The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-02-12 00:00:00

" The committee feel that the objects the society has in
view are not sufficiently known to its friends and the Christian
public, and, therefore, beg to lay before them a short account
of its history and operations. It was instituted in the year
1823 by clergymen of the Established Church, and is con-
ducted exclusively by members of that community, althouall
the relief it gives is free to every child of woe, of whatever
denomination he may be. Its objects are to visit and re-
lieve the sick and distressed poor, and to embrace the oppor-
tunity, when the heart is softened by affliction, to direct the
sufferers for consolation to the Sacred Scriptures, loan copies
of which are supplied, as are also religious tract

give them that advice which mr,
the divine blessing, in promoting the best interests of them-
selves and families. To get the children of the poor sent to
Scriptural schools is also a prominent aim of the visiters of
the society. The relief given is generally in bread, oatmeal,
potatoes, &c. ; and while the soup-shops are open, the so•
ciety gladly avails itself of the cheap and wholesome nutri-
ment they supply ; when, however, a small sum of money
will put a case into the way of permanent support, it is not
withheld. A supply of blankets, also, is kept for loan during
the winter months, and the poor are found very desirous to
enjoy the comfort afforded by this branch of the society's
operations. Articles of clothing are, likewise, occasionally
supplied when the funds of the society will allow it."

be instrumental,

rough

LEGAL INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, FEB. 8.
(7o Error, before the Judges of the Common Pleas and the

Barons of the Exchequer.)

THE
BRAINTREE CHURCH-RATE.-BIRDER V. VELET•
.This case came before the court upon a writ of error from
a judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench, delivered upon
demurrer to a declaration in prohibition. The case has bean
so frequently before the public, that the principal facts are
notorious. The judgment was delivered by the Lord Chief
Justice of the,Common Pleas. Ilis lordship commenced by
stating, that there were two questions for decision in the
case—first, whether after a rate for the necessary repairs of
the church had been proposed and refused, at a vestry meet-
ing convened for the purpose of taking into consideration the
propriety of making the rate, the churchwardens, of their
own sole authority, could, at a subsequent period, and by
themselves, not at any public meeting of the parishioners,
make a valid rate as a substitution for that which had been
previously rejected for the necessary repairs of the church ;
and secondly, whether in the case of a rate so made by the
churchwardens alone, the courts of common law could issue
a writ of prohibition to preterit the ecclesiastical courts from
proceeding in a suit which had been instituted for the reco-
very of the rate so made. Upon these two questions the
judges were unanimously of opinion, 1, that the rate so made
was illegal and void; and 2, that a writ of prohibition may
properly issue in such circumstances, to prevent the eccle-
siastical courts from proceeding to enforce the payment of It.
The learned Chief Justice having thus stated the general re-
sult of their lordships' deliberation upon the case, proceeded
to state that the actual parishioners of every parish were
bound to repair the church, not by any particular ecclesias-
tical injunction, hut by the general common law of the land,
and that the liability to make such repair was a duty which
they could not legally decline to perform. When the pa-
rishioners, therefore, were assembled in vestry, the only
question upon which they could deliberate was—not whether
they should repair the church at all (for upon that point they
were concluded by the common law of the land); but how
when, and in what manner their duty was to be performed:
They had no more power to relieve themselves from the duty
itself than to refuse to contribute to the repair of bridges and
highways in which the public had a common interest, and
which the law for that reason had immemorially decided that
the public were bound to repair. One mode, and that the
most usual and unexceptionable, of performing this duty,
was that the churchwardens should convene a meeting of the
parishioners in vestry for this purpose, and cause them to
make an order for the rate, which order so made was bind-
ing upon all the parishioners whether present or not, and
whether they did or did not assent to the levy. There was
no difference of opinion among the judges as to the validity
of a rate so made, and as to the liability of the parishioners
to discharge their several portions of it. As little difference
of opinion existed as to whether the churchwardens had the
power to make a rate alone, after they had duly summoned
the parishioners, if the parishioners did not think proper to
attend. The rate in this case was undoubtedly valid, upon
the principle that the churchwardens, who must be presumed
to be also parishioners, were the majority of parishioners in
attendance, and as such had the power by their acts to
bind the others who had absented themseh es from the per-
formance of their duty. The rate, however, which was
brought under the consideration of the court in the present
case differed in several important particulars from the species
of rate which had been just described, and the question to
be decided in reference to it was whether, where there had
been a meeting of the parishioners, duly summoned, and at
which they had assembled and refused the rate, the chui eh-
wardens could, of their own authority and at a subsequei t
period, make a rate which would be valid and binding upon
the parishioners without holding any meeting at all. Such
a power, if shown to exist as a matter or usage in any
parish, would not perhaps, be considered unreasonable, as
the only way by which, in the circumstances, a parish officer
would be enabled to cause the parish to perform what the
parish was by law bound to do, and what he was by law
bound to see that they performed. There could not, in other
respects, be any great objection to a rate so made, as
the necessity, the amount of it, and the liability of par-
ticular individuals to the payment could be effectually
discussed in the Ecclesiastical Court. There was, however,
in the present case, no suggestion of the existence in fact of
any such custom, and there was no law authority to justify
the making of a rate in the circumstances in which the pre-
sent rate had been made. The Court could not help observ-
ing that there was a great and obvious difference between the
case of a rate made by the churchwardens and minority of a
vestry meeting convened for the purpose, and the case of a
rate made by the churchwardens without any meeting, alone,
and at a future time. Upon the validity of a rate made at a
meeting by the churchwardens and the minority, the Court
would say nothing at present. They reserved to themselves
however, the full right to decide that question, according to
the best of their judgment, whenever the question should
arise; such a question was not, however, included in the
matters to be decided upon the present record. It was teue
that the churchwardens may be compelled to cause the church
to be repaired, and that they;had the power to compel the
parishioners to make the necessary rate for the purpose. It
was also true that the Ecclesiasical Court possessed exclusive
jurisdiction to inquire into the necessity of the rate, and may
compel the churchwardens to make it, and the parishioners
to pay it, if legally made. Those Courts, however, had, of
course, no power to enforce a rate which, being made like
the present, without due authority, was illegal and void in
itself. The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT,-FRIDAY, FEB. 5

REV. T. SCOTT'S BIBLE

,-INJUNCTION.-SEELEY AND

OTIIERS V. FISHER

Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE said, he was instructed on behalf of
Messrs. Seeley, Hatchards, and others, booksellers, to move
ex parte for a special injunction to restrain Messrs. Fisher,
the defendants, from selling or disposing of any number or
part of an edition of the Rev. T. Scott's Bible, printed by
them, having upon its cover a certain advertisement, stating
that such edition as so published by them, contained the
_ .

ho- le of the Coninzentary and observations of iheVai:lThon;;

Scott, or the whole of the last improvements or additions
made by him ; or words to that effect. The Court would
see that the application was of an unusual nature. The case
was not one of piracy, but of untrue announcement, made in

such a manner as to create an impression, not only that
the work announced was that which it was not, but that
it was what the plaintiffs' work, and that only, really
was. The case was this : Mr. Scott's Commentary was
probably the most valuable and most generally-esteemed
work of its class. It passed through several editions in
the author's lifetime. The third edition was printed
1807-9;in and the same was reprinted as a fourth edition,
in 1812-14. This latter edition it was, which, as the copy-
right was now just expiring, the defendant Fisher was pre-
paring to give to the world, in an edition of his own, in
monthly parts. Of this the plaintiffs could not complain ;
but what they did complain of was this :—Subsequently to
1814, Mr. Scott entered into a new agreement with Messrs.
Seeley and others, to revise, correct, and enlarge his work.

This task occupied the greater part of the last ten years of
his life. Besides innumerable corrections, Mr. Scc:tt added
new molter amounting to above four hundred quarto pays.
This last and most complete edition of his Commentary, was
published in 1822, and consequently the sole copyright
would be the plaintiffs' for several years to come. Yet, in lull
knowledge of these facts, the defendant Fisher chose to ad-
vertise his reprint of the old edition of 1812, in the following
term; :

" The invaluable character of the Commentary rendering
any INFRINGEMENT OR ABBREVIATION MISCHIEVOUS,
economy in bulk has been effected by the employment of a
smaller type and expanded page, so that three quarto vo-
lumes may contain the whole unadulterated labours of the
Author, not as re-edited by a different hand and inferior
mind, but precisely as the amiable and learned Commentator
bequeathed them to the world. This edition is PRINTED
FROM THE LAST which the author published in the vigour
of life."

" To prevent the possibility of misconception, the pub-
lishers state, distinctly, that this edition will include, besides
the authorised text of the Holy Scriptures, the Commentary,
notes, marginal references, and practical observations as the
author wrote them, without interpolation or omission."
" Inferior, therefore, to no edition of Scull's Bible, in the
fulness or genuine character of its contents," &c.
Now all these representations could only he made with truth
of the plaintiffs' (Messrs. Seeley's) edition, and were in effect
declarations that Messrs. Fisher were puulishing the same ;
which they could not do. He would not dw, lt on the fraud
practised towards the public, though that was of the
grossest description, since any one buying Fisher's work
would be led to suppose that he was buying the whole work
as Mr. Scott left it, which was quite untrue.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—It appears to me a clear case
for the interference of the Court, and you have stated suf-
ficient to entitle you to an injunction.
Injunction granted to the following effect :---
" That the said defendants may be restrained by the in-
junction of this court from selling or disposing of any copy
of said first number, or part, of the said announced edition of
said Thomas Scott's said work, or any future number or part
thereof, having with or upon it, or the corer or wrapper
thereof, the aforesaid statement or announcement respecting
the nature and contents of such publication, and from in any
manner printing, publishing, or causing to be printed or
published, any advertisement, statement, or announcement,
to the purport or effect that ally edition of said Commentary
or work, published or to be published by them, contains or
will contain the whole of the Commentary and observations
of the said Thomas Scott, as written by bins, or as bequeath-
ed by hint to the world, or the whole of the last corrections,
improvements, and additions, made by the said Thomas
Scott to his said Commentary or work, or to any like effect.'

ACCIDENT TO HIS ROYAL EIIGIINESS PRINCE ALBERT.
—Yesterday morning, about ten o'clock, as his Royal High-
ness Prince Albert was skating on the spacious water in the
grounds of Buckingham Palace, his Royal Highness unfor-
tunately passed over some rotten ice, which immediately
broke under him, and he was immersed to the chin in water.
The Queen was a spectator of the accident, and was for a
time greatly alarmed. We are happy to add that his Royal
Highness is going on well under the care of Sir James
Clarke, one of the royal physicians.—Times, Wednesday.—
It appears that his royal highness was walking in the royal
gardens in the company of her majesty, the only
present being the Hon. Miss Murray, one of the
d
honour in waiting on the Queen. It not being understood
un
by Col. Bouverie and Lieut. F. Seymour, the equerry and
e,
that his
groom of the bedchamber in waiting upon the.nprin attendantn_la
ds of
royal highness intended to skate that triorm
who had left
g' they were
not, as usual, in attendance upontth
prince,teheir knowledge. After
the palace with her majesty
without
ou
Queen on the margin of the
walking for a short time with
th n
his skates and left her ma-
jesty,water, his royal highness putwatching
°
who remained
iehad the movements of the prince
from the gardens.iat been on the ice more than
1 when, as he was proceeding at a rapid
rate towards the spot
where the Queen was standing, and
had reached within about three or four feet of the water's
edge, the ice suddenly broke, and instantaneously the
immerse. .
1 over head and - • ears in the water.
prince
was
His royal highness.
' immediately arose to the surface, wheu
her mai(' •
sty with great presence of mind, joined her hand to
that of the Hon. Miss Murray, telling her tostand firm and
to betray no fear, and extending her right hand to the prince.
dragged him to the shore. Her majesty manifested the
greatest courage upon the ooeasion, and acted with the Irlar),t
istreopid cOolnete.-.-Met*ey WAY, 11 10414