Star.
London, England, 1824-11-23 00:00:00

LAW REPaRT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEgBER
TIIE PRESBYTERY v. REV. ALEX. PLETCUIER.

• The adjourned hearing of this long, and now very
heavy case, was resumed.
CHIN,, for the defendant, and Mr. Heater, for
the Congregation, exhorted the Court at considerable
largth not to grant the injunction, because there was no
Contract on the part of Mr. Fletcher to obey the Synod
which could be found in the deed ; and because, if there
had been, it was admitted on the other side, that the
Synod could have no authority over the fonds of the
Chapel, the application of which expressly depended
upon the majority of the congregation; and by conse-
quence, as there was no question of property, so there
could be none in the case which would admit of the
Court's jurisdiction being exercised.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was partly heard in reply,
and contended for the exercise of the jurisdiction upon
the contract, implied by the deed, by the usage, and by
common apprehension, under which Mr. Fletcher bad
bound himself, when taking on him the administration
of the Chapel, implicitly to obey the Synod. Ile argued
that the new nature of the fact which had been assumed
as a reason why the Court should not interfere, was no
reason at all. There was as much reason in restraining
a man from preaching in a particular pulpit againsthis
own contract, as there was in restraining the Hammer.
smith bell born ringing, because the churchwardens
had contracted with Lady Arabella Howard not tq
ring if to the distraction of that gentlewoman's tender
nerves, at five o'clock on every: morning. On another
occasion, the Court had ordered Mr. Gorge Colman
not to write plays for Covent-garden, because be had
contracted to write for the Haymarket. Oa another
occasion, the Court had restrained a man from selling
lemonade and other: refreshments to the frequenters of
Vauxhall, because of his contract not to do so. There
was nothing which could be devised or thought of
which might not become incident in suits of this kind,
quite consistently with the most undisputed branch of
equity jurisdiction. The law of patents teemed with
these cases, which would be all got rid of by the ridi-
cule and affected surprise of his learned friends that a
Court of Equity should be troubled with such matters.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, by repeatei interference in
the course of the pleadings, signified his doubts—first,
whether, supposing the matter of accusation against
Mr. Fletcher being made out " malverse of conversa-
tion," according to the rules and constitutions of the
Scotch Synod 'and of those rules and constitutions Ms
Lordship had not the slightest evidence before him);
and; secondly; if a breach of promi.e of marriage did
amount to that offence, and was so censurable by sus-
pension or otherwise, whether the Court would lend its
jurisdiction to enforce such a trust ? Another doubt
which pressed hit Lordship's mind was of a more direct
nature. He was clearly of opinion that the proper ap-
pli'cation of the Chapel funds w.as in the discretion of
the majority[ of the congregation. if he enjoined Mr.
Fletcher from preaching, the congregation might with-
hold their supplies to any other Minister appointed by
the Synod.' To comply with the Petition, he most direct
Mr. Fletcher not to enter the pulpit,' and the very next
day there would be amend of the congregation and of
all the receipts and profits, which, if the injunction were
properly granted, ought to be received for the new Mi-
nister or the Synod. Was there ever an instance bf the
Court executing a trust ;here the decree might.be in-
stantly rendered null and' void by the will of one of the
parties, and nUredrest to be had afterwards?--Further
heating to-morrow. •