The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-04 00:00:00

NEWTON V. IfOLFORD.

This was an action for illegal distress and false im-
prisonment, brought by the plaintiff, a barrister,
against the defendant, the sheriff of Gloucestershire.
The case was tried at Gloucester, and the jury found
for the plaintiff, with damages 50/. The particulars
of the case, and various matters connected with it,
have already been frequently before the public:
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this day obtained a rule
nisi to set aside the verdict, on the ground of its being
against evidence.
Several other conditional rules were also obtained,
but none of the cases were of particular interest.

ARCHES' COURT; Nov. 2.
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST.)

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY TITCH.
MARSH AGAINST CHAPMAN, CLERK.-THE BASING.

BOURNE CASE.

This was a suit promoted against the Rev. William
Herbert Chapman, vicar of the parish of Basing-
bourne, in the diocese of Ely and province of Canter-
bury, calling on him to answer certain articles and
interrogatories, which charged him with refusing to
bury the body of Jane Rumbold, daughter of John
Rumbold, contrary to the canons and rubric of the
Church ; firstly, for having refused to perform his
office in the year 1840 ; and secondly, in the year 1841.
Numerous affidavits were read, the articles of
which exhibited that John Rumbold was a labouring
man, and a parishioner of the Rev. Mr. Chapman's,
although he was a member of the Independent con-
gregation, of which the Rev. Mr. Moore was the
minister. Upon the death of Rumbold's child, in
1840, he went, accompauied by a person named
Hopkins, to the Rev. Mr. Chapman, and gave
him that " convenient notice" which was in
accordance with the canons, by saying to the
Rev. Gentleman he wished him to " perform his
office," in burying his (Rumbold's) child ; but Mr.
Chapman refused to do so, on the ground that the
deceased had not been baptised according to the
forms of the Church of England, but that the sacra-
ment had been administered by a minister of an In-
dependent congregation, and he also alleged that the
child had not been baptised at all, although the
Reverend Mr. Moore had informed Mr. Chapman
that he (Mr. Moore) had baptised the deceased, and had
desired Rumbold to be at church at half-past six
o'cleck, when the Rev. Mr. Chapman would read the
burial service. The articles further stated at great
length that the child had been baptised by the Rev.
Mr. Moore with water, in the name of the Trinity.
The deceased was taken to the churchyard, and from
thence to the porch of the church at the appointed
time, when Rumbold begged of Mr. Chapman
to bury the child, saying, at the same time,
" I will pay you whatever fees you may demand."
To this the Rev. Mr. Chapman replied, " I positively
refuse to do so," and the same answer was given to
seve •al subsequent earnest entreaties on the part of
the p )or and bereaved father with a similar result.
The consequence of this refusal was that he and his
friends and neighbours who attended the funeral had
to return home (a very long distance), taking back
the corpse which was still unburied at the present
moment, and was, therefore, more than four years
now a')ove ground through the refusal of the
Rev. Mr. Chapman to bury any person belonging to
a Dissenting congregation. IVhen the application
was ma le to Mr. Chapman, subsequent to the de-
ceased being brought to the church, he had a person
who was an attorney's clerk, and before that indivi-
dunl he s sid," I refuse to bury the child for the
reasons I gave before." Those reasons were under-
stood by all to be, because the deceased was an
heretic. Written notice was served upon Mr.
Chapman, shortly after the decision of the Privy
Council in the Gedney case. Rumbold swore in
his affidavit that Mr. Chapman offered to pay half the
fees of burial at the Independent chapel, but he
(Rumbold) refused to have his child buried there
because his wife and ten children were buried in the
parish church.
On the part of the Rev. Mr. Chapman it was urged
that the courts of common law held, that
where a suit was instituted against a clergyman for
the non-performance of his office, it was essential that
due proof of sufficient notice, according to the 58th
canon, should be given of his having been called upon
to perform this office before the Court could award
d images against him, and that if it were otherwise,
all the clergy of the dioceses of York and Canterbury
would be at the mercy of every parishoner who had
an against him. ' Mr. Chapman had not had
sufficient and convenient notice, and therefore there
could he no grounds for asking the Court to pro-
nounce judgment upon the Rev. Gentleman.
The Learned Advocates up-an both sides having
addressed the Court,

Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST said, perhaps it would
have been better if there had been more testimony
with respect to the fact of due notice. However, as
it was, the case was closed for the present, and must
stand over for judgment.

The case was then adjourned indefinitely.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 2.

- A few cases of an unimportant character were put
down in the palm for hearing before Mr. Commissioaer
Goulburn, but they were all unopposed, and therefore of
so general interest.