oolf
child (a daughter.) The property of which he died poo'
sessed had been variously stated, but in the plea was or
timated at about 140,0001. He had been many years abros"'
in the East .India Company's service. In 1802 he return:
ed to England. In 1805 he went out again as one Of
council for the factory at Macao, where he remained till aaa
decease. Before his departure from his native country
1805, he made a will, by which he appointed four of Ph'
friends his executors, and bequeathed the whole of hie
party to his wife and daughter. That property was tbtP
supposed to be between 10,000/. and 20,0001 ; but no, _
,et W
have exceeded that sum. The Court then entered into a sf.;
tory of the will said to have been made by the deceased
1805, and by which, among his families and- friends,
gave away in legacies and bequests upwards of 110,000-I
-A
the deceased's voyage from Macao to altinilla and Canton,lPa
back to Macao, in his Majesty's ship Alpheus ; his collier/it...
Lions with Capt. Langford, Sir Win. Fraser, Mr. Eduninl,
"",,_
and Mr. Allen, who were likewise on board : and of the "v:.
ceased's last illness—the execution of the will propounded °"'
the 18th of October,
, 1815, after it had been prepared froolelwe.
ceased's dictation 1y Mr. Croft, a law gentleman, who al"'
come with his wife from India into China, for the benefit of her
health ; and of the deceased's death on the 26th of Noyeinbsc
following. The Court also stated ever fact in plea as to 416'
capacity of the deceased; his knowledge of the danger hew
in from the information of Mr. Livingston, the surgeon, an
the various corroborations which the genuineness of the tests-
mentary dispositions of this last instrument received from se./r;
rid witnesses in the cause. The two great objections that had
been attempted to be established against a paper thus prole'
were--lst, that the signature or the body, or parts of both, or
either, or the endorsement on the envelop, purporting to be °f
the hand-writing of deceased, or of the party who prepared
the instrument, were not genuine ; and 2d, that the charge
ter of Mr. Croft had been so damaged, that he could not
be safely relied on as a witness (and he was the principal
witness) as to capacity and execution. The Court decide"'
that the signature was established to be clearly the true sir
nature of the testator; that the erasures and interlineatioaa
in question in the body of the paper were sufficiently account'
ed for, and the endorsement was in the hand-writing 4:l`
Mr. Allen, who quitted the Alpheus and resided with decor'
ed. It further held, that Mr. Croft's testimony was of the
most consistent character throughout, and that his character
as a witness was not to be successfuly impugned by reason ,
his moral guilt in a transaction occurring two years afterwards-
(This was an allusion to an action brought in the Supreme'
Court at Calcutta, " Comberbach v. Croft," and in whiff
heavy damages were recovered by Mr. Comberbach weir°
Croft, who was his partner for the seduction of his daughter'
aged 17. The young lady had eloped from her father's man'
Sion, and in order to elude inquiry had left letters on her tab'n
intimating her intention of drowning herself, under an spare'
hension of approaching insanity, and was all this time conces
ed in the house of her betrayer, who in the mean time visited,
under pretences of condolence, her distracted faMily,). The
Court was disposed, therefore, to pronounce foi the validity
of the will of the 18th of October, 1815. But Mr. Wakefield*
who had married the daughter of the deceased, and had,
aa,
ill
common with the legatees, pocketed the bequest to which a
was entitled (in right of his wife, who left with a legacy °''
30,0001.), opposed this will, and prayed the Court, after NO;
nesses had been examined, publication had been decreed, and
the cause Had gone on to hearing, to rescind the conclusion is
order to allow him time to bring in the copy of a later will
' which the deceased was said to have executed, and in waicla
he left his daughter a legacy of .10,0001. and the residue ; "°'
that Mr. Wakefield, representing his late wife, and in
that character having a vested right to the principal sail
which was to revert to her after the death of her mother (Se,
Mrs. Robson), would take, in virtue of this paper, 100,G00'
and upwards. The Learned. Judge then examined the history
of this paper. It was not even produced ; and even upon tl'e
singular story which was told about the way in which ;',lr;
Wakefield had obtained it, through communications by po6
with an anonymous correspondent, and subsequently an inter;
view at Paris with this mysterious party, who there deliver,'
the copy of that original which he asserted to have seen, to .51r'
Wakefield ; what credit could the Court be required to give to
it ? The anonymous stranger had, it was said, only givenenP,
this copy on a solemn promise and a written undertaking, tone
his name should never be divulged. Mr. Wakefield and I,l'
brother consented to these terms ; but Mr. Wakefield's Sr,
licitor, Mr. Humphries, with a prudence and caution high,'
proper and honourable in a professional man, refused to have
any thing to do with any such engagement. The next account
of this paper was, that Mr. Wakefield, who always carried 1
about his person, went one day into the city to his banker's—then
walked about the streets—then dined at an Hotel; then wenttu
the play ; and, at last, discovered that he had lost it—and tit:
Court was now applied to stay the cause, inasmuch 23
the anonymous stranger had " said" that a seaman, for-
merly belonging to his Majesty's ship Alpheus, and to his Ala,
jesty's ship Grampus, had another copy, but the Grampus
at present in the West Indies. This was 8 years after the
death of the deceased, and four years after probate had been
granted to the will propounded. Under such a state of circuat
; stances, the Court could by no means listen to the appaeation
and in proceeding to judgment, would only observe, that ta;
Robsons, who prayed that the will eflBos (which left the wivae
e
,property between Mrs. Robson and her daughter) might v.!
established, or else that the deceased might be pronounced Ti
have died intestate, had equally failed in proof of their case ;:124
the Court, therefore, confirmed the will of October, 1815 ; "
decreed costs against the parties opposing the same.

1

as an ill-
rers 3:14
eld, with
:fano, In
)1e
, becose
E its ma-
I /Bowed
soap be
tEcer, 10
tfence.--:
ing th
actusa
so that
the de'
mmitt:d
ere 130/1

IVIIOSe
to;rr ne
soap j•
irchasei
on be-
a, so at

in voice
ry
stna•
ut

derfield,
ICIV TAO"

t count
ctory
ay whe"
re bee.,
sake 0,
are prOS
ndants'
hand.

'*'to to

;Al=ol.

tepend'
on SC'
nearlf
ed,
Hestia*
Jude
idenctf
by one
;Pion

---
sfe
erf,
~ 4e-