The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-09 00:00:00

LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—SATURDAY, Juste 6.
The court took the crown paper this morning, but nothing oc-
curred of any general interest.
Sir William Follett moved for a rule to show cause why a
writ of mandamus should not issue commanding Mr. Lake, a ina-
gistrate of the borough of Falmouth, to sign and seal an• order
for the payment of rates towards the repairs of the church at
Falmouth. He. made the applicetion to carry into elfect the
provisions of an act of parliament to prevent persons beihg sum-
moned before the ecclesiastical courts for the non-payment of
rates where there was only a small sum due, and, directing that
two justices of the peace should order them to be paid. It ap-
peared that at Falmouth there were six or seven Quakers; they
had beep rated to the church rate, and bad refused, as they al-
ways did, from conscientious reasons, to pay. Application was
made to the justices of the borough to enforce payment, but
there were only two justices of that borough, and one of them,
Mr. Lake; who-it:was necessary should sign the order, refused,
to do so unless compelled by a court of law.—Rule granted. ,
EXPARTE FLETCHER.—Mr. Cresswell moved for a rule to
show cause why a criminal information, should not be filed
against the proprietors of the Carlisle Journal, for a libel on a
clergyman, the Rev. Walter Fletcher, vicar of Dalston, pub-
lished in that paper, professing to be an account of proceedings
adopted by that gentleman to enforce payment of tithes. Mr.
Fletcher, in his affidavit, stated that in 179,3 he was instituted to
the vicarage of Dalston. In 1794 the waste lands of that parish
were enclosed, and an allotment was made to the vicar, in lieu
of tithes of turnips and potatoes, to which he always considered
he was entitled, but he never enforced the payment: but he
Mated to his parishioners that they must not take it for granted
that he had not a right to it. Matters continued in this state
until the passing of the act of 2d and 3d of Wm..IV., which
prevented persons making any claim for tithes after a certain
time. This gentleman then thought he was bound to make the
claim, and he sent notice round to his parishioners, making the
demand of tithes on turnips and
.potatoes, at the same time in-
forming them that he had no desire to increase his own income,
but that he made the claim for the interest of his successor, and
he invited them to pay a small sum as an acknowledgment of
the right. Some expectation was entertained that parliament
would intdrfere to arrange the .numerous suits. A committee
was formed in the parish, which met Mr. Fletcher, who agreed
to stay all proceedings till the then nett session of parliament,
to see what was done. Nothing, however; was done, and the
parties were then called upon again to make up their minds.
A great many paid a small sum as an acknowledgment, 'but
some held out. Mr. Fletcher proposed that if any one or more
chose to defend proceedings, and try the right, and it was de-
cided against them, all those who had paid should have the be-
nefit of that determination. A person of the"name of Farish
still held out, and would not appear to a subpcena, nor take
any step whatever. Mr. Fletcher, therefore, instructed his at-
torney to take the necessary steps, and an attachment was
issued against him on the 11th of May, to compel hi=
to answer the bill. On the evening of the Ilth of May,
he was arrested by the sheriff,.and taken to the office of Mr.
Fletcher's attorney, being accompanied by his brother. Mr.
Farish asked what was the meaningof the arrest ? The attorney
told him that it was the only mode that could be pursued, and
recommended him to give bail, saying that he would be con-
tented with his brother as his bail. Farish objected to this,
and said he would go to gaol, and accordingly was taken there.
On the following Tuesday the attorney waited upon hitn, when
he desired to know the amount of the costs, which were between
£6 and £7, and he paid them, was liberated, and said he would
go over and settle with Mr. Fletcher. On his going to Mr.
Fletcher, that gentleman repeated what he had before said—
" Pay me 25., and I will be content." He then paid the 25.,
and received a receipt for it, the tithes being actually of the
value of £6. Farish then said, " You are in my debt 4s. for
apples which you had in 1827." Mr. Fletcher said, although
he did not recollect that, he would have no dispute about it, and
he paid the 4s. The Carlisle Journal professed to give an ac-
count of this transaction. The article was headed " Gross
oppression !" It went on to state, that on the sth of May, the
Rev. Mr. Fletcher attended a tavern meeting, composed of per-
sons half of whom were turies, and the other in the Lowther in-
terest ; that he there delivered himself of a speech in favour of
the church; that on May 11, he caused a respectable farmer to
be seized and put in prison, to be the companion of felons and
the dregs of society, for 2s. (this wasuntrue, because he was on
the debtor's side) • that he remained in prison four days, when
he paid the demand, but here he was met by the engine of op-
pression, the legal expenses amounting to £7 17s. ; that it
'night be supposed the vicar wanted the 2s. to keep his children
from starvation, but this was not the ease, as he was a pluralist,
in possession of a large income—it showed how true was the
summing up of Junius, that the malice of a priest was
im-
placable;. that at the time he flung Farish into a dungeon Mr.
Fletcher was in his debt in a much more considerable sum for
apples, but he would have ,his pound of flesh—he would stand
upon his bond. They (the Carlisle Journal) would not let the
matter rest—they would let the people see what they were to
expect from those who raised the cry of "No Popery!" Let
the conservative club say by whom the church was in danger.—
Rule granted.
BAIL COURT.

On Friday Sir F. Pollock moved for a rule to show cause why
an attorney of this court should not refund the sum of £1,500
which had been paid to him by the applicant, under the follow-
ing circumstances:—Three years ago some proceedings were
taken intim Ecclesiastical court, relative to a legacy of £3,000,
left to the applicant, but who could not establish his claim with-
out the aid of the attorney, who was a witness to the will. The
attorney refused to give it, unless the applicant would consent,
in case of the legacy being paid, to give him one half, or £1,500.
The applicant ultimately agreed, and granted the attorney three
bills of exchange for the amount. The legacy was eventually
paid, and so were the bills—the applicant receiving £1,500,
and the attorney the same sum. Having been advised to de-
mand the restoration of the money, he employed a professional
gentleman to call upon him on the subject. The gentleman
did so, but had no sooner opened his business, than the attorney
desired him to leave the house, as he knew nothing of the
matter ho was talking about. Mr. Justice Coleridge requested
the learned counsel to take a rule nisi.