The Sun.
London, England, 1820-05-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 24.
CLAYTON V. POPE .AND OTHERS.
This action was brought by a Professional
Gentleman, the occupier of No. 3,' New Square,
Lincoln's Inn, against the Overseers of the Li'
belly of the Rolls, in the parish of St. Ditnstan
%Vest, to try the question; whether Mr. Clayton.
in respect to his Chambers, was liable to pay fa
the relief of the poor of the Liberty of the Rolls,
The defendants being required to prove tlia
liability, were first called on by the issue to pro'
dace witnesses. They accordingly put in a Par'
liameatary survey made under the Protectorate
of
Cromwell, by which the parish of St. Dunstan
West appeared to he pert in London and part
ill
Middlesex. That part called the Rolls was it.'
;Middlesex.
in order to show that the plaintiff was not
liable, a person from the Tower of Lonrho
produced the copy of a grant made in the Sixth
of Ede and the Secone, of the new Temple, or
Piqeets Croft (the si aof Lincoln's Jun bore
that name in the above reign), late belonging
to the Knights Templdrs, and used by them tor
religious purposes, to De Valence, EA of Pear*
broke. The plaintiff also produced an agree'
tent between the BCOChers and Searle, a tree"
holder, made in the reign of Charles the Second,
by which Seatle was to build the Chambers
forming the New Square on Piquets Croft. Prom
the above grant and agreement an inference vvas
drawn that the laud originally belonged to a fell'
gions Society, and in that respect it was extra;-lo'
rochial. In 1777 an action was brought by
Gentleman, named Newnan, to try whether the
plaintiff, in respect of his Chambers, was liable t°
pay the rate assessed for the pour in the Liberty
of the Rolls. In that case it did not appear tli4g
the verdict went for the parish, and it wae mei°
a strong point of support for the present plaintiff.
There was no proof of tittles having been paid by
the Bencbers, nor had they been called upon
discharge the duty of parish officers. With re'
spect to paupers found in Lincoln's Inn, the So"
ciety tent two poor persons to the Rolls woll'
house; and paid a compensation to the overseers
for their support..
This was the substance of the evidence; °11)
which Mr. MARaYATT, for the plaintiff, contendelA
that the part of the iota occ:t:pied by the plaiosi
was in no perish, and, consequently, that Air;
Clayton was taut Ramie to support the 000 r of th-
HundVed,
Mr. SCARLETT, for the parish, relied upon Ole
boundary stone, which clearly placed the cballlt:
bets withinehe• parish of Saint Dunstan. Oil
respect to the Fee fl having belonged to the I.:nigh:,
Tempters, he did not deny that'l•act, but it evilnot extra-parochial on that eccouet. The Kiligha,
Tensplars might have purchased the land trans
,ing on the precincts of Saint Dunstan's parics;
and if they did, was not extra-parochial. ;
action so much relied on, appeared to him to "0
been a compromiie with the rich and power'
society of Lincoln's lon. •
The parish officers had no doubt been as tud,
alarmed at the appearance of the great lave
ratters among the ilenchers, as a young °lf.
Was at the frOwn' of Lord Thurlow. The Pe co
son to whoni he alluded, on quitting the ireSeil.,
of that learned Judge,' exclaimed :
"1 saw the Norman conquest in his eye--r
obis
and the feudal system in every feature of
.
face.",
The Learned Counsel observed, that the Bes
chers and Atterniei were never called oriloot
discharge parochial duties, because they Weretese
liable to those duties on tic-Coma tit -their lerft)..
sion. .
The Jury, under all the circumstances, fop ins
verdict tor the Parish Officers, therefore Enals
the Plaintiff liable to pay rates.
THB DUKE OF BEDFORD V. PAGE.
This was an action brought, in fact, nee
lessees of the Noble Plaintiff, against the de ,d
dant, who is a market-gardener, in order Wie
of
the right to certain tolls claimed upon thersw /co
potatoes in a particular part of Covent-thlr,.!e'd'
called the potatoe-market. The present
ing Was the foryth of .the same nature ;• a° 10
details have already been laid fully before
public.
The Jury, after differing for some time, fflr(l
al'
a verdict tor the plaintiff, establishing the tv,tbilt
two-pence per sack upon all potatoes soldl; the
that particular part of the market upon wllsc
question was raised. .

........................................----...............--...-----......—_ ___
BIRTHS..
On Tuesday morning, at his house in Guildford-stre:t; WI
Lady of G.T. Nicholson, Esq., of a son, Hilo only lice' t,
hours., „, ;tree '
On IL'uesday morning, the 23d inst in Great CO
/
.)
Mrs. Wallier, of a son.. . /'
. f$
• MARRIED. OPO''
On Tuesday, at . St. Andrew's church, 1-Tolborny,, of
Kemp, Esq., of Grower-street, to Ann, eldest dauglit° ,e•
J. Reeves, Esq., of Wohurn:phice, Russell-Squat e• .e yo
ri,
• Yesterday, Dr. 'l'. Hart, of Red Lion-square, t01t,%,101
deberg, second daughter of J. S. Friedeherg, °I . ',..:,./
hill.
....-,:.----------<-. of
--
lE. el, of
~ _ • r
On the 6th inst. in Russell-square, Katlierin_t ~,i)te p
Francis Robertson, Esq. of Falmouth Trelawiiey, du li: of
the Rol). John Cunningham, deceased, late Gusto, lot,
James's, Jamaica. . r the )1;1
On Saturday, last, at Haberton, in his 69th Yea 1 tll4
Ralph Barnes, At-clideacon of Totnes, Chancellor u
~ 0
aged
II"
cese, and Canon Resident iary of 10;.sese.0.-
On the 9th instant, Mr. George Lockingtun,
his house, No. 63, South Audley-street. w` :real
Ali
"--------'''''—"---'' _._._rte--.
- —7-- - - ' r•ii 0; 16, Afi' 4
'• tA)NDON: Printed by J. B. CARSI'AIRS, Of , trf• • sri
Ormond-street, Queeirssquare; 'and
SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Molton-street, t.._ 002
pbblishe: TO .efo
Office, No. 119, Strand; where Adveitiseinent7,
Lctisirs, &c, (post-paid) must be addressed.