The Sun.
London, England, 1803-11-24 00:00:00

THE KIND 2). EDWARD SPENCER.

The Defendant is a Snigebn and IVlao.midw ire,
at Beth. PreVii.ros to the last Eleaion he wygge a
Libel on Chailes' Wm. T:iyhr, Esq. one of the
Representatives' in Parliani.ht 14 Welk.
Libel accused that Gentkman .f'nei!if; an Adulzerer,
and of being -guilty of-other ini.nteeth so as to he
unfit Co be a'Re'presentafive in Parliament, •
Resides the iMendant's own Affi lay it, there was
another of a Mr. liurland, stating, that bef4ii.e 11,e
last Election, Mr. l'aylor, while he was a Candi-
date, ivid promised to forget and forgive this mat.; '
ter altogether', although he now de:minded the rigid'
letter niche Law against the Defendant.
Mt .
•Dat.ff.A.S said', 'this was a surprire on the
Prosecuttit,""and iherefine desired time to answer'
the muter of this Affidaiit, which the Court grant..
ed accordingly,- and therefore the Judgment was
postponed 1

against him. Upon this grtemet‘t Mr. Wink.
'icy rtn)k-94 ititigniont 'against the Defendant, had
lit bill of costs tiv,e4..with,sut giyitig the:Defendant
tiny intimation, 'and issued an execution, Upon si hich
he recoveted.....T.he.se proceedings,.Mr. 13gsT con-
tended, were completely in the -face of the agree-
ment 'made between the parties,- the objed of which
was to stop all farther litigation and expence.
Mr.Serjearit SHEPPAgniii4p tained, that the pro.'
ceedings:adopted by the at toincy.for, his client were
in complete.confo.rrnity to the original agreement.
The COtirt Were of opinion that the 'original
agreement was binding, -and that the rule so far.
fell' to be discharged, They declared, however,
that the attorney for the Plaintiff had acted pre-
..
cipitately and improperly, in entering' the judgnient,
and issuing the execution without allowing the -Di.
fendant'.a.A:,torney an opportunity of attending, to
the...proceedings. They thetebre, appointed -the
rule to.be. made absolute in thine` NI-tic-al:lts, and
the money to' be restored tO-the Defendant ; remit.
ted the bill of costs`to the Protonotary to he tax_
ell at the- sight of* the :Defendant's Attorney, and
appointed the judgment to Stand only to the extent
of the sum to be ,awarded by the Prothimotary.
They also found the Attorney fOr the Plaintiff liable
in the expences of the execution of the writ.
Mr. Scrjeant I.in,Ttocz moved for a writ of Ha.
heat Gerpot for bringing into Curt the pr;lleilvd,
or of suspension of execution against tlic:haa, in a
case wlier.e:tlie principal was a lunatic and in Sr.
Luke's Hospital... The keeper of the Hospital had
refused to,.b ing up the 'amide at the requtst of the
had, syit!iout their Lordships'. authority. He was
therefore under..the necessity of applying for the in.
terposition °fate Court.- - •
The Court stated that the Creditor''was surely
entitled, if he phose .to insist epon it, Joan extru-
rinn against his lunatic debtor. It would, 11,,w_
ever, be sufficient, in the mean time, to suspend
execution against the bail for a few clays, so as to
enable him to apply to the Creditor to know his
termination. • '

. . . .
.CIOUR± OF EXqffEQUER, Nov. s;.
•
WORRELL -Vi-TAYLOK.
Mr. PT COT stated, that this: was Ellin fired by
the Plaintiff„ who is Irno-opriateLay Radar of the
Parish Of Clifton, in Gluucestershirts, for the pur.
pose of obtaining (Torn the Defendant, who is Cu.
ripe of the said Parish, an account of all the fees he .
had received for giving permission to dig vaults,
plant iron palisades, and turn op the, soil, &c. in
the church and church. yard; the said fees belonging
8 properly to the Plaintiff. It appeared that the Rec.
tory of this Parish had been .in. the possession of 4.-
perrii
..of. the name of Hodges,, who, in the year
1738, devised the right of reilficsfees to the Pre-
decessor of the Defendant, by two deeds, which
vfk re ~riad in Court. On these he. founded his title
to the feel of the,parish. The.,.Plaintiff, had pur.
chwied the Rectory of this parish from Mr, Hodges,
with all its appurtenances, and .conicutied, in the
first place, that ihe fees for burialsi. &Cc. etc. and
the right to the church and - charch,yaad, were
vested in him prima facie,- as Re4tur.. of the Parish.
Thia right, he forther•contended, was uninipeachad
by the deeds prodticed by the Defendant, which re.:
spetted only the surplice fees on marriages, burials,
,and christenings, and had no reference to the ordi.
nary,. fee's.: The Plaintiff; therefore, prayed the
Court to order the Defendant rn size an account of
thernoney which he'had received and applied to, his
own use, instead of rendering, it up to Its proper
owner, the Plairitiff. The inhabitants of this pa.
rich were accustomed to pay so teach fir every grave
dug in the'chtireh.yatd ; 30 OM the f,llfll W S consi.
derable, the Defendant having txactt4.l the:money
fur several years.
I
Mr. RICHARDS, who, Ifi:300111010 to, Mr.PICOT,
was Counsel for the Plaintiff, obierVed,.- that this
was a very graze matter, and deszrved ' the serious
attention of the CoUrt. •
The Court, however, were of opinion, that an
issue with Felipe& to the rights of the parties ought
in this, case, to be joined in a Court of ; :Ind if
the right of the Plaintiff should be'estabii,hecl, then
Jury ,:would give a compensation in damages far
the los's,of 'his fees during the rime they had hten
•• received by the Defendant'. Tlieipplication was
On this account r4osed.