The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-14 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY..

(THIS DAY.)

MALCOLM V. O'CALLAGHAN

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment
in this case, in which the question was whether a lady
who by her marriage settlement had a provision made
for her and her children, was entitled to that provision, her
husband dying without children, and she having married
again. His Honour was of opinion the lady was entitled, and
decreed accordingly.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

TAYLOR V. DAVY AND ANOTHER.

This was ar action of trespass, brought to try the right of the
parish authorities of St. Bride's,- to pass through the premises
of Mr. Richard Taylor, a printer, situate between Red Lion-
court, and Crane-court, in their triennial perambulations of
the parish boundaries.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. Barstow
and Mr. White) appeared for the defendants, and the onus
probandi being with him, stated the case. They were all
aware of the great importance in this country that the bounda-
ries of parishes should be well ascertained. Very important
rights of property depended upon it, and where disputes occur-
red much litigation and injurious consequences ensued. For
the purpose of ascertaining these boundaries, from time imme-
morial there had been periodical processions, or perambula-
tions, and in Popish times these
.processions were accompanied
by certain superstitious ceremonies which are now laid aside.
The custom of perambulating, however, still prevails ;
in some it was done annually, in others every three
years, and in others every five years.' In the parish
of Saint Bride's the custom was to go the bounds
every three years. There was no question in point of law
that the parish authorities had the right to perambulate, and
the line was the extreme boundaries ; but occasionally there
were obstacles, such as the erection of a house upon the
bounds, which rendered it necessary to pass through the house.
Wherever the procession has gone from time immemorial there
it had a right to go. The Learned Counsel then detailed the
course of the procession as it afterwardS appeared in evidence,
and he would show that no obstacle had been presented so far
as the memory of man went, up to the time when the plaintiff
objected in 1833. The vestry-clerk having been informed
that the plaintiff intended to resist the passing of the proces-
sion through his premises, wrote to him on the ! sth May,
1833, the day before that fixed for the perambulation, appris-
ing him that according to ancient custom they would pass
through his premised. In reply the vestry-clerk received a
letter from the plaintiff's solicitors, stating that if the proces-
sion passed through she plaintiff's house, he was advised by
high legal authority ( Sir J. Scarlett) that it was a trespass,
and he should take proceedings against the authorities. It was
to try the question whether on Holy Thursday every third year
the parish authorities had been accustomed to pass through these
premises or not, that the present action was brought. He
would be able to satisfy the Jury that such was the case, and it
was for his learned friend ( Mr. Cresswell) to show that, any ob-
struction had been given, or any leave had ever been asked by
the parish authorities. After citing some authorities in support
of the defendant's right as resting upon Immemorial custom, the
following witnesses were called:—
Joseph Stephens—l am seventy-eight years old, and was for
twenty years Master of St. Bride's Charity School. I accom-
panied the procession every time they perambulated the parish,
which was every three years. I took the boys with me, and
never missed going with the procession. We went from Pem-
berton-row to Redlion-court, and then through the house
which was occupied by Mr. Taylor. I used to take about six
of the boys through the house, as the parish of advised me
not to take too many through a gentleman's house. We went
into a yard in Mr. Taylor's house, and in a corner in the basement
story was a stone which formed the bounds of the parish, which
the boys used to beat. The procession then passed out to
Crane-court, and through the Scottish hospital.
Richard Edwards—l know the plaintiff's premises. They
were formerly occupied by my father, who is dead. He sold
them to the plaintiff about ten years ago. The procession
' always passed through my father's house, and thence into
Crane-court. This occurred from my earliest recollection,

and I never knew of any obstruction being offered.
Alexander Johnston, beadle of St. Bride's parish—l was
appointed in the year .1821,.and went round in the year 1824
with the procession. We went through the back entrance of
Mr. Edwards' house, and out at the front door in Crane-
court. There was no objection made by the owners or occu-
piers of the house. In 1827 I also accompanied the proces-
sion. There was no obstruction then, and we passed as usual
through the house. In 1830, when we came to the back
door, some altercation took place, but ultimately some of the
procession went through the house. An alteration,had been
made in the premises since 1827. In 1833 I accompanied the
procession which went through the house, but only some of
the children passed through. There was some obstruction
offered by the plaintiff. The number of housekeepers or rate-
payers in the parish is about 600. The population is 7,000.
Peter Jackson resides in the parish, and was churchwarden
about the year 1818. Recollects accompanying the proces-
sion
two or three times. Was overseer about ten years be-
fore lie was churchwarden, and at that time the procession
went through Mr. Edwards' house.
Two or three other witnesses gave gave similar evidence.
Mr. CRESSWELL (with whom was:Mr. Watson), addressed
the jury for the plaintiff. His Learned Friend had alluded to
the sup;?rstitious customs which formerly prevailed ; but he
believed some equally absurd still existed, and which were
practised not many years ago. It was then the custom to seize
upon the persons of passers-by, and bump them against the
boundary stones—( A laugh)—for the purpose of impressing
the circumstance upon the minds of the boys. One person,
who had been actually so treated, brought an action for as-
sault and battery against the parish authorities, which was
tried before Lord Tenterden, and it was seriously defended by
counsel as authorized " by ancient and laudable custom."—
(A laugh.) It brought down upon the defendants, and even
the counsel employed by them, the severe censure of the
Learned Judge, who had observed that it was " a custom
honoured more in the breach than the observance."—
(Loud laughter.) That custom had properly been done
away with, and he trusted the present, which was a nuisance
to the plaintiff, without conferring any benefit upon the parish
would, by the verdict of the Jury be done away with. There
was no proof that the passage through the plaintiff's house was
the actual boundary line of the parish—no record or parish
book to show that such was the ancient right, although the
witnesses had proved that such was the custom. But that
might have been matter of licence by the occupier, and gave
no right to the present defendants. Under all the circum-
stances, he trusted the Jury would find that the defendants
were not authorised in their trespass upon Mr. Taylor's pre-
mises, and that they would find a verdict for the plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN summed up -at -great length, and the Jury,
after consulting together for about twenty minutes, returned a
verdict for the defendants, thus establishing the right of the
parish authorities to pass through the plaintiff's house.

EXCHEQUER COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

_

CORTAZZI V. ARCHBOLD.
This was an action brought for the recovery of a sum of
161. 10s., under the following circumstances :
The defendant held the lease of the house, No. 22, Bruns-
wick-square, from a Mr. Clerk, at a rent of 1361. 10s. per
annum. In 1532 he left it, and employed a house agent to
get a tenant for the remainder of his lease. The agent could
not get a better offer than that made by the plaintiff, which
was 1301. per annum, and it was accordingly accepted, the de-
fendant covenanting to hold the plaintiff harmless as to the
claim of the superior landlord. When the first quarter's rent
became due, the superior landlord called upon the plaintiff for
the rent, and was offered at the rate of 1301., which he refused,
and also to go to defendant for the balance. He was paid the
whole of his claim, and Mr. Freeman repaid plaintiff. Subsequent
quarters became due, which were paid in the same manner, but
the defendant was never to be, seen, and the action was now
brought to recover the amount so overpaid by the plaintiff.
Mr. EaLE, who stated the case, then called Mr. Freeman,
when
Mr. KELLY, who was Counsel for the defendants, conferred
with Mr. Erie, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff,
without further trouble.

DESPERATE GANG OF ARMED THIEVES,—
The neighbourhood of Henham, Broxted, Widdington
Eiston, and the adjoining parishes, have been for some time
infested by a lawless gang, who have in the most daring
manner plundered the farmers of sheep, poultry, &c., and
the nocturnal depredations have of late become so frequent
that the farmers have been compelled to sit up at night with
assistants, as the only means of protecting their property.
On Saturday night last, a party of eight men, six of whom
had guns and the other two bludgeons, went to Henham,
Broom Farm, in the occupation of Mr. Joshua Markwell,
between ten and. eleven o'clock at night, with intent, it is
supposed, to steal his turkies, which are said to be the
finest in the country. Mr. Markwell, however, hoaring of
their intended visit, obtained assistance, and followed them
into a pasture next his house. A rencontre here took
place, in the course of which a person named Robinson, a
carpenter, attacked one of the gang, who was armed,
felled him to the ground by a severe blow on the eye, and
t 1 iiiThi him, took him into custody. Another- of the
party was also secured. The others for the present have
escaped.—Sujolit Gazette.
SUPPOSED MURDER.—==A man named Ceorge Rus-
sell, a workman in the employ of Mr. Marston; a plumber
and glacier at Birmingham, met his death last week in the
following shocking manner :—Russell was at the Coach
and Horses public-house, in Snowhill, Birmingham, in com-
pany with several other iietstlnt, and amongst the rest was
a " tramp' in the same line of business as Russell, who, in
the course of conVertatietn said that he was not only a
plumber and glazier, but likewise a paper brirti, This led
Russell to observe that is was singular for a person to fnli,
low two such distinct Occupations, and mutual jeering oc-
curred, but no personal quarrel. The tramp quitted the
house about a quarter to nine o'clock, and Russell ten or
fifteen minutes afterwards. About ten o'clock Russell was
found in a state of insensibility on the Hagley-road, which
is not in the direction of his own house. His head was
dreadfully fractured, and his side and other parts of his body
much bruised. His pockets were also found turned inside
out, and destitute of money. An inquest was held on the
body, which adjourned to Wednesday next. The tramp
was seen on the following morning between Birmingham
and Wolverhampton.