Star.
London, England, 1826-11-01 00:00:00

PZACOCK V. ANTROBUS. GENT.

This action was brought by a Mater in Chancery
against the defendant, an attorney residing at Liverpool,
upon his undertaking to pay all the fees and expenses
incurred by not removing a Mr. Jackson, who had
made himself amenable to an arrest for a contempt of
the Court of Chancery.
It appeared that the officer went down to Liverpool
to urea Mr. Jackson and another person for contempt.
On his arrival he found Jackson in a state of illness,
which made it dangerous to remove him. The defend-
ant, who was Jackscm's solicitor, said, he would give
an undertaking to pay all expenses if Jackson was not
then removed. The officer consented not to remove
Tint, and when the plaintiff applied for his expenses,
there was no payment. It was objected that the mes-
senger ought not to be allowed to charge, when he went
down to arrest two persons, sixpence a mile travelling
expenses, and make both pay that demand ; but it did
not rypear that there had been any irregularity in the
charges, and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCT. 51.
KING V. BUTTERWORTH.

This was an action of trespass brought by the plain-
tiff for the removal of his goods from No. 11, Sergeants'
Inn, Fleet-street.
Mr. Sergeant VAIMHAN (with whom were Mr. Ser-
geant BoSANQUZT and Mr. F. POLLOCK) stated, that a
icr, had been made on the plaintiff's goods for the
.oon-payment of poor rates, to which the plaintiff was
considered subject as an inhabitant of the parish of St.
Dunstan in the West. The place had been practically
deemed extra-parochial for the last three centuries.—
it was a case involving more of antiquarian than legal
research. It was lately held by the Chief Justice of
the King's Bench, that though a place should be sur-
rounded by houses belonging to a certain parish, it was
no proof that the inclosed place was in the same.
The act of alleged trespass was then admitted.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE (with whom were Mr. Sergeant
SPANKIE and Mr. MERREWETHIR) for the defence,
argued, that the omission of parochial payments for
some years was no reason for a continued exemption, if
the place were now proved to be in the parish. The
statute of Elizabeth excepted no parties from poor
rates, because living in particular places. The Learned
Sergeant then went into a statement from the bequest of
money in the beginning of the fourteenth century, for
the purchase of the ground whereon it is alleged Ser.
geants' Inn now stands. The Learned Sergeant adverted
to the writ of ad loaf dantnam to the Inquisition, and
to the consequent licence granted by the Crown. Those
documents represented the place as being in the parish
of St. Dunstan's in the West. Afterwards the ground

having been seized by the Crown, was purchasedfor an
inn by the Judges and Sergeants. In the instrument by
which this purchase was effected, and in the consecra-
tion of a chapel there, the place was described as in S.
Dunstan's 'wish. In the 22d JAWS I. an ejectment
was brought, by the record of which the place Was so.
siesciibed, and in which the former documents were re-
cited. There was also other avidence,. from which the
Learned Sergeant calculated on a verdict establishing
the right of the parish.
The salverst instrumenti were produced, and
Mr. Hopkinson', Vestry Cie; k Of the parish, was ex
attuned, and, in the course of his examination, several
its were read from a parish book, culled gi the
Dot msday 80, k," to prt ye that the Sergeants and
Judges were considered as inhabitants of the parish o
St. D instan its the West. In these the Sergeants v.-ere
charged, on many occasions; fur casualties and repairs,
Ake.tu the parish.
In answer to a question in the cross-examination b,
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, it WAS admitted that the bitint

'evidence as now addeced had been given on a former •
'trial respecting Sergeants Inn, Chancery-lane.—(A
laugh).--In the parochial perambulations which are
made triennially, the witness had never known that
Sergeants' Inn was entered, because the gate was shut
—(A laugh).—Neither did the officers, in collecting the
rates, proceed beyond the first seven houses in the Inn.
The cue for the defence having closed,
..Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN replied, and argued that the
right contended for by the parish was not proved. He
admitted that the place might be within the ambit, but
it did not follow that it sheuld.be included in the parish
duties or assessments. The records relied on were
merely descriptive, and only referred to part of seven
houses in the Inn, which abutted in Ram Alley,_ and
theiefore were liable to parish rates. But these were
exceptions to the rights of exemption which the rest of
the Inn possessed. In the time of the Commonwealth,
and in the reign of King William the Third,_ a species
of land tax had been levied separatively and distinctively
in Sergeants' Inn, FlPet•street.
The LORD CHIRT JUSTICR said, that when a parish
had acquiesced in the exemption for so many years, it.
required very clear evidence to prove the right in ques•
tion. His Lordship having then summed up, left the
case to the Jury, who, after a few minutes, brought in
a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, 151.
This verdict, of course, establishes the right of the Inn to be
deemed extra-parochial.
The Chief Justice removed into the adjoining Court of King's
Bench, where be means to sit fur the rest of the week. The other
Court seems much better adapted for hearing.