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

decree stated, that the rent of fl Et had been de-
creased to £lO, in consideation of the decay qf the
rectory ; it decreed a, pensiorl of £8 to the Vicar,
which was the mode of reducing die £lB to £lO ; and
it cUscharged all the arrears charged above 61. 11s. 4d.
Vici-Ors-i-This is a most important do-
cument'. If the £lB or the RIG had been fixed by
private contract, no d‘ret could be required to re-
duce it, This clearly proves that there was an en-
dowment. It was for the Rector to consider whether
he would go on to-get his opinion, or take an issue
now. However insignificant the Court that has given
a decision, its opinion may have some influence. He
only threw out this for their consideration ; he was
far from wishing to prejudice the case ; but he men-
tioned the impregion which such a dcicunient must
make on his mind. By the 4th Henry VI. the ordi-
nary was to give a competent endowment. The or-
dinary, or diocesan, must have done so here, as a de-
cree was necessary from the Court of Augmentation.
M. WErnineLL still declined to take the issue.—
In 1566, the advowson was granted by the Crowa
to Lord Dudley and to Glazier. Glazier, the survi-
vor, sold it to Sir Richard Siaville Chancellor of
the Court of Augmentatioii, when The decree men-
tioned above was made. In 1599, the. Crown granted
the rectory to Foster and Haughten, the grant de-
scribed it as "ever heretofore usually returning £10."
They sold it in 1603' to Thomas Lord Buckhu st,
lineal descendant of Sir Richard Sackville. The

Earl of Dorset (Lord I3uckhurst) thus possessed of,
the advowson, and the rectory, filed a bill in Febru-
ary, 1619, against White, the Vicar, praying to have
his lease set aside, under a pretence of which he ex-
acted tithes as Vicar while there was no vicarage.--
the answer of White set forth, that he and all his
Ilpredecessors had quietly enjoyed the tithes as Vicars;
himself had been instituted as perpetual Curate by.
the Earl of Dorset's predecessor. The Dorset family
sold both rectory and advowson to Richard Cox in
1(62. CO% presented Joseph Thompson. Cox arid
'llompson appeared to have entered into a simonia-
cal agreement. For ThoMpion's itemory it ought
to be stated, however, that he had been coMpeilcd
into it by fear of suits and vexations. They demised
the rectory and vicarage to Roger Scudamore, for
50 years, if the Vicar should live so long; theTicar
to have the mansion-house and £lOO a year. Cox
would never have entered even into this agreement,
if he could claim any right to the vicarage indepen-
dently of Thompson. A suit was instituted in 1673
against these men and others, br several of the pa-
rishioners, for fraud in imposing tithes. The suit
[failed ; but the evidence was of considerable impor-
' Once. amonF the witnesses was Mr. Praise-. God
Barebones. 'lhe remaining history cif the vicarage,
' down to the present period, was immaterial ; fot the
mother was found presenting her son, and the aunt
her nephew, afterwards himself patron. ff the inte-
rest of the family induced the Vicar to merge his
rights in the patron's, that could Ent affect a successor.
The Vier-truaxent.on asked Mr.Wethereil if he
would now take an issue or reply ? It was impos-
sible to decide the case without trying the issue whe-
ther the vicar was entitled to the tithes? Ile must
prove his exemption from the common law, which
gives all tidies to the Rector, and he had therefore a
"right to be plaintiff in the issue.
HMr. WWIIIERLI.I. acquiesced; and thought the
*eclair of Exchequer was the fittest Court.
Vroz-CuAncELcon.—My rule always is, to let the
ained'
go to what court he pleases. I cannot say
.that one Court in. Westminster is fitter than another.
Mr. WETIISREiL thought the importance and in-
tricqcy of the rase entitled it to be tried at bar.
The VICE-CUANCELLOR did not think it possessed
'either importance or difficulty to require that.,
01.13 BAILEY SESSIONS.

Yesterday John Burke was indicted for stealing
£4O M Bank of England notes,, and a gold brooch,
the property of Peter White. The prisoner was ap-
prehended, and upoh his person was found £29, but
which, however, the prosecutor could not swear to,
and he had neglected to subpcena the banker's clerk ;
the prisoner was, consequently, Acquitted.
torah Gregory, a wretched looking woman, was
fund guilty of stealing a bed, an old coat, and se-
veral other articles. _

lf4lliain Smith, a lad of colour' was indicted ca-
pitally for stealing two watches, the property of J.
Plaster. Guilty—Death.
John Fellows was capitally indicted for a burglary
in the dwelling-house of Thomas Morgan, and steal-
ing therein 51 yards of carpet, .74 yards of printed
turniture, value £lO, two lookinrglasses, a tea-
caddy, and a variety of other articles, his property.
Guilty—Death.
A person, who stated himself to be the father-in-
law of the prisoner, said he knew him to be a very bad
young man ; but a person who had just left the Court
had purchased of him duplicates of articles worth 19
guineas, for a mere trifle, which she must have known
to have been stolen.—Mr. ANDREWS said, any infor-
mation of receivers must be given upon oath ; if thit
was done, he would pledgehunself that the person al-
luded to should be prosecuted.
Walter 'Damn, a boy, was capitally indicted for
privately stealing, in the shop of George Frankland,
four cut salts, his property. Verdict—Guilty of
stealing, but not privately.
J. Beedham was convicted of stealing a till, con-
taining money amounting to £2 lls. the property of
Lucy Wheeler. The Jury recommended him to
mercy, conceiving it to be his first offence, and on
account of his youth (18 years).