The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-08-28 00:00:00

THE KIRK versus THE POPE.

The third centenary of the reformation approaches,
and we earnestly hope that; on the hist Sunday in
October, all protestant congregations, of every denomi.
ilation, throughout the united kingdom, in addition to
their usual religious observances, will cel&brate this great
epoch by thanksgiving and praise to the Almighty for
their deliverance from the thraldom of the impure, in-
tolerant church of Rome. The kirk of Scotland, the
most anti-popish of the protestant churches, has recorded
in her "Standards" her reasons fot her rejection of
popery; and we think that, at this eventful time, the
following extract from her "Confession of Faith, or
National Covenant," although quaint the language, will
be studied with deep interest by many of out readers.
The -origin4l deed of the "Confession of, Faith, or
National Covenant," which was signed at) Holyrood
House, on the 25th day of February, 1588, by King
James the Sixth, Lennox, Huntly, the Chancellor, and
ninety-five other persons,
.is now in the possession of
Sir John Maxwell, Baronet, Nether Polluk, Renfrew-
shire :

"In special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of the
Roman antichrist upon the scriptures of God, uprin the kirk,
the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous
laws made upon indifferent things against our christian liberty;
his erroneous doctrine against Ole sufficiency of the written
word, the perfection of the law, the office of Chiist, and his
blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original
sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, our jus-
tification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obe-
dience to the law, the nature, number, and use of the holy
sacraments; his five bastard sacraments with all his rites, cere-
monies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the
true sacraments without the word of God; his cruel judgment
against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute
necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of' transubstan-
tiation, or real presence of Christ's body in the elements, and
receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dis-
pensations with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of mar-
riage forbidden in the word; his cruelty against the innocent
divines ; his devilish mass ; his blasphemous priesthood ; his
profane sacrifice for sins of the dead and the quick; his canoni-
zation of men, calling upon angels or saints departed, worship-
ping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of kirks, altars,
days; vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead;
.praying or speaking in a strange language, with his proces-
sions, and-blasphemoualftsiny, and -multituder of advocates or
mediators,. his manifold orders, auricular confessions, his des-
perate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome
faith; his satisfactions of men-for their sins; his justificatian
by works, opus operalum, works of supererogation, merits, par-
dons, peregrinations, and stations; his holy water, baptizing
of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, sapling, anointing, con-
jnring, hallowing of God's good creatures, with the supersti-
tious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy and
slicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavel-
hogs of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made
at Trent, with ap the subscribers or approvers ot that cruel and
bloody baud, conjoined against the kirk of God. And finally,
we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions
brought in the kirk without or against the word of God and
doctrine of this true reformed kirk."

LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.

NISI PRIUS COURT,-TUESDAY.
HALSER V. GREENWOOD.

This was an action brought to try a question of law respecting
a will. Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Crompton appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Tomlinson fin the! de-
fendant.

Mr. CitsswaLt. stated the case. John Halscr, the grand-
father of the present plaintiff, died in the year 1& 8. He left
a will, whereby he bequeathed to his widow an interest for life
in certain property, which, at his demise was to be equally divid-
ed between his two sins, John and Joseph. If one of these died
without ;slue, the children of the other were to inherit ; if both
died without issue, the property was to go over. At the demise
of the widow, John and Joseph Balser had accordingly each
an equal moiety. Unfortunately, all the witnesses to the will
were dead, but proofs would be furnished of the genuineness of
the signatures, and also the will having been drawn out by an
attorney, named Brown, and of the demise of the parties.
The first witness called was Mrs. Griffiths, who stated that she
lived in Stanley-street. She knew old John Halser. She
knew his wife, who, managed his affairs. They owned some
houses in CaveutliA-street. Did not know the. tenants, but
went herself to see the widow of John Halsor, whew she was
lying dead there. John Balser used to live there. Remetnbeied
Mr. Brown, the attorney, who nricle wills for some of her friends.
Old John Halser left two sous, John and Joseph, the former of
whbm died without issue,—the latter left four children.
Abraham Jones produced the will of John Halser, deceased,
from the court of. Chester. _ _

....
Mr. Massey deposed that ho was acquainted with Mr. Brown,
an attorney, about fifteen years ago. Did not know positively
that he was .lead. Had not seen -him for 15 years. '
Mr. CRESSWELL.—That will be prima facia evidence that he
is dead.
Mr. Ar.xxamiEn.—Then you might prove anybody dead.
Witness then proved the hanc'!. vritiug of Mr. Brown in sig-
nature to the will, and iu placing of the name ,of another
round his mark.
Sarah Riding, sister in law to foseph Halser, deposed that
she had frequently beard the parents of Joseph and John Hal-
ser say that the property would descend to the children of the
former on their. demise. When the widow of testator died, her
sister Franceshad taken the furniture to her house in Johnson-
street, and kepfthem.
Lawrence Green produced a copy of the register of the burial
of Mr. Brown which he had compared with the original in St.
Peter's Church, from which it appeared that Mr. Brown had
died in 143413. - • - _
Jane Parkinson, wife to the son of Parkinson who had wit-
nessed the will, stated that one had been present when the will
was drawn out;:•that Parkinson had teen dead twenty-four
years, and that Halser's wife managed the property during his
lifetime. -
Mr. ALE,CANDfiII for the defence took objection to the word-
ing of the will, in which he said the words "either or both"
ought to have been inserted to have made it binding. In its
present state he contended that the property ought to go over.
—Verdict for the plaintiff; subject to leave on the part of
the defendants to move for a new trial if required.

MURPHY V. LAMBE AND OTHERS.
This was an action against the Phenix Insurance Company,
to recover money due on a policy of insurance for property be-
longing to plaintiff, burned at a fire which took place on his
premises on July 23, 1833.
Mr. Alexander, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Wigbtman appeared
on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Cresswell for the defeuce.
Mr. ALEXANDER said that the principal question in this ease
was rather one of a criminal than of a civil nature. The
plaintiff had, through hard fortune, become so greatly reduced
in circumstances, that he was necessitated to sue in forte
pateperis. When this was done, the plaintiff had to swear that
he was not worth £5 in the world, upon which the law allowed
him every chance of justice, by permitting him to choose his
own counsel. The plaintiff had formerly been in business as a
stevadore, but having got into some difficulties, he sold off some
property which he had,—paid his debts, and then found himself
worth £2OO or £3OO, with which he took 'a shop in Bath-street,
where he placed his wife and son, to carry on the business, him-
self still pursuing that of stevedore. About this period.a fire
happened in the neighbourhood, which alarmed the inhabitants_
so much that it induced several of them to insure, and amongst
the rest the plaintiff, who insured his stock for £5OO, and his
furniture for £lOO snore. His former etnbarassment however
at this tune not having been properly settled, he again got into
difficulties, and he was obliged to close his shop and go to live
in a distant part of the town where ne was less known, but from
which he occasionally went to visit his shop on business when
he met accidentally.with a customer. Lady one morning he
was surprised at receiving the astounding information that
during the night his shop had been burned down. He hastened
to the spot and discovered that nothing remained of his whole
property.but *the smoking ruins of the building. When lie had
claimed upon his policy the office of insurance, in consequence
of some suspicions which they had imbibed, refused payment of
the amount claimed.. It was to recover this amount, affidavit of
the correctness of which had been made, that the present
action was brought.
Na less than fourteen witnesses were then called, who testified
to the truth of most of the statements above made but the one
material fact, viz., the value of the property contained on the
premises at the time of the fire. One witness estimated the
stock and furniture of the plaintiff at £l5O, another at £2OO.
On this point the case fell to the ground.
Lord A etriosu, after some conversation with counsel for
plaintiff and defendant, directed that a verdict be found for the
defendant, on the ground of false representation having been
made of the value of the goods. Each party to pay his own
.costs in the action.
THE. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MAINWARING AND ANOTHER.
In this case, which was taken at the opening of the court, Sir
Josue Cowes:Le, (the Attorney-General) and Mr. COLTMAN
appeared for the crown, and Sergeant ATcHERLEY, (Attorney-
General for the county palatine,) Mr. CRESswELL and Mr.
WLCIIITMAN for .the defendants. The proceeding was by in-
formation of intrusion to maintain the title of the crown ter a
tract of grounil,27o acres in extent, lying nearthe city of Ches,
ter, and formed from an-estuary of 'the river Dee, which in au- ,
ciont times was of such extent as to render Chester a great
marine malt, Liverpool being then only a subordinate or de-
pendency of. it. Gradually the daninittion of the volume of
water laid bare wide alluvial tracts, of whh.h the ground in dis-
pute was the most recently developed. Within the memory of
man it has been a marsh, and the strong tides overflowed it.
The land does not lie immediately upon the batiks of the Dee,
but is separated from it by an intervening pieee aground called
the Saltmay, which lies considerably higher than the ground
now contested for. In the year 1829 this ground was taken
possession of under the direction_ of Lord Lowther and the other
commissioners of Woods and Forests, it being then censidered
that no person had (or pretended to have) a title to it, and it
having been heretofore a tract into which the people drove their
cattle indiscriminately, and whence rushes, or turf was cut, and
even bricks made. A man named William Hughes was ap-
pointed bailiff of it ; a trench was cut round it ; notices against
trespass wet 0, posted ; it was made profitable as a ley for cattle,
and not less than £5OO was received from the former year to
1832-as rental for the pasturage of cattle, Jones (the co-defend-
ant of Mainwaring) having; with others, paid sums of money
for his cattle. Resistance, however, was made at first to the
enclosure, and cattle were turned on to the land to dispute the
appropriation, but Hughes " pounded" them, awl continued to
claim payment for the ley. In the year 1833, a Mr. Brydell
took the lands as tenant, with a power to purchase, and the de-
fendants then asserted a decided claim to the laud, founding it,
as it appeared from the pleadings in this case, on a real or sup-
posed right he possessed as lord of the manor of Mariston-cum-
Leach, the disputed lauds lying. appurtenant thereto, and hay-.
ing, as was alleged, been occupied in ownership for 30 years by
the second defendant. The title by manorial privilege thus set
tip was contested by the learned Attorney-General. He con-
tended that no manorial lordship existed in Marlston ; no copy-
hold manor could be created after the 18th Edward Ist., and it
could be granted after the reign
:4;f"ltthe.lhaatradqtitieelt' whetherst. Doomsdaythey book spoke of only 41) acres of
laud existing in Leach, and it was not entitled a manor, which
was iuvariably the case when manorial rights existed. In the
process of time more land was reclaimed from the sea, and in
the reign of Edward the Ist two grants were made, that
monarch being then forming the forest of Delamere and anxious
to obtain land there, which he exchanged for others. The lands
in Marlstnn and Leach were thus graetel for the performance
of certain service at the royal castle of Chester. Another
grant was made by Henry the Seventh, as Earl. of Chester, of
the' waste .lands round that city, which he bestowed upon the
citizens, Chester being then erected into a county. Those lands
came up to the very disputed ground of Leachhighs. There
was also another grant of Henry the Eighth, on the dissolution
of the monasteries, of the lauds attached to St. Werburgh's
Church, for which a rental of 30s. 02d. was to be paid to-the
court of augmentation. Under these grants, therefore, which
embraced the lands alleged to constitute the manor, as no