The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-25 00:00:00

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1823.

LA .

COURT OF.CILINCJiRY, Noy. 24.

ST. STF.PILF.N'S CHURCH,- COIAM .4.N -ST it EEL
FAVLE U. PRATT.

- - - - -
This Wll9 a case which turned upon tha proceedings at, the
last election of a Vicar.

The Aerroneseer-Gterritee stated the case. • The Rectory
and Aclvowson had been granted by letters patent of the 32d
Eliz. toothe use of the parishioners for a money compensation,
and the right of electing and presenting the Vicar was vested in
the parishioners, and had been exercised by them on every sub-
serpent vacancy since the grant. He gave the details of each
'election since the great tire in WC, the paper Which recorded
the proceedings of the parish before that time having been con:
awned. lie read a Tesol4oi*',4lftlieh. *A, beet adopted et
last election but one, to prevent parishioners from voting who
had not paid up their parish and church rates.
The Lonn CHANCELLOR asked if there were any. authority
for that ? Because if there was not, it was clearly at unlawful
restraint. Lord Ilardwicke had expressly held, that in the case
of a Rectory granted to the use of a whole parish, every _ one
residing within the limits of the parish must be presumed in the
first place to have a vote. This right might be qualified by
usage of long continuencee—but nothing short of that plea could
justify the exclusion.
The ATTORNEY,GENERAL said, that he was not aware
that there existed any sufficient pretext for that exclusion : and
it was not acted upon at the last election. The grounds of come
plaint were of a different nature. The election of a vicar, took
place in 11lay last. The proceedings were, generally speaking, fair
and open ; and the plaintiff had nothing to complain of, ex-
cept a mistake into which the trustees had been led to the pre-
judice of his election, and without the occurrence of which he
would have been elected. Dr. Lushington was appointed
assessor, and that gentleman laid it down as law, that no Roman
Catholic or Jew could be allowed to vote. The numbers were
for the plaintifflo ; for the defendant 97. Now, there were
two persons of the Jewish persuasion who presented themselves,
and their ballot papers were refused. He was to contend that
they ought to have been received, and then the election would
have fallen on the plaintiff. At the first hearing of' the case he .
acknowledged that he had felt as the trustees might have felt—
that it would be an odd thing to admit Jews to tha elec.
don of priests to serve in a Christian Church. Upon re.
search, however, he discovered that Jews had an undoubted
right. That they were capable of bolding advowsons was clear,
from what took place in the celebrated debates of 1753 and 1733,
upon the Naturalization Bill. The opinion of Lord Hardwieke,
Serjeant Raymond, Kittleby, and all the great lawyers who
spoke in the debates was, that notwithstanding the old statute
which had fallen into decay, Jews were capable to hold lands
and advowsons by the law as it stood before. There was a
clause introduced into the bill, however, to save scandal to
scrupulous consciences, which took away the right of holding
advowsons. The disquiet which was expected caused the Par.
liament to repeal the bill in the following year, and then it was j
proposed that the clause against Jews holdingi advowsons
should be continued. The bill was repealed altogether, and the
law stood upon the same footing as before the bill. As, tinder
that well.sanctioned understanding of the law, .Jews would be
able to present to a vacant church, there could be no'question
that Dr. Lushington was wrong in his exposition of it at the
election. There were other votes tendered for the plaintiff, which
were objected to on no better grounds. The apothecary of the
Opthalmic Hospital had been rejected, though a persbn of per-
fect reepectahility, because, though he paid the rates, they were
allowed to bun back again by the society; while, on the other
hand, several votes were accepted for the defendant from per-
sons who were in situations much nearer the condition of ser-
vents; and above all, the first vote given for the defendant was by
a Mr. Everett, who was an alien. Now, certainly; however It
might be with native Jews, whom Mr,!Fi eakerley alone of all the
lawyers concerned in the debates of 7.t2-I,e.onsidersd aS alien rue.
mica, there could be no question as to the rights of alien% They
were not able to hold lands except for limited and very pant-
cider purposes. The vote of Mr. Everett Was unquestionably a
bad vote. Deducting theft from the lists on one side, and
adding the two Jews and the apothecary on the other, there
would be a clear majority for the plaintiff: and he hoped his
Lordship would grant the prayer of the petition, which was,
to stay the trustees from presenting, and tbe Bishop from ac-
cepting, the defendant for vicar—to declare the election. void,
and either direct the trustees to present the piaintiff, or to pro-
ceed to a new election. The Bishop of London was nominally
a defendant, but as might be expected from hiM„ he had not
interfered one way or . the other. The whole of' the trustees
were defendants, and a few of the parishioners joined the plain-
tiff in the bill. It was not to be peestimed against the plain-
tiffs, or even an behalf of the chairman who presided, that they
concurred. They had no cemplaiot as to the conduct of itny
partici, t they conformed, as they were hound to do, to the ore
der decreed by the chairman, and he guided his conduct by the
direction of the learned person who wax assessor: nn one in
siny case thereby waved his right, it' afterwards it should einem
that there was any thing illegal in the proceedings. •
31r. Summer follnwedPli the same side. Ile had taken some
pains to clear up his doubts on the right of Jewo to .hold ad-
vowsons and to present. Ile apprehended the whole of this
question would turn upon another—were the Jews able to hold
lands under the old law ? Iris Lordship would find a whole
series of cases cited in Maddox's Exchequer; under the head of
" Jews Exchequer," reaching from very remote times in which
that right was etiolate:l. In the reign of Itiehruel 1., Lords Lei.
teeter and Arundel had mortgaged their lands in fee to Jews.—
There must have been advowsons appendant, forin that time
chaplaincies were unknown to the Jew. By the 3d and 4th of
Edward 1., Jews' might take a moiety of the lands of their
Christian debtors in .execution, which proved that they were
able to hold lands, for it was nut till the stnnete of Wei:twin-
ster that fatness were mode liable In execution for debts. The
same act allowed them to purchase in cities or boroughs, ore°
take land in them, provided no homages or advowsons were in.
cident ; but a clearer proof wes in that which followed upon their
expulsion in 1290. Great escheets, both of lambi and chattels,
fell to. the King, in consequence of their departiire. tinder •
the protectorate of Cromwell, there was considerable dismission
as to the propriety of re-introducing the Jews. The epinion
of the most eminent lawyers taken at the time was, that they
were under the lath as it then stood, capable of re-admission,
and accordingly, uuder the restoration, they did return in num-
bers, so that the statute de Judd:trio of Edw. I.' which was
not to be found in the rolls if ever it,existeil, washy this time
reekOned so have fallen into entire, cheese. The charter of
John allowed them to hold fees and mortgages the sumo as in
the time of Edw. L In the 33d lien. lit, there was a writ of
right brought into the Jews' Exchequer. The King directed
the Barons of his own Eeehe((pier to do justice between the
contending Jews —annther unqurstionahle proof that they were
able to hold lends. By the statute of .Edward I, de J'inlaistno,
no Jew could alien in fee, or other Wise dispose of lands, &c.,
without the King's licence; but the existence et' that statute, at
one time questionable,
was now most posidvely denied, All
that could be shown on the other side was, that ley ancient rte
cords it appeared that the Jews were at the mercy of the King
of England. King Job!) gave them over in pawn to some per.
sone front whom he borrowed money, and all kinds of' violence,
extortion, and rapine, had been at different times practised upon
them. But what did this, prove, except a strong tibiae of power
in those who tiehl it, which would not now be practised,
when mankind had succeeded in recovering a great portion
of their natural lthert,l ? well might it be contended, 'and
the case itself prove how abuse sof Nirer were apt to glide
away, and be lost without any direct law, that because torture
wits used as late
Mt the reign of Elizabeth, that torture was ap-
plicable by the law of the land. Ile was prepared to defend the
right of JeWS presenting to advoweons on principle. It might
seem strange and di„geeeahle to nice coneciences for one who
denied Christ to present a Christian Church would it not
be more afflicting to such consciences to know that an Atheist,
who believed in
rm God could present ? The Jews approached
nearer tei the faith of Christianity. And what law was there
which required the owner of an aavowson to declare his belief
before the Ordinal-It aeCtPtca his presentation ? The provided a much surer remedy, in the power given the
Bishop to examine the parson, and to admit him of not,
according as he ,!Might 6" "1)
As to the mere
fart, it was idle to make a tpicsitOn of it. Adrowsone were
saleable property, bought by. Jews as frequently as hinds, or
stiy other property. Ile bin'3''lt 1"1* rim(' ag° had occasion to
know that nothing could oornnton thin purcheses of
lands and edvewsons, eithee to sell or hotel;and no one me

-7. 4o
thought of questioning a Jew'stitle, nierely ticeause he was a
Jew, in purchasing front him.
Further argument on the case adjourned wat lialf.past two;
o'clock.

. -
VICE-CHANCBLLOR'S COURT, Nov: 24.
31LEREDiTir v. o'Dosto Y as.
Mr. llEats) stated, that this was an application for an in.
,junction to restrain the defendant from further prty:eedingwat
law, on a bond thr one thousand pounds passed by the plaintiff
to the defendant, and that the said bond be delivered up anti can.;
celled, it having been passed without any valuable consideration.
The hill was filed in June, 1821, and n appeared from it that
the plain tiff; Joshua Paul Meredith, Esq. was a young man of
considerable fortune, and the defendant, Jane Amelia flenstm
O'Donovan, a young lady of great beauty, fashionable man-
ners, and necomplishments, between whom an acquaintance
took place'in March, 1821, in the following manner :—The bill
alleged that a Madame Beaumont resided in Norfnik.street,
Virosvenor-square, and kept a- house for the purpnaes of in-
trigue, and that ti M. Amelia Cummins kept a house for in- ~ tngue in Wyndiwiaeplace, Montageeneware ; tient .Nl6:' ' Drummond, formaly tilled .!Heaters, Yene.drittenteetiof Mist. Cummins!, tot! that a Mr. Itii,;(hatu Lane, an nttomey, mer. 1
sled a sister of Mrs. .Drammond—further that these persons
Weft in the habit of visiting each other, and that the defendant
was the niece or sister of the said Mrs. Drenunond, other.
wise Musters. The bill then stated that some time ago the
plaintiff became acquainted with several persona of gay and
dissipated habits, who took advantage of his youth and
easy disposition; and induced him to join them in their pus.
Suns, by which his bodily health and mental faculties became
impaired. It then alleged that the }seasons before named
laid a plan; in consequence of which he was introduced,
by a Captain Butler, to Madam Beaumont, who promised
to introduce him to the defendant, lane Amelia Hanson
O'Donovan. That introduction, did not take place, but he met
the defendant a few days after in Park-street, on the 10th of
February, 1821. She agreed to dine with him
nt his residence
in Park-street on that day, and . repeated her visit on the next
Tuesday, and continued to reside in his house far a fortnight
following. That during that time they were frequently visited
by Mrs. Cummins, Mrs. Drummond, Madam Beaumont, and
the other persons before named. They dined with him, and
induced him to drink wine and ;spirits to excess. Thedefendant
affected a great regard for the plaintiff; and he was made to be-
lieve by her protestations, and the declarations of the others,
that she was attached to dru, and she
.gained his affections.
That when his attachment wan perceived, .Mary Cummins
spoke to him to make a settlement on the defendant, and
she threatened that the defendant would leave him unlesS
he settled on ' her 500/, a year. He said he would make
some provision for her, and agreed to pass a bond for
1,000!. That a bond was drawn up accordingly by Mr.
Lune, in which Kirkham Lane and Mary Cummins were made
the obligees ; but on the representation of the defendant, these
names were taken out, and the defendani made sole obligee.—
The bond was made paystble the Ist of May, 1823. The plaintiff I
then alleged that he was induced on the following Friday to drink
to excess, and that on getting up on the Saturday, he was prevail-
ed on by the arts of the defendant to execute the bond, which he.
did in the presence of Mr. Lane, and that the defendant took up
mid retained the bond. The defendant, it appeared, left his home
on Monday following, and subsequently took law proceeding!! for
the recovery of the bond. Mr. Heald said that he read these i'acts
from the bill rather than hazard any misrepresentations by a suite- ;
ment. The answer of Miss Jane Henson O'Donovan was put in j
on her behelf by Mr, James AN:4oth O'Donovan, her nearest
relative, as she was a minor. It admitted several unites-
portant facts of the bill, but objected to Answer to other
parts relative to her connection with the plaintiff, as it might
' subjecther to ecclesiastical censures. She described the terms
of intimacy on which the acm' partiea mentioned in the bill
were, and site gives it as her belief, that she herself possessed
semeipersonal Leant
.11, firshivnable, manners, and aeon:pHs&
nrents. She denied that any attempt!! were made to intoxi-
-1 sate the plaintiff; and that he wad only once, during their ac-
quaintance, remarkably affected with liquor. She denied that
any arts were used, either by her or others, to induce him to
make a provision tnr her. That the plaintiff, of his own de-
cord, did, in Mardi MI, promise to make her a settlement,
and that he was not in a state of intoxication when that pro-
vision was made, She alleges, that when the plaiotitfspoke
of that, settlement; she mentioned her wish that Mr. Lane,
her relative, should ace it, and that the plaintiff replied,
your relative may prepare it, and that his man °of business
was ordered to give Lane instruction for the parpose. She'
denied that the plaintiff' was intoxicated on the 24th of
March. The bond was brought to him at his home, in Park,
street, 'at three in the afternoon, when he signed and delivered
it to the defendant. The several allegations of time answer were
ended by the words, " or by muse or muses, the discovery
wiaereof is not heretofore objected." Mr. Heald commeeted
on the the ambiguity of these words, as the defendant appeared
to shelter hereelt under them from a confession of the facts to
which she objected.
The Conlin' considered that they referred to her connection
with the plaintiff, which she objected to confess from the ap.
prehension of eeclesiasticahcensures.
• Mn. WAKEVIEL” supported Mr. Heald,
The Vfer.-Citassentn.on.---Voti call on me to erant an in.
junction on the merits confessed, but the answer here confesses
no merits. Why have you not excepted to this answer P
Mr. Brant) explained, that the plaintiff was arrested by
the defendant, and that since the filing of the bill the solicitor
was changed. These cireumstanses caused delay, and pre-
vented an exception to the bill. But he rested his case nn the
peculiar manner in which the defendant refused to . answer to
any part of the bill by the phrase " not before objected to."
It was to be assumed that the plaintiff was induced—
VICE.CSIANCELLOII.—I do not think so. if die Passage
was taken alone, it would be a negative pllegnant, but if con-
videred with what is said before, the meaning is quite obvious.
There may be ground for strong suspicion in this ease, but I
cannot act on suspicion as you want, but on a confession of
merit. The quest= may be; whether there are not facts con.
fessed, which, taken with the refusal to answer others, do form
grounds for the Court interfering to restrain proceedings on
payment of the money into Court.
Mr.' Hiratn—She admit% the facts of residence with the
plaintiff; her knowledge of his being is man of fortune; the
visits of the :several parties ; the bond 'being drawn up by her
relation ; the alteration in it on her suggestion. She admits
there was no contilderation, and Oki that she left his houseeon
the Monday following. - ' .
V11.3E-(!itso4 es: 1.1.0 n—Does she admit the fact of residence
lit. Ilrinia•n-The bill alleges she lived at fortnight, but I
see she does not admit It. She admits the residence by denying
that he was intoxicated while she was with him. He (Mr.
Heald) did .not think that he could chew more in the
answer than whether there was not cause for a well-grounded
motion.
Vic E-Ciwt cinLort—Whe ther she admits enough to create
an inquiry at laW.
Mr. REA Lo—Wp can't try at law ; we can't get at the pate
ties ; they arc keeping out of the way.
Mr. AVAT nrrtran contended brieflfor the defendant, that
there was nothing in the accurate fats of the case to call
for the interference of the Court. There was no attempt to,
cent a reproach on her character before bar acquaintance with
the. plaintiff. The bond 'was given either as an act of justice or
an act of generosity froru the plaintiff; arid in either case it
should he upheld,
Mr. Hineen—There is not enough in the answer to skew
that it watt a pre Byre pudoeis. .
The Vlc K.CITANCELLOR gave judgment.—The case of the
pleintiff is a very short one. Asreat many circumstances arc
introduced into the bill not at All essential to the merits, His.
Honour then recapituleted the facts, and concluded by saving
that lie was of opinion, that though the filets of the case did not
sanction the interference of. the Coon to the full, extent of the
application, yet thep Wlta sufficient, in what the defendant COW.
tetled in her answer, And what she refuses to answer, to call for
some interference on hiwpart. lie would only grant the in.
junction, on the plaintiff paying the money in the Court.
The plaimillinstootly offered to pay the money inW' Court on
minutes.

. COURT o 1 RINH'S BENCH', Nor. 2,t.
BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL.
rtt IMM v. 3/is-F.:int WILLIAM TyrßT.
The Sent c IToet.(4).:Ntn:l/41. prayed for the Judgment of the
Court on the defendant, who wets convicted at the last RitUngii
in London on an information exhibited cx Vicio by the Attor.
ney.tleneral, charging him with publishing a Blasphemous
Libel on the Christian Religion. anti the Holy Scriptures.
The defendant, apparently a very young man, respectably
&varied. appeared on the floor of the Court.
'The Lottrr tr.r Jt! wrier read his not of the trial, but

NABEAS etittrtTS.--Tlit )U& v, VOA* 5(41,461/XV..
The defendant, who was cottll?iitte4l ,*x tits Now,llitiley;.
Manchester, ttpol) a warrant, charging hitn with inatuilatightst4
was this day brought up by liatheas Ogrius, and tittruitts*
hail, himself in 5004 and four sureties In OK tacit. , ,

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS, Ntm.241.,
utrnsow 311,111JOIMIAWN.ii.•
Thil was an action on a policy of insurance eirected some
Cape wines; and the question was, whether the plaintifrahluld
recover for is total or atr average loss. On the brat* trish aver.
diet was given for the plaintiff; as thrill) average Joss ; but on
cause being subsequently shown,. a rule for 4 new triad was
granted, costs being to nwidt the Issue of the subsequent frial.
This trial has siticelAkett place; and a verdict has been again,
returned fort ire.nlirintift'iOr only an average loss.
Mr ,„
zorjearit .rADDy now mane 4 1110 Ron the; tne cots` of
the tint trial should In pia over to the defectiant ; Which W.is
granted fict.ordiney.