Star.
London, England, 1822-06-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

`j~.
i~

Ii

11

1•

i 1

i~

L

COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, JUNE 1.
LORD *OHM V. FLETCHER, CLERK.
Mr. SELWIN stated to the Jury, that they were im-
panelled to assess the damages on a bond for twelve
thousand pounds, subject to a condition that the de-
fendant wori.d resign We living of Kettering, in
Northamptonshire, presented to him by the plaintiff,
as soon as either of the younger brothers of Lord
Sondes should be qualified to hold it, and he should
have received a month's notice of the desire of the
plaintiff to present such brother to the living: The
defendant had suffered judgment by default, and the
case, therefore, came before them on a writ of inquiry.
Mr. SCA RLETT addressed the Jury on behalf of the
plaintiff. The defendant, in 1814, was travelling
tutor to Lord Sondes, when this living became va-
cant by the resignation of Mr. Knight. His Lord-
ship, desirous of conferring- a favour on his tutor,
and at the same time anxious not to preclude himself
from making a provision for one of his younger bro.
thers, in case either should choose to take Orders, pre-
sented the defendant, and took from him the bond in
question. Mr. Fletcher had ever since been in the
enjoyment of the living ; but in 1820, when required I
to fulfil his engagement by resigning in favour of the
Hon. W. Watson, one of the brothers alluded to in
the condition, he gave a peremptory refusal, and con-
tended that the bond was void on the ground of si-
mony. He had not thought fit, however, to rely on
this objection, which he knew could not avail him,
but had suffered juigment by default, and they had
confined the question to the amount of damages.—
Now, ,flu this subject the Jury had really no option,
because it was manifestly the intention of the parties,
that in case the defendant refused to perform his en-
gagement, the whole twelve thousand pounds should
be forfeited. Lord Sondes did not, however, desire
to take a farthing of Mr. Fletcher's money, and if
even now he would resign, would consent to be
bound by a Rule of Court, that no judgment should
be entered up against him.
The bond, and admissions of the notice, and of the
qualification of the lion. W. Watson to hold' the
living, were read, and formed the whole case on the
part of the plaintiff.
The SOLICITOR•LiENERAL said, -that it was due to
the character of Mr. Fletcher to state, that the con-1
nection between the plaintiff and defendant had been
sought by the former. When they became acquainted,
Mr. Fletcher was in possession of a valuable Curacy,
which he had quiued to accompany Lord Sondes in
his continental tour, on the understanding that he
should be presented to the first living which came
into the gift of his noble pupil. When he was pre-
sented to the living of Kettering, subject to the hard
condition of the bond, it was understood that he
should hold it until Lord Sondes could give him
some other preferment which he might absolutely
enjoy. This engagement had never been performed,l
and therefore Mr. Fletcher thought himself justified
In retaining the living until Lord Sondes fulfilled his
original promise. In point of law, the bond in ques-
tion was void, as against ecclesiastical policy, which
directed that tire union between a Clergyman and his
parishioners should not be broken at the caprice of
individuals, but should be severed =only by death.
At all events, it was almird to contend that the Jury
were bound to give the whole penaltrof the bond,
the necessity of doing which was the very mischief
against which-the Statute of William was directed.—
When the defendant took possession of the living, he
found the parsonage-house in a state of ruin, and re-
built it at an expense of no less than £l4OO. As Lord
Sondes had indemnified the previous incumbent
against dilapidations, he was himself bound in con.:
wince to repair the premises, and yet lie bad never
allowed the defendant anything for this large expen-
diture, by which he had enhanced the permanent
value of the advowson. From the nominal proceeds
of the living, large sums were to be deducted; among
• others, £2OO per annum far a Curate to perform its
duties ; and, indeed, consisting as it did of glebe
lands, most of which were let to poor tenants, and
some to actual paupers, at this time it was scarcely
of any value. Mr. Fletcher was now 46 years of age,
and therefore his interest was ,not worth more than
ten years purchase; so that, making a fair deduc-
'on for the sum expended on the house—considering
present state of agriculture affecting in a peculiar
ree the living in question—t&y,,otight to give
nominal damages.
Itaesses were then called to prove the actual
of the living. By their testimony, it appeared
the mots amounted to £BO7, from which deduc-
were to be made for taxes, reducing it to £746
SoLionon-Lisiiamei. called a witness to prove

' e t WIZ
1, tion for
,1 the pre
i 1 .
. . degree
only 114
Vneti
vaic
, 40k that th
1 , lions vi
The
. ,