Star.
London, England, 1819-11-15 00:00:00

SHOREDITCH PARISH CLERK.

Mr. NOLAN moved this day for a Mandamus to the
Churchwardens of the Parish of Shoreditch, to com-
pel them to admit William Lamming to the office of
Parish Clerk, he having been elected to that office by
the Parishioners.

Mr. GURNEY argued against it. He stated, that
owing to the conduct of Lamming, the parish. of Shore-
ditch was at this moment in the utmost state of fer-
ment; and that were it not for the interference of Peat*
Officers, twine Service could not be performed.—
The affidavit of Lamming, on which he grounded his
right to the office, was not correct; he had stated,
that his father, who was Clerk of this Parish for
thirty-five years, told him the right of election was
in the Parishioners, and that he had left a paper, ex
tracted from the records of the parish, quoting fourilt-
stances in which such right had been exercised by them.
Now so far from this being the case, the list parish
clerk, Mr. Lamming's father, was appointed by the
Vicar, to whom he paid fifty guineas per annum for
such appointment, and which he had often com-
plained rendered the office scarcely worth having.
—All the records which Mr. Lamming's father is
stated to have examined, are missing, ratlm mys•
teriously, from the chest in the Church, with the es-
ception of those within the last 90 years, during which
time there is not an instance of any election made by
the parish. But he would go further a Committee
had been appointed to investigate this business, and
they had ascertained that for the last three hundred
years the election had been generally, and for the last
150 years invariably, in the Vicar : the only case in
which it was otherwise was in 1665, the year of the
Plague in London, when there was an appointment
made by the Curate, the Guardians, and Parishioners.
—This was the only exception to the 'appointment
having been in the Vicar, and he did not think it
proved any thing whatever in favour of Lamming.—
He admitted, that if the right was in the paribioners,
then had Mr. Lamming been duly elected, as he had
a majority of vctes ; but denying, as he did, that
right, and contending that Mr. Lamming had not
shewed the slightest proof that it ever existed, there
was not the least ground for the motion.
Mr. NOLAN conceived this a proper case, in which
a Mandamus should be issued, to ascertain whether
or not Mr. Lamming was duly elected. S
The CHIEF-JUSTICE inquired in whom the right
of election was by the common law?
Mr. NOLAN said, it did not appear by the Common
Law, in whom the election was vested ; but by the
Canon Law, as established in 1602, and which was
no longer recognized, the election was in the Vicar.
He stated, the appointment of Mr. Lamming's father)
in 1784, which was evidently by the then Vicar, al-
though attempted to be shewn to the contrary, since
the Vicar had intended to have appointed another
[Anon.
During the time Mr. NoLabr was addressing the
Court, he was frequently interrupted by Mr. GURNEY,
as to some points which he did not conceive cor-
rectly stated.
Mr. ABRAHAMS followed on the same side as Mr.
NOLAN ; he went over the same grounds which, he
' thought, were sufficient for the Rule, and cited
several cases in which, where there was only the sur-
mise of a custom, a mandamus had been granted.
The LOBD CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice HOLROYD,
and Mr. Justice BesT, severally gave their opinions,
all of which were decisive against the Rule. The
Mandamus was therefore refused.

~

r

i

. .
sf.
:.-4

1

.1

111

41

11.
1 ,t

Ir
‘
1 4
C. I
.:
1j
li
11
A
4
i' .
~ . i 1
i .
:. 1 I
1-.. . .•,'
a •
rili A i. 4 ,
: it' ..I. i