Star.
London, England, 1813-07-29 00:00:00

PLYMOUTH. JULY C 7.

The following are the names of all those vessels
which arrived here yesterday from the Meditcr:aneat.,
under convoy of the Paorrcrou gun-brig,
Duchess of Richmond transport, REED, from Gibral-
tar, with invalids, Szc. bound to this port ; transport
brig Friends, CARPENTER., from Port 14.1h0n and
Gibraltar, with returned stores, bound to Deptford ;.
ship Ceres, Huss, from Gibraltar, in ball's:, bound
to London ; brigs Mary, Ku" from Gi:waltar, and
Favourite, Must, from Majorca, Villa Nova, any'
Gibraltar, with cargoes, consisting of wine and cork,
bound to this port for orders ; all which are,under
Quarantine.--Arrived this morning the FOXHOUND
brig of war, Captain PARISH, from a cruise in the
Channel; the Amity, Nicirous, from Swansea; the
Richard, Jortzsscrs, from Sunderland ; Assistance,
KNICHIT, from Falmouth; and Union, Marrnsws,
from Chepstow.—Wind AV.

LdiP INTELLIGISCA

COURT by CHANCERY, ATCY sc.
Ault/ *maims. -6.• MORO v. BROOM&

VICE-CIiANCELLOR this day gave an elaborate
judgment in this cause. The importance of whit..
be stated to be so great, in a commercial point of
view, that it became necessary to animadvert on the.
many cases decided upon the ability or disability of
alien enemies to sue in Courts of. Law and Equity in
England, not only on the law as fotmerly construed,
but as understood since the introdction of trade
licences, upon the policy of which he should not
ground his decision, but upon the change of the law+
that took place of late years, commencing in the
time of Lord Alvanly, in the case of M'Connel
Hector, reported in Bosanque and Butler, and since
followed by many decisions.
The cause came on upon a Plea in Bar, filed
against the Bill of the Plaintiff by the Defendants,
who are factors and consignees in London for the
commercial corporation, called Chico Mieu Meyores,
composed of five distinct commercial corporations
and companies, united into one great and extensive
and public body aggregate, residing at Madrid,
with consuls, agents, and factors, in all trading na-
tions in Europe and other countries, pursuant to a
Royal Charter of incorporation, granted to them by
King Henry V. of Spain.
The Plaintiffs are two of the company, residing in
this country, as managers of the commerce in this
kingdom, and prayed by their bill for an order -upon
the defendants, the English factors, requir;ng them
to sell a cargo of fine Spanish wool, exported by the
company into London, of great value, and to hand
over the prize to the plaintiffs, their employers, for
the use of selves and the company at large.
The Defendant's plea in Bar was grounded on the
fact, that the wool was the property of alien enemies,
or neutrals, now resident in a country under the do-
minion, or liable to fall under the jurisdiction of
France, a power at war with this country, and the
Plaint:Es not qualified to sue in our Courts, upon
the authority of various decided cases, in which it
was ruled, that the funds should not be transmitted
even to the neutrals, or even to. British subjects re-
siding in a country at war with us, lest they should
fall into thg hands of the enemy, to increase his re-
sources. Much discussion, said his Honour, had
taken place on the distinction between aliens and na-
tural born subjects, who become commorant in, and
adhered, by choice or necessity,, to the rulers of a
country at war with us, as also on the distinction be-
tween adhering to the King's enemies in arms, or by
aiding and can ying on commerce with them, when
possessing the power and means of quitting such re-
sidence and commerce.
Formerly the King seized all such property as for.
feited, and of course the parties could not be permit.
ted to sue. How far it was competent for, his Majesty
to grant licences to sue in such cases, was difficult to
determine, as the decisions on that head were variant
and contradictory, but there were cases wherein the
King himself could not grant the licence to any sub-
ject, to sue for the propery in this country, while he
was under the dominion of a foreign power at war
with us ; as, for instance, supposing a subject to b
found in arms with the enemy.
Having promised that he should not in any degree
.ground his present judgment upon the decisions
made in the several important cases lately decided in
the courts of law, under die present or late system of
the Trade Licences, but minutely discussing each
and every of them ;
He was of opinion, that the case put upon the re-
cord by the plea in bar, was not sufficiently extensive
nor duly circumstantial, so as to bring such plea, if
otherwise valid, to bear upon the peculiar circum-
stances of this case. In the first place, it appeared
that the Company' suing were the Plaintiffs, resident
in Spain, a country in amity with us, and it was
drubtful whether Madrid be now, or was at the time
of filing the plea, in the power, or likely to fall un-
der the power- of the French Government ? This/
state of affairs relieved his mind completely from
any difficulty as to the danger of clashing with any
former decisions, since the plea was, in his mature
judgment, insufficient, both in form and substance,
to attain its object, namely, that of meeting the relief
prayed for by the bill, independent of the law and
justice that must govern this case. Of late years the
'King had not seized such property as a, forfeiture,
and it was quite clear that the Plaintiffs here resid-
ing had his Majesty's permission for such residence,
by which they were legally competent to sue the
Defendants in the manner resorted tp. His Honour
concluded with asking, since the King would not in
this case stize the property, what was to become of
it ? or what colour of claim could the Defendants, as
mere factors under the Plaintiffs, pretend to set up
for keeping it in their own possession ? Such an
idea could not be endured, consistently with either
law or equity.— The Plea was over-ruled.—Judg-
ment fur the Plaintiffs.
PICTURE DEALING.--TURNER BASILEY..-..DEMURRER.

Sir Gregory Page Turner had contracted with the
defendant for the purchase of some pictures, for a
sum of 813,000. He now filed his Bill to be relieved
from this contract, on the ground that tiw pictures
had been represented, as original works of the great
masters; whereas, in fact, they were not so ; and
that the whole was an imposition. The Bill also
prayed a discovery from whom, and for what price,
&c. the pictures had been purchased by the De-
fendant.

The Defendant answered, that the pictures really
were original world of the great masters as had been
rep►esented ; but demurred to that part of the bill
which sought a discovery of the persons from whom,
and the prices at which, the pictures had been pur-
chased, on the ground that this was no concern of
the Plaintiff, and had nothing to do with the con-
tract.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that this objection
might in many cases be very proper, as a discovery
might sometimes be sought to gratify an impertinent
curiosity, or to pry into circumstances which the
Plaintiff might have no business to know ; but in the
present case, the discovery might be very material.
Suppose the case of a representation that certain
articles had been dug out of the ruins of Hercula-
sieum ; and suppose that the articles had been sold
at a large price on this ground, and that it atter.
wards mined out that this representation was false,
and that the articles were of modern manufacture,

and trifling iraltie—wcntid -not the discovery in that
case be material # So in the present instance the dis-
covery might be material, and the demurrer must
therefore be over-ruled.

COURT OF WINO'S DEMCNo JUL, 28.
THE RING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF ELIZABETH AMELIA
VERELST b. HARRY VERELST, ESQ.
Mr. HOLLAND stated, that this indictment was pre-
ferred against the Defendant for perjury committed
by him in answers to a certain allegation, exhibited
in the C.onsistorial and Episcopal Court of London,
before the Worshipful SAMUEL PEARCE PARSON, Doc-
telt. of Laws, and Surrogate of the Right Hon. Sir
WILLIAM SCOTT, Knight, &c. by and on the part and
behalf of E. A. Verelst, wife of Harry Verelst,- in a
certain cause then depending in the said Court, by
the said Harry Verelst, for the purpose of procuring
a divorce from his said wife, by reason of adultery ;
in which allegation E. A. Verelst alleged, that about
March last, H. Verelst several times went to the
house of R. Kirkham, and there conversed with E.
George, who had been servant to the said H.Verelst,
when he visited one E. Gray ; and that he also,
about the said month of March, sent R. Tucker, wife
of Peter Tucker, of Duke-street, Piccadilly, to such
house, to desire the said E. George to come and speak
to him in a hackney-coach, which the said E. George
did, and that the said H. Verelst acknowledged to
the said E. George, that although he had gone by
the name of Gordon, at the house of Kirkham, yet
his name was Verelst, and that he was a married
man ; that his wife had been detected in a criminal
intercourse, and that he himself was sleeping in the
next room to his wife at that time, and then, and *so
did all his servants know, that his wife and Major B.
Staple were in bed together in the next room ; and
alluding to his said adulterous intercourse with the
said E. Gray, he said it was a bad job ; and that as
his wife had denied him the marriage-bed, he was
forced to be with E. Gray. He further promised he
would settle something handsome on the said E.
George, if she would not appear against him to prove
any criminal intercourse between him and E. Gray ;
and that if she would be of his side, she should come
and live in the house of the said R. Tucker. And
the said H. Verelst, before the said S. P. PARSONS,
swore, that his answer should contain the truth, and
then and there, upon his oath aforesaid, exhibited as
true his answer in writing to the matters contained in
the said allegation ; but that he did wilfully, falsely,
knowingly, and corruptly, in his said answer swear,
that he denied, that about the month of March he
went to the house of R. Kirkham and then conversed
with Elizabeth George; but he confessed that he did
send Rebecca Tucker to the house of Kirkham, but
denied that he sent her to desire E. George to come
and speak to him in a hackney-coach, or that the said
E. George did come ; and he denied that on such or
any other occits on he acknowledged to E. George,
that although he had gone by the name of Gordon
at Kirkham's house,• yet his name was Verelst, or
that he was a married man, or that he had declared
to her that his wife had been detected in a criminal
intercourse—or that he was sleeping in the next room
to his wife at that time, and then knew, as did all
his servants, that his wife and Major Staple were to
-be together in the next room—or that he had any
such conversation with the said E. George—or that
he had made any promise of settling any thing on
the said E. George, if she would not appear against
him—or that he made any offers if she would be on
his side—or that he proposed that she should secrete
herself* in the house of R. Tucker. The indictment
then went on to state, that all the answers of the De-
fendant were false.

• Mr. SCARLETT said, the Jury would have learned,
from the opening of his Learned Friend, that the
charge brought against the defendant was of a ngost
sarious nature ; a charge which brought 11;s honour
and character to a crisis, that might be fatal. ' He
knew this statement was sufficient to obtain from the
Jury the most patient investigation. As to himself,
he wished nil to have been the instrument of bringing
the charge—a charge, considering the person against
wilom, and the person by whom it was brought, of
a nature most novel and extraordinary. He wished
that the conduct of this most important cause had
been committed to a person of higher authotity, and
lof greater talents. He could only say, that he thought
it his duty to exercise more patience, and employ
more investigation upon it than he was ordinarily in
the habit of doing. If there could be any cause in
which an advocate could be justified in refusing his
assistance, this was a case of that kind; and if he
supposed that in this instance it was intended to
make him the instrument of malice, he should have
refused his assistance, if he could have so done with
propriety. Bu; as, in his opinion, the piesent prose-
cution was not founded in falsehood, but was bot-
tomed in public justice, the due administration of
jtetice required that it should be prosecuted, and he
should not shrink from bringing forward the charge.
The defendant was married to his lady in the year
1803 ; she-was the daughter of a gentleman of high
charatter and large fortune, in the kingdom of Ire-
land, and who, in the last Parliament, was Member
I for the county of Kerry. She was greatly connected,
and highly accomplished. It was impossible to see
and converse with her, without perceiving that she
had all the advantages of education that this age
and country could afford. Her fortune was consi-
derable, and the jointure settled on the estates of the
defendant was also large. The defendant was only
tenant for life ; for by the marriage settlement, his
property was settled on himself for life, with re-
mainder to the children of the marriage. It was
probably very unfortunate that there had been no is-
sue of the marriage. In the year 1808 or 1809, the
defendant had attached himself to a person of the
name of Elizabeth Gray. This connection had, he
believed, originated in her having been a servant in
the family of the defendant. She. became pregnant,
and lodgings were taken for her in the year 181 U;
afterwards, in the same year, lodgings were taken
for her at the house of R. Kirkham, China-walk,
and she was then 'visited by Mr. Verelst, by the name
of Gordon. After some time, her pregnancy was so
tar advanced that it was necessary to remove her,
and other lodgings were taken for her, when a fe-
male child was born, and christened at Stepney as
the child of Mr. and Mrs. Gordon. In the year
1511 the defendant brought an action for criminal
conversation w►th Mrs. Verelst, against Major Sta-
ple, and he had a verdict. From delicacy, the learnt-4
Counsel said, he should Rot name the circumstances
under which that verdict/ had been obtained, it might

I* stetessaty to state those circumstances dtfring the nit be perjury the mind Most go along with the
progress of the present cause: On this action for cri- fact of false-swearing. But when the defendant swore
mtnal •conversation being instituted, it became ian• that the facts stated were false, were they of so dis-
portant that all the evidence with respect to E. dray cant a date, so unimportant in their nature, as that
should be suppressed. E. Gray had been attended he could forget them ? The object of the inquiry
by E. George during her illness, and }. George of was connected with his honour and character. The
course was best acquainted with the defendant's illicit Learned Counsel said, it was far from his Wish that
connection with E. Gray. That such a verdict was the defendant should be convicted, he wished hint
obtained, his Lordship and the Jury would not he to.have the full benefit of all those considerations. It
surprised, when tifey were made acquainted with the was not an essential part of the defence of the a ife,
manner in which it had been procured. It was after that the husband should suffer in the public opinion,
all but a nominal verdict, for neither costs nor de- and his acquittal could have no effect on the oder
mages had been since asked or expected. The object prosecutions. If the Jury thought die facts should,
of the defendeni was to obtain a divorce, and he not be proved against the defendant, they would ac.
therefore sued in the Consistoriel Court—and this was quit; but if they thought the facts were proved, they
the first opportunity that Mrs. Verelst• with the as- would, although it was a pain'ul task, execute their
sistance of her friends, had of defending her h•niour. duty with firmness, and find the defendant guilty.
They had made every exartian to procure evidence, If the facts were swore falsely, his conviction would
and had procured such as would completely prove afford a salutary lesson to the public at large, by
that the verdict had been bottomed in the most cor- shewit, that no person could aelth Safety, from any
rupt and wilful perjury. It was necessary, in the private interest, destroy the character of any indi•
prosecution of her purpose, to displ ty to the world vidual.
her conduct and that of her husband—and she had Mr. Thompson, Clerk to the Register Office, put
in
no reason to spare the character of her Intsleuid, who • the original libel by H. Verelst, against Elizabeth
had done all in his power to destroy her honour and I his wife, and also the allegation by the wife, signed
character. In her allegation in the Spiritual Court, Eliza Verelst.
she had stated the circumstances already stated by Ms. Palm objected, that in the indictment it was
his Learned Friend, and also ethers, setting forth Elizabeth Amelia Verelst, and that this WAS a va-
his connection with Elizabeth Gray. The defendant, ' riance. '
as to all those questions which related immediately to Lord Eeegsagoaouctr said, that had thee been an
his connection with Elizabeth Gray, declined to an- allegation that she had signed it by the name E. A.
swer, and submitted he was not bound so to do, and Verelst, it would have been fatal • but that they
what he did answer was false, and false within his might now prove, that she did in tact file the alle•
own knowledge. To prevent any fact appearing that genial.
would injure his cause, he refused to speak as to his Mr. J. Clark proved that the signature to the alle-
coenection with E. Gray, and denied circumstances gation was the hand-writing of Mrs. Verelst.
so connected with that fact, as, if verified, would Mr. PARK then objected that the cause in the Con-
prove the existence of such connection. Defendant, sistorial Court was misnamed.
in the action against Major Staple, thought it his in- His Lordship over-ruled the objection, as the name
terest to remove all proof of his connection with E. had not been averred.
Gray ; and having heard that most particular en- The allegation and answers were then read, •
quiry had been made as to such connection, he em- Mr. Usherwood, Deputy Registrar to the Bishop
ployed a person of the name of Rebecca Tucker, of London, deposed, that he was present when a per-
(not a very fit companion for a gentleman of his son, who called himself H. Verelst, swore the an-
rank) to remove E. George from all enquiry. He swers. It was sworn before Dr. Parson, in his
sent R. Tucker to Richard Kirkham, and went him. Chambers in Doctors Commons, which are in the city
self, and before them held such a conversation as has of London.
been alleged in the indictment. E. George said she Mr. Townsend, Proctor to the defendant, probed
had a son that she wished to consult. Defendant af- that the answers were in his hand-writing.
terwards accompanied Tucker in a hackney-coach, Doctor Parson swore that he was Surrogate of
and sent her to E. George. It was for him to :Lc- the Court.
count for being in the coach with such a person, Mr. PARK objected; that it could not be prateil bt
who, as the Learned Counsel was instructed, was the parole. evidence. '
keeper of a common brothel. It would be proved, Mr. SCA RLETT contended, it was not necessary: it
by letters under his own hand, that he was in .a was sufficient to ptove that he had acted as such, as
hackney coach with Tucker, and that George was in /he case of a Justice of the Peace, until the eons •
offered to be removed out of the way. R. Tucker , teary was prayed.
.
went to R. Kirkham s, and saw both him and his His Lordship thought it trim facie evidence.
wife, and with their approbation E. George went to Mr. PAW( then said Dr. Parson's appointment was
the coach, and got into it, and she there found Mr. imperfect.
Verelst. He gave her £2, and she promised to give Dr. Parson said he had acted from the year 1793.
an answer to It. Tucker, with whom she was to live Mr. PARK then put in as evidence for the defen-
in case of an agreement. He should shew that de- : dant the Registrar's book in which . the appointment
fendant had denied all those facts, and it was impos- ,
waieentered.
Bible that he could have forgotten what had taken i
Mr. Thompson said, the entry was in the hand-
place on such an, important subject, in the year 181 I, writing of a person of the name of Groger, *ha was,
the year in which the action against Staples-had been .he believed, at that time Clerk to the Deputy Regis=
tried—the year in which the action in the Consisto.. ter Holman : but he did not know it of his own
rail Court had been commenced. Could the &fen- 1 knowledge. He Wen read the appointment, which
dant have forgotten that he was in a hackney-coach
was dated in 179, but a blank had been left for a
with such a woman as R. Tucker ? could a gentle- !Notary Public's name.
man forget that he himself was employed in removing
hlr. PARK contended that this appointment was•
witnesses ? Under his own hand it would appear that
void b the 123 d Canon, which says, that no Chan-
R. Tucker was ao transient acquaintance, and that+
teller, yCommissary,' Archdeacon,. &c. or any ether
he had been in • a hackney-coach with her. The c •
Person using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shad speed
Learned Counsel read two notes to the following ef- p
feet, they were without dates. The first was,
b . 1 any judicial act, either of contention or voluntary
' o Dear Madam—lnstead of ten o'clock, meet.me :
I jurisdiction, unless he have the ordinary Register of
at the same place at twelve o'clock to-morrow.
uke-street."
that Court, or his lawful Deputy, or else two ghee"
Mrs. R. Tucker,
credible persons : and the credit which the Canon
D
Law gives to a Notary Public is, that his testimony
The second was— a Monday morning." I shall be equal to that of two witnesses. But in this
44 Pray, be good enough to be in Lincoln's Inn case none of those formalities were observed.
Fields at halt-past eleven, and wait till 1 come.-- MT. SCARLETT contended, that the defendant You recollect where I got out before : let the coach.'
bar-
man stop at the same place, at the East end of the ing professed to produce the book, and that book
square."
coming from the proper office, it must be taken, that
The defendant could i not have forgotten such cir- the entry was written by the proper officer ; and it
cumstances; and whether the notes referred to the lay upon the defendant to prove, that it was clone
same occasion, was not material. If they did not, it without authority.
was incumbent on the defendant to shew that it 1 Mr. Pane contended, that it ought to have been
aas at another time, consistent either with his inte- made out by the Register. •
rest or pleasure, to have been in the same coach with i Lord EL‘ENBOROUGH said, he had considerable dif.
It. `fucker; and he ought to explain for what pur. -fieulty intheiquestioe ; that if it had been signed by
pose he entered into a hackney coach with such a the Register, or Deputy Register, he would have
person. He shotild shew, that Mrs. Tucker was his presumed that it was ; but he could not help thinking
agent in the business; and although lie could not the appointment was void. He was extremely sorry
give her correspondence in evidence, and should not for it, but it was his duty to declare the law.
therefore descant on it, he should prove that she was ' Mr. SCARLETT then asked his Lordship, whether he
'his most important instrument. The Learned Coon- thought the Canon referred to such an act as the pre-
sel thought he should neglect his duty, were he not ' sent, it being rather an act of contentious or vokine
to call E. Gray—indeed there was no necessity—but tart' jurisdiction ?
it was necessary to speak of Mrs. Gray, as it shewed ' Mr. PARE contended, it was an act of voluntary
that it was defendant's interest to keep back a great jurisdiction.
I deal of testimony with regard to her. He should ba . Lord ELLENBOROL'GH thought, as the act was p.m.
wrong to forget a name deeply mixed Up in the fessed to be done as a voluntary act, it ought to Have
whole of these transactions, that of Sarah Umber, ' complied with- the canon, and he should not say that
who was also employed to keep evidence out of the the appointment was valid. His Lordship then told
way. He would not say whether defendant had' thi Jury, there was an allegation in the indictment,
taken any part in procuring a body of suborned evi.' that the snub had been tendered by a person of com-
dence in the case of Verelst si. Staple, but Mrs. Um- petent authority, which allegation not having been
Iber had been the agent, nay the principal, in procu- proved, the defendant must be acquitted.
ring a mass of as corrupt perjury as had ever been The defendant was accordingly acquitted.
known. He suppowel Mrs. Umber would be called THE KING V. PRESTON.
that day—he should wish to see her. Mrs. Verelst I Mr. &ahem. stated, that this was an indictment
i land her friends, who were convinced of her inno- against a servant of Mr. Verelst I
and as the same
cence, had made every exertion to procure evidence, ()ejection was applicable to this which had been to
land they were able to shew the conspicuous pan Mrs. the former, he should not trouble the Jury with any
Umber had taken in the cause, and that she esteemed evidence, bu: that was the only reason he did not
it as much her own cause as the cause of her master. proceed.
He was awere that, in every prosecution for perjury,
it must be proved to have been taken in the adminis-
tration of justice, and in a matter material to the
cause. He had gone, perhaps, too much at length
into an argument to prove that the defendant had a
strong interest in keeping hack all evidence as to his
connection with E. Gray; and he should contend
before his Lordship, that every question was impor-
tant and material which tended to reflect light on the
subject of that connection—to shew that he was in
the habit of visiting E. Gray—ta shew that he visi-
ted the house of Kirkham, alter she had left it, was
material, and important. Although the facts might be
false, yet in order to support an indictmentfor perjury,
it was necessary that the defendant should wilfully and
i corruptly swear falsely. if he swore falsely through
mistake or delusion of mind, that undoubtedly weeld

Mr. PARK said, that had not hif Learned Friend
made some remarks, he should not have troubled
them ; but he thought it his duty (particularly on
account of the laughter which had taken place when
he had made his objection in the last cause) to state,
that he thought it his duty, in a cause where such
serious consequences hung over his client, to take
every legal advantage. He should have done it par-
ticularly in this case, as the defendant was indicted
for what he had sworn in the Consistorial Court, and
not for what he had sworn in the action for criminal
conversation.

The Jury, under his Lordship's directions, acquit-
ted the Defendant.

Two other causes on the same subject were toes
disposed of in the same manner.

perjury the mind Must go along with the
false-swearing. But when the defendant swore
t facts stated were false, were they of so dic-
tate, so unimportant in their nature, as that
d forget them ? The object of the inquiry
wetted with his honour and character. The
1 Counsel said, it was far from his wish that
!ndant should be convicted ; he wished hint
the full benefit of all those considerations. It
an esteatial part of the defence of the wife,
husband should suffer in the public opinion,
acquittal could have no effect on the °chit
lions. If the Juty thought the facts should
proved against the defendant, they would ac.
at if they thought the facts were proved, they
although it was a pain'ul task, ezecute their
ith firmness, and find the defendant guilty.
acts were swore falsely, his conviction would
a salutary lesson to the public at large, by
that no person could avlth safety, from any
interest, destroy the character of any indi•
Thompson, Clerk to the Register Office, put in
final libel by H. Verelst, against Elizabeth
, and also the allegation by the wife, signed
rerelst.
PARK objected, that in the indictment it was
th Amelia Verelst, and that this was a va-
Eumatoaciocu said, that had there been an
on that she had signed it by the name E. A.
, it would have been fatal • but that they
now prove, that she did in tact file the alle.
f. Clark proved that the signature to the alle-
was the handwriting of Mrs. Verelst.
PARK then objected that the cause in the Con.
Court was misnamed.
Lordship over-ruled the objection, as the name
been averred.
allegation and answers were then read.
Lisherwood, Deputy Registrar to the Bishop
ion, deposed, that he was present when a per-
m called himself H. Verelst, swore the an-
It was sworn before Dr. Parson, in his
Ts in Doctors Commons, which are in the city
ion. •
Townsend, Proctor to the defendant, proved
answers were in his hand-writing.
or Parson swore that he was Surrogate of
rt.
PARK objected; that it could not be prateiil bt
!vidence.
iCARLETT contended, it was not necessary: it
Relent* to prove that he had acted as such, as
ase of a Justice of the Peace, until the con.
.
as proved.
ordship thought it prima facie evidence.
?Aux then said Dr. Parson's appointment was
'arson said he had acted from the year 1793.
PARK then put in as evidence for the defers-
Registrar's book in which the appointment
:red.
Thompson said, the entry was in the hand-
of a person of the name of Ginger, stile" was,
ved, at that time Clerk to the Deputy Regis,
lman : but he did not knew it of his own
ewe. Ike Wen read the appointment, which r
:ed in 1793, but a blank had been left for a
Public's name.
PARK contended that this appointment •was
the 123 d Canon, which says, that no Chao- r.
Commissary,' Archdeacon,. &c. or an v Other j
using ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall speed
licial act, either of contention or voluntary
tion, unitss he have the ordinary Register of
iurt, or his lawful Deputy, or else two °thee t
persons : and the credit which the Canon
Ives to a Notary Public is, that his testimony
equal to that of two witnesses. But in this
me of those formalities were observed.
SCARLETT contended, that the defendant hay.
afessed to produce the book, and that book
from the proper office, it must be taken, that
ry was written by the proper officer ; and it