The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-07-01 00:00:00

SPI LLER V. DI LLTR.

Mr. RAt moved upon alßda.ir. that the Defendant
might be restrained from making any oarrender of the
premises under the bill filled. This was a hill filed for
the specific performance of a contract upon an qtr.,-
meat for the Weer certain ropyhold premier. The
egreearet ass elevated in 1816. and the Pfemieee
wept sold for 91101, of which 3001. had been paid.
The vender bad actually del.*erod persaesaion, but the
sur►ender had not been made, in consequNice of the
•on-ettiateaee of the steward. _ _

The lona Cu•sicahhou said he wnu'd grant the
motion, sutler the peculiar circumstances of this care;
although he mach objecia-d to the general rule that
the Court should interfere w hen • toll of this niters
Wei sled. It would he «stretosiy iteprotier to re-
strain the party from ileolin4 silt his nen property,
bermes, • hill for the bpetific performance of a coo-
tract was filed.
IN Tin MATTER. OF LORD CADOGAN, A LUX tTIC.
Mr. HAIM lh,sl Wis 1,111 • l'efition of the
Committees of the petite of the lettaiic, end prayed
that the Master'. Report be confirmed. The order of
reference was made on the 3d of April, 1807. end
the Report Will dated the Slat of J•no.. 1819. It
wee proposed to grant certain leases of the tuttatie•
estate, and the arrangement was agreed to by ell
parties.
The Loin CuAsicchhou assented to the confirms-
lion.

cootr or hING's ni:Nro.io•E3n.
This was the last day of Trinity Term. and the
C 0.,., hosing several cases to dispose of, sat till past
nine o'clock at night.

THE KING V. PEEL AND 111W50e.
The Defendants in this case appeared in Cowl,
end, with the consent of tt.e Prosecutor, girt. their
lien recognisance' to weer to the inf,wmation on
the first day of the neat Terns.
IRON COFFINS.
It will be recollected, Met • rule was obtained by
Mr. Chitty,calling on th•Cherch-wardens and Seaton
of the parish of St. Andrew, Illelbnrn, to show cease
why the brdy of Mary Gilbert, She wife of William
Gilbert, a parishioner of that parish, shooltl not be
interred. Cause was now shown, and it was coo.
tended, that the Ministers and Church-werdrns were
not bowed to admit iron coffins. On the other hand
it was iodated, that she right of being buried in the
church-yard of the parish was a Common Law right,
and that so objection could be railed' on account of
the materials of which the coffin was made.
Mr. GURNEY appeared en behalf of the Minister
end Chorch.werdetts, end Mr. SCAILITT end Mr.
CHITTY is aepport of the role. The latter contend.
ed, that the Minister was bound to inter the corpse.
and that a Mandamus ought to be granted by the
Court, inasmech as there was not any specific re-
medy, and in that case the writ of Mandamus was
the only mode of proceeding.
The Coutr, alter Maine heard the argoments on
both sides at considerable length, delivered their 'vi-
olet, that this was a matter entirely of ecclesiastical
joriedictinn, and that they cook! lost intetfere. It
appeared by the affitlooits that the Minister end
Church-wardens had not Wooed to inter the body in
a wooden coffin ; and although the Court, in aid of
the Canons of the Church, might grant a Mandamus
to compel the Minister to bury the body, yet they
had no jurisdiction to say mist the body geoid be
belled in a particehr way.
The rue was accordingly tliachereed.
TILE ZINO D. r.n.i I v visome.
is case gems was blown why the writs et