Star.
London, England, 1826-11-18 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. It.
aucensamara v.
yir. PARICt 'moved for a rule to shew Cause why the
Mosier should not be directed to tax the plaintiff's costs,
'for maintaining two foreign witnesses in this country,
from the 22d ot February, 182*, to the day of the trial
at the last adjourned sittings after Trinity Term......
Rule granted.
mums s. tea 3113101, Of memo AND maw.
This was a question for the opinion of the Court) on
a writ of error farm the Court of Common Pleas, on an
action of pare hapedit, brought in that Court by the
widow and adininisiratrix of the late Rev. Thomas
Rennell, Prebendary of South Grantham, against the
Bishop of Lincoln, the Rev. Henry Mirehouse, the pre-
sent Prebendary of South Grantham, and his brother,
to whom he had presented the rectory of Welby, in the
county of Lincoln. The advowson of the rectory ot
Welby is appendant to the prebendary of South Gran-
tham of the cathedral church of Salisbury. The incum-
bent died during the lite of the late prebend, Mr. Ren-
nell, who also died before he had presented thereto ;
having died intestate, Mrs. Rennell, as administratrix,
presented a Mr. Oiler to the rectory of Welby. The
present prebendary, Mr. Mirehouse, also presented at
the same time his brother, the Rev. ‘Villiam Mirehouse.
The Bishop refused to induct the Clerk presented by
the plaintiff, and the only question for the opinion of the
Court was, which party was entitled to the presentation?
Mr. PArrsson was this day heard at consid rable
length in support of the writ of error, contending that
the right of presentation on the death of the incumbent
of the rectory of Welby immediately vested in the late
Nr. Rennell as a chattel interest, and, therefore, his ad-
tsinistratrix, to whom the tight had descended, was en-
titled to the presentation, and not his successor. The
Learned Counsel cited various authorities to support his
view of the case, and submitted that the present case
was analogous to the right of presentation by a layman,
which, in the event of his death before presentation,
*vested in his executor, and not in the heir-at-law.

Mr.. Sergeant DOYLEY was about to address the
Court in support of the deci,ion of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, when the Lord Chief Justice intimated that
they would hear him on Tuesday next.

Mr. SCARLETT moved for a Rule to skew cause why
a mandamus should not issue, commanding Lord Veru-
lam, the Lord of the Manor of Kingsbury, and the
steward of the said manor, to hold a court for the pur-
pose of admitting as a copyholder in that manor, a per-
son who claimed an estate of inheritance therein.—
;Able granted..

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 17.
SMITH I. MARMOT.

Mr. Sergeant WILD& moved for a rule to set aside the
interlocutory judgment of nonsuit in this case, on the
. ground that proceedings had been taken by an attorney
'who was not an attorney in the Court of Common
• Pleas, but in the King's Bench only, and had carried
on proceedings in this Court under the name of another
attorney, who had not given a written consent that his
name might be used, as St was necessary he should do
py 2 George 11. chap 29. sec. 10.
The Court were of opinion that the ease would require further
;consideration. and granted the rule.

MTh" w W011117M16
Mr. Sergeant WILDS had on a former occasion ob.
lained a rule to chew cause why the judgment which
bad been given for the plaintiff in this case should nut
be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff's attorney
bad been guilty of irregularity in obtaining it. The fasets
of the case were simply these. Some time since, the
plaintiff, with his wife and niece, were travelling in a
chaise on the road, when they were met, by the cara-
vans of the defendant, who was not with them himself
at the time, but had intrusted them to the care of a man,
from whose negligence the plaintiff's chaise was upset,
• and his wife and niece slightly injured. Plaintiff ap-
plied to his attorney to ask his advice to recover da-
mages for the injury they had sustained ; and this attor-
ney had brought three separate actions in the names of
'the three persons who were in the chaise, against the
defendant. Immediately on hearing this, defendant
called on the plaintiff, desiring to know what be should
-pay to compromise the matter, and begged that no fur-
ther expenses might be incurred by legal proceedings.
'The attorney, however, did proceed, and obtained
judgment by default in each case. He then issued
writs of inquiry, and obtained a verdict for Upwards of
1004 It was for this irregularity that the present mo-
'tion was made.

Mr.SergeantVALIGRAN contended that due notice had
been given. Defendant had said that any letter or no-
tice that should be sent to Windmill-street, he should
receive. Notice had been served there, but the defendant
was not there at the time, and the woman in the house
refused to say where he might be found. He contended
that this was sufficient notice.

The LORD Cuts, Jusuce said, that the defendant
had not said that he should certainly receive any notice
that might be sent there, but that there was a proba-
bility of his doieg so, as he should call there when he
'retttrned to town. The word he made use of was, that
be should call, not that he lived there. His Lordship
was of opinion that the proceedings had been conducted
with irregolarity, and consequently the rule should
be granted.
The reef of the Court cocaine& •