Star.
London, England, 1829-07-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Sim

NCERT, Jew Itt.
BUCKLEY.
id on, Sir C. Wetherell said
a be no further argument,.
minutes had been piepa,ied
Registrar, and for the Zeiort to

could consent 'to no such ar-
d to go on with the case, and,
t to do 80.
f then the case is to be re-

argued, I apply for it to stand over.
Mr. Horne (who was with Sir C. Wetherell) said that
the case had now found its way in the paper for further
directions, and no one ever supposed that further argu-
ments were to be heard in that stage. He was altogether
unprepared, as he had understood it had been agreed the
thing was to pass as a matter of course.
The Solicitor-General warmly denied having been party
to such an agreement, and he insisted upon his right to
proceed.
Mr. Home, with equal warmth, disputed that right for
which the learned Solicitor contended.
The Solicitor-General said that be had ever treated the

bar with respect, and he expftted the same.
• The Lord Chancellor—Will you permit me ?
Sir Charles Wetherell—There has been some mac-
orountable misunderstanding.
Solicitor-General—Not on my part.
The Lord Chancellor—Will you hear ? .
• Sir Charles Wetherell was about to make an observa-
tion, when '
The Lord Chancellor, in an elevated voice, said, " You
are addressing each other, and not me, anit•that in so ir-
,regular a manner, that I really do not kno4 what all this
, controversy 'is about. My impression tale matter is
this. At the close of the arguments, I re the motion
for a new trial. The case was, therefore, pet. in the pa-
per for further • directions. Some difficulty 'appears to
• have arisen. It would perhaps, therefore, be the hats(
way to postpone it till a future day."
The Solicitor-General said if cases were to be postpoosd

in that way, it was altogether impossible for him to get
through his business. He had read his briefs, and was
prepared ; it was not to be expected that he should have
to undergo that labour again.
The Lord Chancellor inquired of Mr. Home if be was
prepared.
Sir Charles Wetherell replied they were not.
The Lord Chancellor—ls the whole of the question to
be reconsidered ?

.

Sir C. Wetherell supposed it was to be are-argent.
• After some further conversation, the Solicitor General
observed that he had a right to insist upon their goingon.
Sir G. Wetherell—Right ! the meaning of right is
authority; and I should like to know what authority you
hare over us ?

—I have no such authority.
Sir Charles Wetherell—So say I.
After some farther discussion, conducted ins somewhat
angry mood, which the Lord Chancellor several times at-
tempted to stop, it was finslly arranged for the case to
stand over till tomorrow.
JUDOIIYIfT-SAXD?ORD V. ISIT.

This was an appeal from the decision of the late Lord
Gifford when Muter of the Rolls. The only question
was, whether some household furniture and other property
pawed by the will of the late Sir Wm. L►ngham under
the word premises ?"
The Lord Chancellor confirmed the judgment of the
Court below.
VICR.CHANCELLOWS COURT, hay et.
Mr. Roupel said he had been instructed yesterday to
move for the committal of an aged female for contempt, in
not putting in an answer. The lady lived a considerable
distance from London, and he believed the regular mode
wu to pray the Court to send the sergeant at arms to
take her into custody. In not being able to make this
motion yesterday he might say be was fortunate, as he
should now be spared the pain, for it had been ascertained
that she was a person of very weak mind, and totally in-
capable of understanding what the rules of that Court re-
quired. His clients had therefore consented, if the Court

would give permission, to enter an appearance for her, and
put in an answer, she being only a nominal defendant.
Vies-Chancellor—Certainly, Mr. Roupel ; the Court
is always happy when it can be spared the pain of making
an order of committal.
COURT OF XING'S BENCH. Jinx 21.
litiddkiez Sittlage at Nisi Prim. before Mr. Justice J. Naas.
and Special Juries.
SELECT TESTRIESILOGERS V. TYLER, CLERIC.

Mr. Campbell stated that this was an action for an as-
sault upon the plaintiff, at the vestry-room of St. Giles's-
in-the-Fields, on the 4th of June, 1828, by the defen-
dant, who is rector of that parish. The action, however,
was not, in fact, brought so much to recover compensa-
tion for the assault as to try whether a select vestry
had existed from time immemorial in that parish? He was
aware of the instructions given to oppose him to his
Learried Friend (Sir J. Scarlett), but he believed that,
ultimately, he should clearly convince them that a right of
such a select vestry had never existed. To prove such a right
it would be imperative on his Learned Friend to show
either that such a vestry had an immemorial existence, or
that it had been established by act of Parliament. The
defendant had no doubt acted advisedly in the -present
instance. The plaintiff was a respectable parishioner,who
paid scot and lot, and who was, at the time of the aesault,
Siting the office, of churchwarden. He had a clear con-
viction that no select vestry existed in the parish, and that
every parishioner who paid scot and lot had a right to be
present at any of the vestry meetings. Knowing that It
was intended to hold a vestry on the before-mentionedier,
the plaintiff, with several other parishioners, entered' the
vestry-room. The defendant was presiding, and ordered
the plaintiff to withdraw. He refused, and was by the dime-
tam of the defendant turned out of the rooms The demise*
now pleaded a justification, on the ground that a select Ws
try had existed from time immemorial. He must admit that
if his client was, unlawfully present he must expect to be
turned out. The common law of England gave a right to
any parishioner paying scot and lot, and deprived any
man of the power of voting away another man's money,
without his having a voice in it. The duties of the ancient
vestry were those of assessment of rates and the election
of churchwardens, lecturers, beadles, lextons, and other
ofmers of the parish. The rates consisted of church and

highway rates, and in later periods of poor rates. The in-
habitanb in open vestry assembled had always performed
these duties. As far back as the reign of Elizabeth all pa-
rishioners bad a right to be present who paid scot and lot,
not only for the purpose of assessing the rates, but also to
see that the money was not misapplied, as the parties who
received their orders to appropriate it were answerable
for their conduct to the parishioners. The Learned
Counsel contended that Mr. Sturges Bourne's Act did not
imply to this vestry, and there had been only two in-
Aims where the Legislatures had interfered to establish a
by Acts of their own. If he were able to'
• .
4.507 period sins the reign of Richard I.
4tbiramid hos no such select body, that the inhabitants


~~

~_

had done, during such period, the duties that would have
been done by that select body, had it been in existence,
then his Learned Friend's case nuist fail,.aa on this evi-
dence the select vestries of St. Olave's and St. Saviour's,
Southwark, had been dissolved. There was .a more re-
cent instance in the. case of St. Paul's, Covent-garden,
where a select vestry had existed for a great many years,
upon, an application to the Legislature, the inhabitants
hid be* restoredeo their rights. To establish the pee-
ss an ancient Autry, it must be proved that it was
ea ancient parish, thattee vestry elected itself, or it
:11
'maid merely be a committee of the parishioners. After
some further observations, the Learned Comma Nei ft-
',oral extracts from the parish books, wills its
rishioners,in open vestry ,bad appointed churchwanisns,leh-
turers, beadles, sextons, and auditors to the parish aeanuals.
Witnesses were called to produce the books, drc; '
The Attorney General addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and contended at great length that Mr. Rogers
had been properly expelled. By die 14th George 111. the
select vestries of parishes were to meet the first week in
June and make rates, and the question was, whether
under that act Mr. Rogers had any right to appear in the
vestry ? He should contend that the plaintiff had no right
to be there. Upon the documents be bad to produce, he
should prove that select vestries had existed in the parish
of St. Giles in the Fields from 1673 up to thw preemie
day. Upon thi acts of Parliament he should say with eon-'
fidence that the law gave select vestries's appall which
could not be taken away by anycontroveny id dial COurt.
The two bodies of vestrymen could not meet at the same
time. and Mr. Rogers was wrong' in obtrudbehiaiself,
The select vestry was the body referred
.to by the
acts .of Parliament, and the geaerai. bOdy "had do
right to be there. He should call al' ddlriend,
' Mr. Bray, secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, who
had reached an advanced age. That respectable person
had resided many years in the parish, and would tell the
jury what the custom had been. It would appear. there
always had been a select vestry iii the parish. In the
oldest parish books, which contained entries its :early as
1673, the jury would find that the select vestry had ma::
naged the affairs of the parish. Among the select ves-
trymen tl. sjr would find the name of Sir William
Blackstone and other eminent lawyers. He thought
his Learned Friends, who were Counsel for the plaintiff,
would admit that Sir William Blackstone was as good a
lawyer as any gentleman at the bar in 1829, sad cer-
tainly that great Judge would not have acted as a'
select vestryman •if he had considered select „vestries
illegal. Persons who understood facts one hundred
years ago must have known those facts better than
men living at the present day. Some might be disposed
to consider the facts stated by Tacitus, and the Common-.
taries of Caner erroneous, but it was no easy task to re-
move the impreasion made by those distinguished writers.
It would answer hie purpose to prove the existence of se.
lect vestries in the pariah of St. Giles during a century, .
and after that proofrthe jury would no doubt consider the
defendant entitled to their verdict. Mr. Tyler had been
attacked, reviled, and calumniated in the pariah, but did
not regard the odium cut upon him, because ho knew
that he had not acted illegally.
The Attorney General then called his witnesses.
Mr. Charles Devan produced the record of several fines
levied in the 31st of Henry the Third, upon messuages
described in the instruments to be in the parish of St.
Giles. These documents proved the antiquity of the perish.
A letter from the Bishop of London, dated 1624, autho-
rising the Churchwardens to repair the Church of St.
Giles, was also read. It appeared that the numb of pa-
rishioners at that period was 2,000. .. .
The book alluded to by the Attorney-General was then
produced,
e and the reading of entries of sets done by the
Select Vestry occupied the Court until near seven o'clock.
It then appeared that it was not possible to get through
the cause that sitting, and Mr. Justice J. Parke with the
consent of counsel and the jury, adjourned the proceedings
until this day.

PRICROGATIVR COURT. low
JOHNSON V. WELLS.

This was a question for the Court to decide, whether
the deceased intended a will, executed many years before
his death, to operate as his last will and testament? .
The testator was Jacob Wells, Esq. of Haddon Farm,
Chertsey, who left a natural daughter, Anne WellkAlay-
bank, two sons by his first lawful wife, and his .widow
with an infant son. In 1816 he executed a . will,
leaving his copyhold and freehold estate between his
natural daughter and the two sons. Shortly after, be
married a young lady of the name of Elizabeth Rutter,
with property to the amount of 2,500/. in the funds.
This sum he consented should be vested for the sole use
and benefit of her and her children.

The King's Advocate argued in favour of the will, and
said that it was manifestly clear that the deceased consi-
dered the property, which was settled upon his last wife,
as a sufficient provision for her and his child. And this
arrangement was borne out by some of articles of an
allegation before the Court, which affirmed that the de-
emed always entertained the greatest affection for hie
'natural daughter, and expressed his determination of pro-
viding handsomely for her; and, on the other hand, the
deceased lived upon very bad terms with his wife.. Mel
property is about 6,5001. and if the Court decides that*,
deceased died intestate, as prayed by his surviving wife,
it will inflict manifest injustice upon the other WRAP a
his family, as the wife will not only take the peeftesty
fuaded for her use, but a third of all the copyheld
personal estate ; and the real estate, being suldect.,,to
rough English, will descend to hers, the youngest von hi
exclusion to the eldest, and will leave the: YOGI* Ilk
Miss Maybank, entirely destitute.
Dr. Addams, on behalf of the widow, said dist' dii
testator had died suddenly before his intention of alter-
ing his will bad been put in force. If the widow those
to marry again the son which he had by her would be
left totally unprovided for. .

Dr. Higgaid followed on the same side, and obieriod
It was directly opposed to the principle of all Courti of
law to support the interest of an illegitimate oar*
against the lawful inheritors. • • • - '
The Judge said he could not bring himself -doebilii
ffids case. The deceased had left a daughter, testi6ow
Menthe before his marriage, with her mother ..b 4wo
alms, and a will, leaving his properly betwixt damn in
1816. After his second marriage there was pserrtY,
standing in his wife's naive, about 2,1601. in the 3 per
Mats. with a freehold estate of about 6001. The ques-
tion therefore is, whether the circumstance of the testator
having married again and had issue be sufficiently impart-
ant to revoke the former will? I think, upon the evidence
offered, that I am bound to pronounce that this will is not
revoked by Implication, and therefore give judgment as
to its validity. , •
Hors.—ln the Hop Trade there is, at this thno,
much betting as on the great St. 'Leger--ngulas Whit
are made.. The odds very with every damp at iladt
even to a point in the maims, and with every shower ar,
rain, and down to a few beat drops. Last night do bd.'
ting upon the duty wks, that it would be 35,0001. T4a!i
were rather shy, and shire war s sellers, *SR Shia( it
lainouat to that omparatinly small.

MI,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 21.

Charles Blundell was opposed, on his petition to take
the benefit of the Act, by Messrs. Sheepshanks, woollen
manufacturer, of Leeds. It appeared that he obtained
cloths to the amount of 250/. and promised to send the
money immediately on his arrival in London ; but he sold
the property, put the money into his pocket, and went to
prison. The Court held his conduct to be fraudulent,
and sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment.
Mr. Paley, the sods water manufacturer, was de-
clared to be entitled to his discharge.

• ; tiL_o LuitCQURT OF,CHAI
..
..-:.,14.rnp.,-. WILYORD V.
` `4,...-1 -,
Abe being Calla
•,•_; -, ,fla 1 . ~..4). . there woula
~
'' ti. -- - -I, . ' way when the
••• • ~ ...r. •
--, nit. s., to the Rego
`'.. older.
• ~.I'fit-Soliiitor-General cool
• ' rinichnkit i he was prepared
he must call upon the Court t
Sir Charles Wetherell—lf