The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-24 00:00:00

WILCOX V. WHITE.

IMPORTANT APPEAL CASE.—This was a question of
considerable interest to a large body of the inhabitants of
Hampstead, and the result was looked for with great
anxiety. The office of Judge was originally promoted by
the Rev. Dr. White, the Curate of St. John's, Hampstead,
against the Rev. Dr. Wilcox, for performing divine ser-
vice in the chapel of St. John's, Downshire-hill, without
the consent of the curate of the parish, or other lawful
authority. The Judge of the Arches' Court, before whom
the suit was heard some time since, pronounced that the
articles exhibited against the Rev. Dr. Wilcox had been
proved, and admonished him to refrain for the future from
publicly practising or performing any ecclesiastical duty
without obtaining the consent of the Rsv. Dr. White.
From this decision the Rev. Dr. Wilcox appealed to the
High Court of Delegates; and Justices Bosanquet, Bayley,
and Taunton sat this day to decide upon the appeal.
Dr. HAGGARD and Mr. BERE appeared in support of
the appeal, and contended that as the chapel was a dona-
tive, that as Mr. White was perpetual Curate and not
having the cure of souls, and that as there was a difference
between the articles and the citation, the judgment of the
Court below ought to be reversed.
The JUDGES took time to consider, and decided in
favour of the judgment of the Court, which admonished
the Appellant to refrain for the future to perform divine
service without license and authority.
It was stated during the proceedings that in the parish
of Hampstead there are about 8,500 inhabitants, about
7,000 of whom were members of the Established Church ;
that the parish church will not hold more than 1,000,
and that in the neighbourhood of Downshire Chapel the
inhabitants amount to about 3,000. It was alleged in
support of the appeal that if the chapel were abut up, a
great number of persons would be deprived of the means
of attending divine service.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A young man named Joseph Carpenter, in a very
shabby attire, was brought before the LORD MAYOR on
Saturday under the following circumstances:—..
Mr. Fisher, a respectable solicitor in the City, stated
that the defendant was constantly -importuning him for
money, and annoying him on his own premises, when he
refused to administer to the young man's necessities. The
defendant's case was certainly a singular one. He was
one of several residuary legatees of the late Mr. Carpenter,
of Tottenham, who threw himself from the top of his
house on the day of the funeral of his wife, and died in
very opulent circumstances. The property was, however,
shackled with many annuities, which the trouble in col-
lecting the rents made it very difficult for the executors to
piy, so that the defendant could have no claim at the pre-
sent moment. He, however, thought that lie had. Money
had been advanced to the young man and some of the
other residuary legatees, and it was impossible to hand
over a shilling to one without being, in a manner, com-
pelled to supply all the rest. Besides the landed property
there were 16,0001. in the Funds, and a bill had been
filed in Chancery for leave to make sale, in order to re-
lieve the necessities of the legatees. The brother of the
defendant had, however, positively refused to send in an
answer, and was now in prison for contempt of the Court ;
the consequence was that no money could be got. The
defendant might by and by be worth 20,0001. or 30,000/.
After some discussion, a solicitor thought some arrange-
ment might be adopted to relieve the necessities of the
defendant, who appeared in great distress.
The defendant having promised not to annoy Mr.
Fisher again was discharged.
It was laughable to see with what respect the paupers
and policemen made way for the poor defendant when they
heard that he was likely to be the owner of 20,000/.,
although with scarcely a stitch upon his back.