Star.
London, England, 1824-12-17 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

THE KING V. HARTNELL.
We have authority to state, that the de 'lndant in the above ac-
tion, tried in the Court of Exchequer on the gd instant, is
HaarNem ,of Wine Office Court, Fleet-street.

COI 1:1' OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 16.
COOK V. BANKS.
This was an action of trespass, brought by Mr. Cook,
the plaintiff, against the defendant, for entering his
chambers in Lincoln's Inn, and 'seizing his tables.
The defendant pleaded that he was not guilty. The
question was, whether the chamber where this table was
taken was part and parcel of the parish of St. Andrew,
Holborn ? if it was, the defendant was entitled to a ver-
dict, because the parish officers were entitled to make a
rate and enforce payment, which they did in this in-
stance. If it had not been part and parcel of the parish,,
the defendant could not legally demand payment of
any poor rate for that parish. This action, in fact, was
nothing more than a new effort on the part of the parish
of St. Andrew, Holborn, to make the Benchers of Lin-
coln's Inn, who claim to be extra-parochial, pay rates;
it was a mere question of boundary.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, as Counsel for the plaintiff
and the Benchers, produced a body of evidence in sup-
' port of the right so long enjoyed by the Benchers of
Lincoln's inn. A charter in the reign of Henry I. was
read, conveying the property of the Black Friars, or
Dominicans, situate near Holborn, to Henry de Lacey,
Earl of Lincoln, from whom it descended to the Bishop
of Chichester and the Benchers. This charter, it was
said, proved that Lincoln's Inn Originally belonged to
the Church, and like other Church property was not in-
cluded in the bounds of any parish. The gateway, in
Chancery-lane, which has been standing about three
hundred years, with the Arms of Lacey, Earl of Lin-
coln, over it, was also urged, as-proof that the Inn was
the property conveyed from the Dominicans to that
Nobleman. In addition to this, no evidence could be
found of the payment of rates by the Benchers down to
the present dispute._ It appeared also, that no tithes had
been paid; no Easter dues had been paid; no rates for
repairs of the Church. No parish officer had been chosen
from the Inn. The watching and lighting rates were
not paid; no highway rates had been paid. With re-
spect to foundlings in the Inn, the Benchers, and not the
parish had provided for them; they had also supported
their own paupers. There was another thing in their'
favour : the parish officers having returned the names of
persons in the Inn as liable to serve in the militia, the
parties appealed at the Sessions, and the return was
quashed, on the ground that it did not appear Lincoln's
Inn was part of the parish. This xas the main part of
the evidence to prove the defendant could nut be justi-
fied in making the seizure.
Mr. SCA RLETT, on the part of the parish, produced a
deal of evidence. A book was read, by which it ap-
peared that the property of Lincoln's Inn was in three
parishes. Mr. Scarlett said the Society of Lincoln's
Inn had documents in their possession which they
ought to bring forward ; but the Judge held that
they were not bound to produce their title deeds
against their will. With respect to the book in ques-
tion, Mr. Lane, the steward of Lincoln's Inn, had pub-
lished it. He said he compiled the work from ancient
documents, and part from Dugdale's History of the Inns
of Court. A part was from his own ideas on the sub-
ject. He had never seen the deed. It described the
passing of a fine, by which certain property, consisting
of six acres and a messuage, conveyed to a liencher of
Lincoln's Inn, was said to be in the parishes of St. Giles,
St. Dunstan in the West, and St. Andrew, Holborn.—
Evidence was then given of persons who died in Lin-
coln's Ina being registered as having died in the parish.
The searchers of dead bodies for St. Andrew's parish,
also searched the dead- in Lincoln's Inn. The most ma-
terial evidence against the Benchers was that of the pe-
rambulations made by the boys and the parish officers
over the bounds. The boys, according to a very old
witness, on several occasions went into Lincoln's Inn-
hall, where they partook of refreshment; they also went
into the Chapel, where Divine service was celebrated.
This was the evidence on both sides.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in his reply, contended
that the Inn was not to be considered part and parcel of
the parish, because it might be attached- to the hamlet.
Many places situate in a parish did not belinig to that.
parish. It was necessary to prove the payment of
rates,•and the performance of parochial clinic.. St.
Martin's-le-Grand, in the City of London, belonged to a
parish in Middlesex.
Mr. Justice LITTLEnALE stated the question to the
Jury. They had to decide whether Lincoln's-Inn was
part and parcel of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn.
The Learned Judge detailed the strong parts of the
evidence. The defendant's case was most supported by

Mr. 0. F. JONES stated that this was an action
brought by the plaintiff-to recover from the defendant
compensation in damages for injury sustained by him
in consequence of a malicious libel written by defendant.
Mr. SCARLETT stated the case for the plaintiff, whom
he described to be an attorney in Hereford, where the
defendant was a partner in a banking house known by
the name.of Bodenham and Co. The libel upon which
the present action was brought was contained in a letter
which the defendant had thought proper, in January
1822, to vi rite to a partner of his, named Gar raft; in
which letter he stated-that Harris had sent to the bank-
ing house 271. worth of their notes to be exchanged for
gold ; that at the foot of the slip of paper containing an
account for the notes was a memorandum, stating that.
Mr. Harris, having heard that Bodenham and Co.
were desirous to know where he got their notes, he
should in future endorse on each note the name of the
person from whom he received it, as he cared as little
about Bodenham and Co. as he did about their notes ;
that under this memorandum the defendant wrote the
words, 66 Bodenham and Co. requite no further proof
of his (Harris) being a blackguard," and then returned
the paper by his clerk. The letter further stated, that
the plaintiff commenced an action, " Cruse v. Tuber-
ville," with the expectation of putting money into his
own pocket ; that the sum for which the action had
been originally brought was 7001. or 800/. and that the
verdict obtained was only for 3001. that Hank was a
defaulter to the amount of two rentals with Mr. Wes-
ton, the rents of whose estates in that county he re-
ceived; and thatjMr.Weston would have dismissed him,
but that agreeably to the old proverb, be felt it neces-
sary.to hold the candle to the devil ; and the letter con-
cluded by expressing a wish that the " law or the
ALMIGHTY would soon rid the earth of such a monster
as Harris." Upon this libel it would be unnecessary to
makeosny observations, as at first glance no one could
fail tolome to the conclusion that a grosser libel could
not be written, as it was levelled both at the moral and
professional character of the plaintiff, who had no re-
source left but to seek fin- compensation from a Jury of
his country. The facts of the plaintiff being an attor-
.ney and the agent for the receipt of Mr. Weston's rent,
and the examined copy of the Record in the case of
Cruse v. Tuberville" having been proved, the letter
was put in, read, and proved.
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL addressed the Court for
the defendant, after which his Lordship summed up,
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 201.