The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-29 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jur! 2S.

The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE sat at Nisi Prius this morn-
ing for about ball an hour, and took several undefended
causes. At ten o'clock, his Lordship was joined by the
other Learned Judges, when the Court sat in banco, and
disposed of several cases of no general interest.

COURT OP EXCHEQUER CI

MACDOUGALL V. THE LEATHERSELLLILS' COMTANI.
minis is a suit instituted for the recto-very of The
plaintiff is the inipropriate rector of the parish of St. He-
len's, Bishopsgate-street, and claims, under the '37th
Henry VIII., a sum of 2s. 9d. in the pound upon the rent
of the premises which constitute the Hall of the Warden
and Society of the Leathersellers' Company.

It was contended by Mr. BIC); ERSTETIT, the CoaiaeoN
SERGEANT, and Mr. BOTELER, on behalf of the defend-
ants, first, that the decree which was to have given effect
to the Act of Henry VIII. had never been enrolled, and
consequently that the Act was inoperative. The fact of
the enrolment, they said, was already negatived by the de-
cision of another case, in which 'Mr. Macdougall was
plaintiff, which had been tried in the Court of Common
Pleas in 1826. Nor could the argument on the other side
—that the enrolment must be presumed because the decree
was lost—prevail, because it was found to be deposited in
the archives of St. Paul's Cathedral. The fact was, that
some time before the passing of the Act of Henry VIII. the
offerings of the citizens had amounted to 2s. 6d. in the
pound. Archbishop Arundel, however, introduced a re-
inforcement of twenty-two new Saints into the calendar,
for which he obtained a bull from the Pope, whereby the
offerings were increased by twenty-two additional half-
pence, that is, a half-penny for every saint, which raised,
the former rate of 2s. 6d. to 3s. bd. This gave rise to
great discontent on the part of the citizens ; and
from that (lay down to the present period there
had been no peace in the city on the subject of
tithes. The remonstrance of the citizens led to the
passing of the Act in question, limiting the rate to a sum
between the old and the new—viz. 2s. 9d. in the pound;
and a decree was drawn up by the Chancellor and others,
in pursuance of its provisions. Neither parties, however,
were satisfied with this adjustment. The citizens were
unwilling to pay more than the rate which they had for-
merly paid, and which they deemed sufficiently burden-
some; while the clergy were equally unwilling that the
decree should take effect. and thus deprive them of the
additional offerings which the new Saints were to have
produced to them ; the Archbishop, therefore, instead of
having the decree enrolled., carried it away with him, and
deposited it in St. Paul's Cathedral, where it has remained
ever since. And as another proof that this decree bad
never been deemed to be in operation, no allusion whatever
had been made to it in the Fire Act, which was passed
after 100 churches had been burnt down by the great fire
in London. In the next place, it was insisted by the de-
fendants, that even supposing that the decree had been
enrolled, still they were not liable to the demand in
question, because the site upon which their premises were
erected had previously been occupied by buildings which
were exempted from this rate, in consideration of a cus-
tomary payment of an abstract suns of Ss. 11. yearly, in
the nature of a modus.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL contended, on the other side,
that the Court must presume that the enrolment of the
decree had taken place; for that fact had been established
by the finding of a jury in 1647, which year being so much
nearer to the period when the decree had been made, the
verdict in that case was of so much greater authority upon
the question than the verdict in the Common Pleas last
year ; because many proofs that might have existed in
164.7 might by this time have been lost. That question,
then, being rem judicata, it ought not to be opened again.
With respect to the other points, be contended that the
exemption, in consideration of the Ss. 3d., only referred to
the buildings, and not to the land upon which those build-
ings stood. Consequently, the premises of the defendants
being new buildings, they had no claim to the privilege
enjoyed by those which had formerly occupied the same
site. Besides, the defendants' premises only covered a part
of the land on which the former premises had stood; the
remainder was occupied by other buildings, for which the
full rate had been paid.
The case having been argued for three several days,
The Loan Crimp BARON at length observed, that it
was useless to occupy any further time in arguing it at
present, mince it was clear that an issue must be directed to
a Jury, to try the question on both points. His Lordship,
therefore, directed the case to stand over to a future day,
to give Counsel an opportunity of agreeing upon and draw-
big up the proper issues.

COURT OP CONDELEGATES, JUNE 28.
Pulse° V, BRISCO.
A motion stood for this morning, calling upon the Court
to pronounce Sir Wastel Brisco in contempt for non-pay-
ment of costs and alimony, decreed against him by the
High Court of Delegates, The Proctor for Sir Wastel
stated that they would be paid this morning, and the
Proctor for the other side thereupon declined to press the
motion.