Star.
London, England, 1818-12-11 00:00:00

.; • •

LA i
VICIACHANCI

DECEMBER 9.

TITHES OF ST. DUNSTAN'S IN TAE WEST.
BARNES R. ABRAHAM.

This was a suit instituted by Jonathan Barnes, who
is the Lay-impropriator of the Rectory of St. Dun-
stairs in the West, against the Rev. Richard Lloydd,
the' Vicar of that parish, and Mr. Abraham, stationer,
in Temple-lane; calling upon the former to give an
account of all profits accruing to and received by him
as tithes, oblations, &c. from the said parish since
1812, at which time he (plaintiff) became seized of
tließectory, and compelling the latter to pay the two
and nine-pences, as decreed by stat. 37 Hen. VIII.
cap: -12. The bill also alleged a collusion between
theisarties to prevent the payment of the said tithes.
This was a very important question to the parties
and to the &Wit. It was also an intricate one, from
the mixture and combination of the interests of two
parties (the Vicar and the Parishioners) against the
I.ze-impropriate Rector, and from the voluminious
Masses of ancient documents to which all parties
found it necessary to refer.
The object of the plaintiff, as stated by Mr. Spence,
who opened the case, was as we have given above.
Mr. J. Sreen ENS, as unior Counsel for defendants,
stated the nature of the answers : the first answer
was by defendant Abraham, who stated, that in the
year 1539, the Abbot of the Convent of Alnwick,
se Northumberland, was seised of the Rectory; there
was then a Vitae who received all the amount of the
tithes, oblations, Easter-offerings, and donations aris-
eig from the parish : that he paid to the Abbot of
ithreick the sum of £lB per annum, not as a pro-
portion of the tithes, but in lieu of all his claims as
rector. This sum the successors of the said Vicar
continued to pay for a considerable time. At length,
one Vicar becoming impoverished, applied to the
Abbot for an abatement of the sum usually paid, and
it was abated to the sum-of £lO per annum, which
the Abbot continued to receive in full of all the de-
mands. By the 30th Hen. VIII. Monasteries being
abolished, the Rectory of St. Dunstan's became vested
in the King, who, as well as his successor, Edward
VI. died seized of it. During the life of both these
overeigns, after the 30drof Henry, they, as invested
with the Rectory, received the £lO per annum, which
before bad -been paid to the Abbot of Alnwick. In
the year-1,'.31, the l'icasage was possessed by a per-
tar. named Richard List, who, as was done before,
paid the annual pension of £lO to the King. In his
the a suit was brought inta the Court of Augmen-
tations respecting the Rectory, and Chancellor Sack-
ville decreed, that he should have all the profits and
*molst:mots of it,. upon his giving up.a certain cha-
ritable do:satioa left by a person named Delahay, and
contiauieg the annual sum of £lO as before. The
answerthen went on to state, that the Rectory came
is succession from Edw. VI. to Queen Mary, and from
her to Elizabeth. That on the 14th of September,
1599, letters-pa-ent passed the seal, by which it was
esstel in two persons, named Foster and Haughten..
TrOrn these, by eubsequent deed, it was. vested in
several persons deriving by deed, or succession frorn
the previous possessor, until it came, in 1662, into the
posseision of Richard IV. Earl of Dorset ; but down
to that time, the £lO per year had been regularly
paid to the patentees under Elizabeth, or to those de-
riving from them. In 1669, the Earl of Dorset con-
veyed it to a person named Coe, from whom it was
soon after passed by a similar process, to a man
named 'Thompson. Between this Thompson and
Coe, there arose a dispute respecting some claims,
which the latter put in for part of the tithes ; and the
former being threatened with legal process, con-
sented to resign a certain portion of the tithes. In
166 e, a deed was executed between Cox and Thomp-
son, and a third person named Scudansore, by which
he gave up the tithes and all other profits of the Ike.
tory for his life, on consideration of receiving a cer-
tain sum. By this the Lay-impropriator received
snore than the usual £lO per annum ; but the answer
added, that the Lay-rector never collected or received
a of the tithes; further, that the said deed was
fraudulent, and therefore could not hold : . besides.
these allegations against the claim of the plaintiff;
there was a plea of prescriptive right, and a further
one, that the plaintiff was not leg.dly seized of this
Rectory ; that he bought it ih 1812 from a Mrs. Mary
whose title to it the respondent did net
kieliv. With respect to the chiim of the 42.5. 9d. in
-the pound, tithe, the answer set forth that it could
not held, as the decree was not enrolled, and wai
therefore void. It then went on to state, that the
defendant had paid certain sums as tithes, Which he
now asserted were illegally claimed, and that such
payment could not bar his present right : it further
;added, that his (Abraham's) house was upon part of
the scite where a tavern, called the Devil 1 ityern, fore'
merly stood, and now known by the name of Child's-
place: that he had paid 21s. per year tithes for it ;
that .that sum was the legal sum, and that the de-
s:Fiend of 15seper:quarter was, of course, more than
aught to have been paid.; that he had not paid any
tithe, Since 1812, though he was at all times willing,
tb.kry
,thetn to the pioper authority; but that he
domed el the plaintiff, 'eh" if he were
the Lay-rector, as alleged, to collect or receive them.
To this there was added a sufpplsmentay answer,
winch itated, that defendent; by filing a cross bill,
had,itStaierect theinspeictiOh occertaltedhcieht hooks
and.docunients in the possession of the plaintiff, from
wllith'it alipeared, 'that he had been mistaken in the
erhohet df 'titltes 'which he had a right to pay; for
that the 'Devil Tavirp, on the 'ancient scite of which
his house and three others at present stood, had nevi's.
paid more than. £l/42. 13s. 4d. and that plaintiff had
nq right to demand more than the one-fourth, and
feeieore tiltat the peiment. of 21's. was madein mis-
take of. what yras his right, for which that right
ought pot now to be barred.
'The answer of'the Rev. efreLlOyd, the Vicar, was.
efstease as that Of the other 'defendant, as far es the
Vecet age wa,`ecesncern ed.
*Mr. Wsestearee, for the plaintiff, was about to
st tee his ileitis. to the Court, and had said, that he
was at a toss to 'know the particular defence which,
was intended to be set up, when
The Vice-CttelkirCP,LLOß said, that as he took it,
the only question for the present was, to whom the
payment should be made.
Mr. HART submitted, that that was not the.right
view of the case. It sans, he conceived, whether the
plaintiff, if sector, had a right to receive the tithes

Sovereign!