Star.
London, England, 1807-04-08 00:00:00

continuing the 51. a year, which betrayed the cloven
foot, and (hewed that the °hied of the Corporation
was to deprive this refpettable Gentleman of his Of-
fice, ,*hich they had no power to ch. If the Corpo-
ration had had any regard for the education of the
youth eat Blandford and its neighbonrhood, they
would have rej-iced in having a Schoolmatter fo at-
tentive to his ditties amongft them, inftead of trying
to get rid of him. Mr. SCOTT then undertook to
convince his Lord'hip and the Jury, that though it
was not it, his power to produce the original endow-
ments. this fchool mull be prefumed to be an antient
endowed GrammaoSehonl. The other fide had re-
ceived notice to produce the endowment, and he be-
lieved it was not in their power to do fo, for they had
repeatedly declared in letters, which he read—" that
they had not a fingle document in their poffeffion,
but the counterpail of the kale to fLw the title to
the premifes in miellion," and upon that leafe alone
they had now relied their title. This might well be
fuppofed, for it was well known that the town of
131andford had been twice burnt to the ground, and
ail their records, and even parifh regifters deflroyed;
but there was a manuscript of Archbifhop Wake,
!taring, that " he was born in the year 1657, and
was fent to the Free School at Blandford," which was
rscroded in Htochins' Hirtory of Dorfetfhire.
Mr. Justice CHAMBRF obferved, that he could not
permit Mr. hcorr to open what he could not prove
by legal evidence.
Mr. SCOTT laid he was happy to afore his Lord•
ship and the jury, that it was in his power to make
out his pi opotition to their perfeu conviction, by legal
evidence By a Codicil to the Will of William Wil.
hams, dated 1623, the firm of 51. a year for ever, was
given to the Scbooimafier of Blanrlforel, for teaching
four boys, to he appointed by the Bailiff of Bland-
ford." This Will was 'moved in Dators' Commons,
and would be legally given in evidence. He Osoulal
*din prove by elderly perfons who had been at this
School, that it was always called The Free Grammar
School, that boys had been regularly appointed upon
fourklation, that the Mailer had been re-
gularly paid the 51. a year, that he had alfo been paid
regularly another 51. a year as the accuftomed (Upend
by the Corporation ; and that this houfe had been
always occupied by the Schoolmaller, and when
there was no Schoolmaster it had been empty. If
.then this was, as he confidently contended, an en-
dowed School, or even an antient Grammar School,
it was of Ecclefiallical cognizance, and the Mailer
had a freehold in his office, and feveral authorities
were cited for thole propetitions.
Mr. jUilite CHAMBRE laid, that the Mailer of a
School may nueloubtedly have a freelir Id its his effice.
Mr. SCOTT then contended, that even if they
could thew that the legal liate of thefe premifes was
in the Bailiff and Bragedes as trustees, which they
could not do, yet the Sclio,lmafter had a right to oc-
cull the honk as long as he fultained that character,
aid of courfe, that Vitt was entitled to an as fchool-
mailer, the action of ejc &mem, which is founded on a
foopofed right of pavilion, could not be maintained.
H. wever, he need not argue that propofition, he
wa, aware that it had lately been decided contrary to
former- dee;fion, that a trullee could maintain an
atlinn of ejectment agsinft his t Oui que Trufts. But
in the abtence ~f .111 deeds and title, the legal ellate
moll be prefumed to be in the Ichoolmaflet, for the
houfe mull be pi efurned to be appendent ro the office;
and that a honk or land may be appendent to an
office, he cited authorities from Coke upon Little. I
ton, and other hooks, where it was That land
may he appendeut to an r ffice, as to the office of 1
Fulterfliip, Warden of the Flaet, ace." and the rea-
fon is, that " thole who have had the office, had the
land," and in fueh cafe the legal Itate was in the
officer. There was no office to which a houfe could
be more properly appendent than to a fchool ;—for
in this climate we could not do, as the Gtecian philo.
fophers did, teach in gloves and gardens. Then what
had the Plain.iffs to rely upon ? Nothing but this
paper and pack thread leafe, which in one moment
fhatild fly like chaff before the wind. This kale ne-
ver could have any other operation in law than as an
elloppel, it po vented the Defendant from difputing
it during the term ; and he cited Coke upon Little.
ton, and many other authorities, to (hew that if a
man rake a leak for years of his own land, the any-
Fel doe: not continue after the team ended ;—and it
would be quite aofurd to fuppole, that at the end of
the term a man might not let up his own title. When
the Plaintiffs granted this leafe, the aide was in
abeyance, hecaufe there was no Matter ; but the mo-
ment a Mailer was appointed the freehold veiled in
him, and the kale, if it lord any effedt at all, and was
not void, es he contended it was from the beginning,
could roily operate by way of elloppel during the
feven years. Here Ire laid he might fafely leave his
safe, hut he would give two or three more &Els in
evidence, of loch importance that the e could not be
a oo•rnent's doubt in the mind of .m 7 man upon this.
queilion—Belides the leak, his Learned Friend had
relied Upon the payment of rent time, but this rent
it was quite clear, was merely nominal—no man
could thii.k that hs. 8.1. a year was intended as the
rent • f a houfe in which eighty boys could be edu-
s aced at a time. It was nothing more or leis than a
chit re.. 7., which any man might pay, and which
many do pay for their freehold Oates ; and in this
cafe it was conclufiye, for he would produce receipts
tram the Plaintiffs, for above twenty years, in the
f. Bowing words—" Received from the 800 George
Chilli dm, the fom of 6s. Si. quit rent, for the (chord
honk." queftioned the legality of this leafe in
Coto, and laid, that a Judge of great learning and abi-
lity, Me. Juflice Lawrence, had even doubted the
legality of a bind, taken by millets from a fchool-
matter, to refign whenever they plealed ; and Mr.
Justice Buller, one of the ablest Judges that ever fat
upon the Bench, bad been of the fame opinion.
If the Jot y were fatir.fied that this was an endowed
fchool, all the reit followed of courfe, and there was
an end of the caufe. It happened that when land
was of efTed to the land tax in the fourth year of Wil-
liam and Mary, fuch leafs as were ten appropriated
to charities, were exempted from the valuation, but
lands appropriated to cilarilies Pre that time were
not exempted. Now, he would prove that this
School tootle had never been afleffed to the land tax,
which proved clearly that it was confidered as a cha-
rity in the reign of William and Mary. But the truth
was, that it was an endowed fchool long before ; and
Lt
the time that the greater part of the free fchocls

In England had been endowed, namely, in the reign
of Edward the Sixth. Here he went into the hiflory
of thefe fchools, and of their endowment, nut of
h lands that had before been given to furrerlitious
rtfes, and that, by a ftatute paffed in the firft year of
Edward VI. Commiffioners appointed by the Crown
had power to affign and ordain the lands of any
chantry, free chapel, Sec. to remain and continue in
fuceeffion to a fchool mailer for and towards the
keeping of a grammar fchool, and it was declared,
that Inch aflignments and ordonances, certifiedto the
King's Court of Augmentations, fhould be gond to
all intents and purpofes. Now he had advifed a
learch to be made in the Records of this Court, and
there he found a moll important document which
would be given legally in evidence. It wa• a certi-
ficate of certain Commiffioners appointed under this
very At for the County of Dorfet, and they cettify
" that the Free Chapel of Weft Hemfworth, pf which
Dr. Bennet was incumbent, was of the valUe of 53`-
4d. a year ;" and then thefe important words fol
low :—" Memorandum, that the (aid Chapel was or-
dained for a Schoolmafter to be maintained inßland-
ford aforefaid." A deed, purfuing the very words
of this A& of Parliament, would give the freehold
or legal elate to the Schoolmafter ; and he defied
any lawyer to maintain the contrary. Whatever
difficulty modern lawyers might find in conveying
land to fuch a ufe as this, without the intervention of
trultees to hold the legal elate, our ancellors found
none—it never was their intention, in the iniiitution
of common law; for which he lhould ever retain the
greatell veneration, to give the Court :of Chancery
jurifdiCti an of all the property in the country. This
evidence required no comment—every body knew
how ffiamefully the charities of the ;country werene-
gle&ed and abufed. Whether the Corporation were
in puffeffron of this property or not, it was not his bn-
finefs upon this occafion to go into, but it was not
improbable, and he had heard they had lands
in
Hemfworth. By the ellabliihment of fuch fchools,
the education of the country had been wonderfully
promoted and improved, and it is impoffible to tell
how much the final fuccefs of the Reformation was
owing to fuch wife ellablilhments. They ought,
therefore, to be fupported, and the law had wifely
placed the Mailer of inch fchools under the cogni-
zance of the Bilhop of the Diocefe, who in the eye
of the law is confidered as more competent to judge
of the merits and conduit of learned men, who fill
the meritorious and laborious office of educating the
youth of the Count, y, than the Bailiffs and Borgeffes
of a Town. There are many reafons why they
fhould be the very lath perfons, to whom the power
of removing a Schoolm :fief Ihould be entrnlted. It
may- be that tl,e Schotimafter did not employ the
Apothecary, who might alfo be a Banker, and by his
conneCtions and interel command a majority in the
Corporation tor that the Schoolmafter might differ
withthere important Gentlemen upon fume of thole
feuds which often arife in a country town ; and he
was initialed, fuch was the very cafe now before
them—but the removing a relpeEtable Schoolmaller
(tom facia motives might be worthy of fuch men—
no Bilhop would linen for a moment to fuch fluff.—
The Rev. Gentleman he had the honour to reprefent,
was highly refpeCted by the town and neighbourhood
of Blandford, and he was entitled to their thanks,and
to the thanks of every Schoolmafter in England, for
the manly manner in which he had refilled this un-
gracious attempt to deprive 'him of his office—and
he called upon the Jury, in confidence, to maintain
him in the poffeilion of his honk by their verdiCl.
Mr. SCOTT concluded a very able and argumentative
(perch, by mentioning to Mr. Juftice Chambre a ca'e
that had been tried in the year 1715. It was an
action of, ejatment by the Corporation of Notting-
ham, againft the Rev. Richard Johnfon, the School-
matter of Nottingham, a very emailderable Icholar,
in which the Judge held that the action could not be
maintained.
All the written evidence was then pnt in and
proved, and witneires were called, who proved the
tell of the cafe as it had been opened.
Mr. BURROUGH, in anfwer to the notice to produce
the endowment, declared that they had no fuch thing
in their poffeffinn, and knew of none. He then offered
a book belonging to the Corporation, to prove, that
in the year 1695, the rent of the School Houfe was
11. 6s. Bd.
Mr. SCOTT objected ftrongly againft this being evi-
dence. This was the plaintiff's own book, and they
might as well be heard themfelves in their own caufe.
He knew nothing of the book, and had no means of
examining it ; the plaintiffs had repeatedly declared,
they had nothing to (hew but the kale ; but, as it
purported to be an entry of theirChamberlain,charg-
ing himfelf with the receipt of this rent, the judge
overruled the objection.
Mr.BoRROUG li, in reply, contended, that there was
nothing in the arguments they had heard ; and that
th'e defendant, after .all his diligence, and great dili-
gence had been ufed, was unable to find any endow-
ment of this School ; but, however that might be, the
plaintiffs had now produced evidence that was dcci-
five of the caufe.—As to the notion of quitrent, no
quitrent could be intended, unlefs there had been a
conveyance in fee.
Mr. jUItiCC CHAMBae rimmed up the evidence on
both fides, and laid, that, notwithitanding all the
learned arguments they had heard, and nice points
of law, the cafe lay in a very narrow compafs. It
was a common cafe of Landlord and Tenant,
when the Tenant held over his leafe, upon the terms
of which he commented very minutely—and as to the
words quit rent being ufed in the receipt, it may have
proceeded from the ignorance of the perfon that
wrote the receipt ; but as it was the fame rum that
had been referved by the kale, it could not be con&
dered a quit rent. It was proved beyond a doubt,
that this was an endowed School, and that the 51.
a-year paid by the Corporation, as well as the 51. a-
year left by Williams's will, :was part of the endow.
ment ; and he agreed that the Corporation had no
power to remove the defendant from the office, and
that he was entitled to all the emoluments ; but the
quelinn was, whether this Houfe was part of the en
dowment ? Now, after the leafe and the rent had
been paid from time to time, it was impoffible
to confider this Houle as part of the endowment. If
the defendant Mould ever difcover any evidence to
(hew that this Houfe was part of the endowment, he
might bring another action to eject the Corporation.
As to the land-tax, there was nothing in that, for
there was a great deal of property in the Kingdom
omitted to be alieffed to the lansitax. Upon the

whole of the evidence, the Jury could not hefitate
to find their verditl for the plaintiffs.
The jlry deliberated above half an hour, and gave
their verdia for the plaintiffs.

At the Affizes for the County of Sornerfet, the fol-
lowing prifoners were capitally convided, and re-
ceived fentence of death :
James Watts and Jedeph Enever, fur knowingly uttering a forged
51. note of the Chelmsford Bank.
1 hos Mace, alias Jemmy from Town, and W. D. Goodland,
for r ,bbing Mr. W. Maryhall on the highway.
Jofeph Radwick, for a burglary.
Edward Mudford, for brcakiug open a filverfmith's Chop at
Yeovil. W. Pain and H Lewis, for (beep Realing.
W. Davis. fur home breaking.
W. Knight and W. Barnett (two boys), for breaking open and
robbing different houfes in Bath.
Tingley, for a robbery in a dwelling houfe.
W. Holton, for Realing a Elver watch ; and
James Toogood, for Realing feveral articles of plate.
The firft fix were left fur execution ; the others are
rept ieved.
HOADIKOTT ro. Cox.—ln this caufe, (tried at the
Somerfet A(fxes) the defendant, as terror of certain
premifes, contraded that a Bream of water, flowing
to the manufadory oldie plaintiff at Milton, fhould
be of a given height —The dekendanr, after grant.
ing fuch leafe, difpofed of his property to Harding,
who failed to keep the water according to the origi
nal covenant.—The point at iffue was, whether the
defendant was accountable for the ads of Harding ?
—The Jury determined, that he was accountable,
giving 401. coils, and 60001. nominal damages, and
referring to John Hallett, Efq. one of the Jury, to
award the real quanomn of damage.
At the late Affixes at Lancafter, a caufe came on
to be tried, wherein Mars. Collyer and Knutfon, of
Mancheffer, cotton merchants, were the Plaintiffs,
and Nleffrs. Goodall and Birchinall, of Macclesfield,
cotton fpinners, were the Defendants ; and, as it re-
folved a caufe of conliderable importance to the
commercial world, but to cotton merchants in parti-
cular, we beg leave to report it to our numerous
readers :—The Plaintiff fold to the Defendants, in
September laft, a lot of feventeen bags of Well India
cotton, at the price of is. tod. per la-und, amounting
to the turn of 5271. 45.5 d. The Defendants, at the
time of purchafe, raw the lot of cotton as it lay in
the Plaintiffs' warehoufe, approved of the article, and
requelled it to be weighed and for warded to their
works at Macclesfield. The cotton was accordingly
delivered ; but, to the fnrprife of 1112 Plaintiff-4 was
fent hack by the Defendants, who alledged that it
was unolean and not merchantable, and that, there•
fore, they had a tight to return it, and were not
bound to make payment ; but having made de of a
part of a bag, they offered and tendered to the Plain-
tiffs five guineas, as a compenfation fur the fmall
quantity ufed. This was rejeded by the Plaintiffs;
and when the tifual credit fur payment was expired,
they felt themfelves called upon to commence the
prefent adion. On the trial, the Plaintiffs produced
feveral t efpedable witncitts, corfitting of cotton mer-
chants and cotton fpinners, who all (poke to the qua-
lity of the cotton and as to the price—all of them
deemed it a fair merchantable article, and well worth
the price fold at. The Defendants alto produced
feveral witneffes, cotton fpinners, who gave it the
contrary. character. The Learned Judge, Mr. Juflice
Lx BLANC, who tried the caufe, gave it as his opi-
nion, that whatever quantity of cotton the purchafers
were buying, if they few one bag, and approved of it,
and the whole were fnbmitted to the Defendant's
view, it was their own fault if they did not examine
each particular bag ; and by their negled in fit do-
ing, they were bound to accept, and pay for the
whole. After a trial of upwards of four hours, the
Jury gave a verdid for the Plaintiffs, for the full
amount of the cotton fold.
About eleven o'clock, in the forenoon of Saturday
fe'nnight, a fmoak was obferved to iliac from the
apartment of a woman named Mary Watfon, aged
Bz, living on the fouth fide of Hull Dock, and on
the neighb'urs breaking open the door, which was
locked, the was difcovered lying againft the fire in a
fit ; all her clothes were deflroyed by the flames, and
the flefh of one arm bu:nt off, and her body other-
wife burnt in a {hocking manner. In this condition
the lingered under excruciating torments till the next
iraning, when the died.