The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-11-30 00:00:00

THg STATESMAN.

was a master w of considerable opulence, usd some-1
times let out looms fee hire.
Cross-examined—llia son William had hired a limns
which be had not returned.
Mrs. Wiekridge, the wife of the rest witness. deposed,
that in the month of February last the defendant name
to the plaintiff's house, and said he wanted to speak to
the plaintiff's wife; witness told him he could not see
her as she was then confined to her bed, hat if he would
leave any message with witness she would deliver it.
Defendant then said, he came to speak shunt the plain-
tiff. Witness was alarmed, and asked if any accident
had happened to bins? To which the defendant an-
swered no; hut he was taken to prison for beinz bound
fora hired loom, which had not been returned. Wit.
ness told him lie hid got the wrong man, on which lie
said—l am afraid I have made a mistake, and he is not
the right man. Witness called on him the sect day, I
accompanied by a person named Knowles, to reque-a •
her son's release, es he was not the proper individual;
this the defendent refused to do without security for the
Wm Knowles corroborated the testimony of the last
witness as to the defendant's refusal to liberate the
plaintiff. After the plaintiff was liberated witness went
with him to the defendant's in order to get a cornea.
sating, when the defendant said he !wild give the plain-
tiff 4s. a day, and he could earn no more if defendant
could look at his master's hooks; and then, as to the
time, it was late when plaintiff was arrested on Saturday,
and lie could not work at all the next slay.
Cross-examined.—Whet the plaintiff told him lie was
not the right man the defendant said be was. Witness
did not bear the defendant try he let the plaintiff out of
prison as an act of charity, his wife being in labooto it
the time. Witness did not bear the defendant admit that
the plaintiff was the wrong man
Mr. U.l.f an attorney, proved that be called on the
defendant and explained to him that he was mistaken in
the person he had arrested. The defendant said he bad
arrested the plaintiff for hot returning a loom according
to his bond. lie refined to make any compensation.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant Vationew, for the defendant, add d
the Jury; He thought they would not feel the greatest
inclination to favour the plaintiff when they. were in-
formed of the real facts of the case. The plaintiff had
chosen to keep back the agreement on which the loom
was hired, and lie had kept it back because it would
have opened to their view a gross case of fraud and per-
jury. The name of Kerr bad been mentioned as one of
the enmities for the return of the loom. Why was he
not called? Because he could not screw his comae to
the sticking point of becoming perjured, for he had as
been requested to attend and swear, that the John
Barkridge who bad become with him security for the
return of a loom was the father anti not the son. Kerr
bad refused to do so, declaring that his co-surety was
the son, the present plaintiff. The Learned Sergeant
declared he should call Kerr, who would prove three
facts, and if the Jury believed him there was an end of
the laintiff's case. The plaintiff bad been arrested en-
der an executien from the Court of Requests, for not
having returned a loom,zad that arrest was legal if he
was really the individ :who had signed the paper,
and the Jury must gives verdict for the defendant if
they were satisfied of that fact.
Kerr swot, that at the regent of William Beekridge
he became a surety for the return of a loom of the de-
fendaat's. His ceesurety was John Backridge, the plain-
tiff, and not the father. On a subsequeifibesceasioa the
fatter asked witness if be did not recollect having
gone with him (the father) to become surety for the re-
turn of a loom ? Witness said he dial not; sad the fa-
thee then else•rted be mid take an oath of itaj Witness
replied, the oath would dies be ratite. and mooting
the plaintiff added, " He was the man I west *ids.
Cross-examined.--liedknown William Backridge
the plaintiff a long time, bat not the father: had
known the defendant until the present, transaction.
John Beach*, the father, was recalled, and in an-
ewer tea qttestios from "Juryman, said he coald write,
but not properly. Being asked whether be could make
letters ? he tail " Yes.'
His Lordship called Kerr back, and aspired who .had
added the description and residence. of• the different
"sons who signed the agreement fee the hire of-the
Th..? Kerr answered, they were welpiii. Irt •OK dm
readmit.
Townsend, the constable, proved the arrest..
Crocreeamined.—The plaintiff denied that bewas the
right man, aid the defendant affirmed he was, at the
time of the arrest.
Mr. Knightly was called by the plaintiff, in reply, who
proved that in July last, the father lived at the place,
mentioned in the agreement.
John Buckridge, the father, was again put into the,
box.—He sired his hand to such a pipet as that now'
produced, but it was then in a book; be signed it by
making a mark : he newer was in the defendant's house
but once.
Cross-examined.--And that was when Kerr was

there.
William 13nekridge swore that be went to the house of
the defendant in company with his father and. Kerr,
for the purpose of hiring a loom ; Kerr did sot know
witness's brother at that time, the witness swore that
the marks to the paper were those of his father and
himself.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN and Mr. Serjeant Pau. seve-
rally addressed the Jury in reply.
Mr. Justice PARK 'unlined up the evidence.
The Jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. °9.
TUB ATTURNIT•GENERAL O. LITTLE.

This was a proceeding instituted for the condem-
nation of three bales of silk charged to have bee*
sari ggled.
The ATTO&SET•Gcx =A 16 called the following wit-

nellel :-•••
Mr. Beckwith, of the firm of Beckwith, Bamford and
Varnish, silk-mercers, Maideu-lane, Cheapside; stated,
that in the latter end of August, Int, the defendant
called at their warehouse, and having introdnced
lain
self as an acquaintar.ce of Mr. Dattiford, desired that,
the foreman io she shop shoald retire. This being done,
he told witness end Mr. Varnish, that be could sell them
any quantity of silk at a price the amount of the duty
below the price in the matket. " Then," observed the
witness, " the duty could not have been paid." De-
fendant replied " the devil a shilling duty I ever pay."
The defendant having thus disclosed his builintss,sea he
supplied persons in the trade with silk to the amount of
20,0010. per annum, and also that he suppled one-third
of the trade aith cambric, to the amount of 90,0001.
per annum, and if he could get a few houses like their's
in the silk trade he wonlat do business to an equal amount
.in it.• He said lie could get false dates of entries at the
Cuitont House to cover any thing he chose to import to
any amount. • His goods were, he said, stunggleal in by a
oniverfnl friend at Dover, who could • smuggle in the
Devil, lie mentioned the names of houses at Turin,
Leghorn and Valenciennes, from which he bought bis
silk. He offered witness three bales of silk at 424. per
lb. at the usual credit. The silk of the kind the defendant
offered was at the time worth 4Ss. 1 t was afterwards
agreed upon by the witness to take the silk offered at
40e. cash, as they did not clause to take credit in such a
transaction. Defenalaot wished to send it in at sight,
bat witness said lie did nothing in the dark, and told
him he might send it in the first thing in the morning.
Witness in the mean time gave information to the Corr
tnittee Girlie Silk Trade. information was then given
at die Costal House, and an ofscer was ,ppoinsed -to be
I in waiting;

Mr. Beckwith, in his eioes-exessination, said he de
dined dining with the defendant in Lime-street, hut
took wine with him, and was shown over the house
Defendant spoke largely of his dealings, and profits, and
expenses. pressed witness to drink, and sheled lout a
well stocked wine cellar. Defendant himself drank
freely, and talked freely, wished him to take a quantity
of cambric., but was refused.
Mr. Varnish corroborated this stalem•nt. The de-
fendant made no scruple of declaring that the duty had
not bees paid.
Rosy the officer, said he vizecl the silk as the porter
was taking it into Mr. Mecicwith's wareh 'use; the dr.
fendant came in soon after, and admitted nest the silk
was his, telling Mr. 11. that be would make all right.—
Witness told hint he knew bins to be one of the greatest
smugglers in England these twelve montlie.' Witm-sst
then went to defendant's house in Linte.street; but the
defendant had gone o:f; there were found only seven-
teen pieces of cambric on the premises, aml upon those
the duty had been paid.
.Mr. Durant, a silt broker, proved the veins of the
silk to be from 4.Ss. to ,rills. per pound, at the tiros the
defendant sold it for 40s.
This was the ease for the Crown.
Mr. fur the defendant. said the rase was. one
of suspicion, but it would be answered by evidence,
which would prove that two of the bales aeisad were
bought at a Custom house sale of smuggled. tom's, at
Dover, by Vessn. Lathan', as agents for M:s-rs. Seale
and Co. of London, to whom they were forwarded and
by them sold to the defendant. The third bale a .old
uotbeprovedundersiusilarcircumstancesin consequence
of the absence of a witness.

E. llowers,.clerk of Messrs. Latham. consols to s.any
foreign powers, and agents, stated that in Aprill,
he had bought two bales of silk at the Costons-!ootte
sale, on account of Messrs. Seale and Co. to whom it.'cy
ware forwarded by the waggon; be believed that tw.l
of the bales seised were of those that r ere purchased;
he judge,) front the external appearance of the silk, and
&hewed the entries of the transaction.
J. Seale, jun. of that firm, said, that in -kora 1818,
they received two bales of silk, as stated by the last at:-
nese. It was purchased ,at 68s. a pound, and, with the
commission, it stood them in 735. They kept them is
band until 1821, when perceiving that they kept filling,,
and there was no chance of a rise, they sold them at
39 on thd 25th of April. On the 27th they were seised.
They gave defendant six months credit.
Witness, on his cross-ezatnination, refused to say,
whether he had mauled goods, or whether he !awl
been prosecuted in that Court. Ile believed the two
packages seised to he %hove sold. There was no private
mark.
T ATTORNET-GINERAL, in his reply, pat it to the
Joey. whether, it was lot incredible that Mes,,rs. Seale
should have sold silk at 395. a pound, when the market
price was from 48s. to 50s.
The Jury found a verdict for the Crown.

CONSISTORY COURT, Fattier, Nov, 29.
TUE PRINCIPAL ANS ANCIENTS, OR WWII BROTHERS OP
THE SOCIIITT OP STAPLE-INN (at TIMM ITIIDIC) AGAINST
THE OUVRESWARDESS OP THE PARLEZ Or ST. &MERV'',
11•110114.,
Dr. SIV•IIRT opened the pleadings in this cottons ease,
in which the above society are proceeding against Os;
churchwardens of St. Andrew's for ejecting them trowel
seven certain pews in the said church, which have from
time immemorial been assigned to. set apart for, or mu.
pied by the Principal, Ancients, andAirand Brokers 4;(1
Staple Inn Dr. Swabey said thie eau • OpilEt of •peetaell
bation of seats; sad then recapitulated the proceedings
which had been had sena it.
Sig Calwrifbostsia.ltossusast..saii- be had- read the
Dr. Ao.tie appeared as Counsel for the churchyard-
's% and opposed thimimission of this libel. This was
a maim set up; In terms, exclusively of the parishioners:
sad [shah' teats *lSt. Asthma's; it was a possessive eight
set up by the lon of Court, as against the right of (hal
parishioners generally. The claim of tbe Inn was asserted,
ps appurtenant to the messeage or Inn of Court. heiog
situate oat of-this palish, called Staple-lan ; and it was
Spite clear that In the event of the case being proved. it
was a claim that was not merely exclusive of the palish
losers and inhabitants, but equally exclitsive of the or&
awry himself; for the ordinary could have ao right la
virus merely of his own office, to assign perm in a pa-
rish church to those who paid no parish rates, who dwelt
not in the parish, and who, together with their house' or i
usessuage. were in every respect estrmparochial. • This,
then, was a claim distinctly against the general law,
which vested the right to swats solely in the parishioner.;,
and though be was ready to admit the force of peed.'
ruler exceptions founded on prescription, en h faculty,
or on others erotrads, he cot:tested that those ;roiled*
must be With jar* distinctly tad definitively laid and
proveckThe learned counsel then went on to ergs/ that here
neither prescription nor faculty could he Muslin. The
prescriptive right could ,only Waist with the fact that
the messuags to which it might have been at some time
made appurtenant should be within the parish. Here,
on the contrary, the parties moving the question de-
scribed themselves as an extra-parochial house oreociety.
Again, a prescriptive right in these matters, let it be ever
so good or valid, presupposed the Athena of a faculty.
No faculty. however, could be shown to have been taken
out at any time by this society. Bat what it was incum-
bent on them on the present occasion to prove was, hot
so much the rigat to any particular seat or seats its the
church, as the right to sit there at all. Now neither fa
catty nor prescription could confer the right to sit there
at all on any nomparishioner, to the prejudice nr con-
straint, as to rocas, of those who were parishioners.
This it was beyond the pov.er of the ordinary, In whom
was the distribution of seats to parishioners, according
to his judgment of their rank, order, and gradation, to
do; for it would be to take away from perisbioaers a
right which the law had conferred upon them. Still
less, then,. coals! is be said that the rector and church-
wardens coold. at" any former time, hart legally given
such a right to the Society of Staple Inn. Parishioners,
on the other band, were in all cases legally thus enti-
tled ; and for these reasons—they paid the parish rates ;
and especially they paid for the repairs and snstenation
of the fabric in which they pew stood. It was distinctly
laid down In Blackstone (Commentaries, vol. 2. Book
2. cap. 17.) 0131 " a prescription cannot be for a
thing which cannot be raised by a grant; for the
law allows prescriptions only in supply of the loss o
such original grants." Why he had shown that the or-
dinary even could not grant that which this society
claimed as a right, and he should like to bear whet
species of other grant the ingenuity of his learned
friends could devise on this occasion, as likely to
have been made to the society. A case hail Peen de-
cided by the Court's predecessor (Lord Stowell)
from the chair, in attach it now sat. that bore strongly
on the general question here at issue, though not opal
the pattioular facts of the case. He meant that of
" Walter e. Bonner and Drury." (I Vol. Dr. Haggard's
Rep. p. 314) There the Judge said. " This is a pro.
ceeding est these churchwardens, calling upon them
to show cause why certain persons should not be seated
in church; and certainly the case itself very properly
goes on the illegality of the transfer of pews;" ants(p.l
317) the teamed Judge added all private eights to
posts mast he held under a faculty, or by prescription.
hich presupposes a faculty; and no faculty in the pre-
sent case was ever granted to that effect" (namely, to
enable a person ceasing to be a parishioner ur inhabi-
tant of a parish to transfer a pew to another); " for the
ordinary most have exercised his discretion lest he should
depopulate the church of its own proper parishioners

the Intahitaags t which, bower• r, w.. 014 have been ?he
cage. had lei granted aneh a faculty a• to as,,m,
p rty in to tratt•fer." And actin, (o. 319.) *. Rem f
there tale a prescriptive right, it civil i out be exorcised
by tr.n.femng it to persona not intrthiisalsof the parish
of the hams, t• which it had been sale +nista.. nant,"
The letrned counsel amended from thane stehotilies,
awl from titedoetrioe 161 down in " Watson. eh. 3;),..
End " GO-icon, p. 197," the Cents of Lord Coke thou ,
the same ..lbject —that of Ja•tge 641 n i• "ttitark,c.
Booth," (Term Rep. 4.01), aml.• Primal and Bridger,'
in the Aretes Court (Or. iiti,llimore's lonnottn. eel. I.
p. 311;)„ that the claims of this seat'', In ccrniis pews is
the church of • parish. within which they were ac,
aasi the rates levied in shirk they were sae
liable to, entail not If sustained ; etst therefare it woold
he nee,' le aktor the Coon to penc•ed farther is the
if it should be, as he tray rd it ..odd ha, of 'gild./
that the libel oocht to he rep! eI ; and finally, that ty
its rejertion of inch libel, the Court ocght sow Weep-
s:llor ;he ranee.

Dr. Jev Nen, an be same side, ',Meeting Ire Court at
I.agth._

Dr. SWAIIIIIT lINI Dr. LVIIIIXOT9N were beard in sui.
port of the filrel given in by for society.
Sir CURISTOPIIIiII ROSINS .1.4 said lir shoot! ti'se ti
to ennsii!er the able argiaravnts of r.oinsel,
authorities cited, before be de.:hied as to me oullAissiva
of the libel.