Star.
London, England, 1813-05-20 00:00:00

LA? artalttnlCE. r.

...............t.ri '
; ' t
COUItt OF KING'S Brileit, MAlt ill •
THE KING V. HOLLIS.
James Hollis, who had been found guilty of being
concerned in a conspiracy with Gawler and others
to defraud Greenwich Hospital by means of forged
warrants of seamen's service, entitling them to pen-
sions, was brought up to receive the judgment-of the
Court.
The prisoner put in. a petition supplicating the.
mercy of the Court, as he had served in his Majesty's
navy, and had afterwards been very unfortunate,
when he fell in with Gawler and one Donovan, who
induced him to pursue those practices of which a Jury
had found him guilty, but which he did not cdfiCave
to be criminal.
Mr. Justice Mose enlarged on the enormity of the
offeu ce. inasmuch as it went to deprive the old sea.
man of that support which he had looked forward to
in his old age, by diverting the funds into unworthy
hands. The sentence of the Court about to be pro-
nounikd was similar to what had been imposed on
those who had also been engaged in the conspiracy :
it was, imprisonment for nine months in Horse-
monger gaol.
THE KING V. KERRISON.
This was a Writ of Error,,from the late Norfolk
Assizes. The Defendant had been indicted for ne-
glecting to repair a bridge over a certain canal, of
which he was the proprietor, and the right of navi-
gating which belonged to him. On this indictment
he was found guilty.
Mr. ABBOTT, in support of the defendant in error,
argued that he was no more liable to repair the bridge
over-this canal, of which he was the proprietor, than
the owner of an estate was to keep a turnpike-road in
order which was running through that estate, because
he was the proprietor of the soil beneath.
Mr. BEST, in support of the conviction, contended,
that the defendant being proprietor of the canal, and
possessing the right to navigate it, was hound to keep
the bridge in repair which was placed over it.
The Court were unanimously of opinion, that the 1
defendant was not liable to repair the bridge, in con-
sequence of the interest which he had in the canal ;
and, therefore, reverted the judgment.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
,BRAZEN-NOSE COLLEGE V. BV.IIOI, OF SALISBURY.
It appeared, that the plaintiffs having brought an
action to ascertain whether Dr. Outram, by his ac-
ceptance of the living of St. Philip, at Birmingham,
had vacated the rectory of Wooten Rivers, in Wilt-
shire, obtained a verdict in their favour, liable to the
construction which a Court of Law might put upon
the meaning of the Acts of Parliament, which regu-
lated the presentation and possession of Choral
livings.
Mr. Serjeant LENS maintained, for the plaintiffs,
that the acceptance of the presentation of the Crown
to the living in Birmingham had vacated the rectory
of Wooten Rivers, inasmuch as it was contrary to the
ancient Canon Law, proinulgated by the Council of
Lateran, and since adopted into the Common Law,'
to jarssess and hold too such situations in the Church.
The law decreed, under the head i-f Pluralities, that
whosoever accepted of a benefice, while possessed of
another, should be deprived of the first, and the pa-
tron was permittid to hest • w the same on whom he
should deem wor thy. That law having stood anal.
1 tered anti, unimpeached to the present period, the
, rectory of Wooten Rivers was therefore vacant, and
the College having the privilege of presentation might
Imake their election immediately..
Mr. PELL endeavoured to maintain, from the leeis-
i lative and common construction of the Acts of Par-
liament, that the benefice of St. PI-.llip was perpetti.
I ally appropriated to the rectory, therefore Dr.ollll-31111
had not vacated the latter by accepting the piesenta-
I tion of the former from the Crown. This appropria-
tion, he contended, was manifested in the Act r f Par-
' liament, which explained the Act of Queen Atria.,
where the word Appurtenance, annexed to the rec-
wry, evidently meant the living of St. Mop, att
Birmingham.
' Sir JAMES MANSFIELD Slid, that no doubt could
be entertained on the subject. It was impobNible to
conceive that the valuable living of St. Philip could
be concealed in the word Appurtenance, and the'
. Acts of Parliament had no such appropriation in con-
templation wten they were framed. He could see
no rational grounds for either doubt or hesitation on
• the subject, therefore k would be better not to delay
,-the parties.—The right of the plainith was in come-
' quence confirmed.