Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-12-17T00:00:00

.s-r. Justice LIYTLEDALE Sat for the lord Chef Justice t. I.E iANDJA1 stateu, that this was an action of trespass for break- ing m essua-e, situate in Stone-buildings, Lincoln's inn and selzing certain goods: to which the defendants had pleaded the ge- neral issue. The AwTToutGErxa nAEtL said,. the action was brougfit to try a question of great importance in point of property, the value os whicht Ould be found to supply a strong argument in favour of the plaintiff. This question was, whether that part of Lincoln's-inn cakled the old part, and on which Stone-buildings had been erected, was liable to be ratetI towards the support of the poor. ol* the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn.- The parish offi- cers, in prosecution of their claim, had made a seizure on the foo a of Ir. Cook, a gentlemnan occupying chambers in Stone-build- ings, whom ie had the honour to represent on the present occasion. He would state at once what be apprehended to be the strength of the case to be brought forward on behalf of the parish and show how little It would avail in their cause. In the onset, ie would admit that this part of Lincoln's-inn was locally situate *within the parish of St. Andrew, Holbornmthat the parish lay around part of it; but he contended, rotwithstanding this circumstance, that it formed nn portion of the parish. Instances were not uncommon of parts of counties and of citiec entirely surrounded by others with which they were never confounded. Thus, part of Shropshire was sur- rounded by lVorcestershire, and entirely cett off trom the body of the county to which it belonged. Thus, to take a striking and familiar instance, the liberty of St. Martin's-le.grand was encircled -by the city of London; but when, in the timne of Lord Coke, a question arose wlether it was within the meaning of an act relativc to the payment of tithes in the city, it was held not to be affected by the act, though locally within the place to which the statute atihei. Thus, also5 Gray's.inn, built on the site of an old religious ouse, though surrounded by this very parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, had been holden exempt rorn parochial duties. Thus Lambeth Palace, though standing in the nmiddle of the parish of Lambeth, was, in an action tried by the Court of Commion Pleas in the time of Dunning, holden to be exempt from rates. In the cases of Thavie's-inn againstthis same parish, thoss h the inn was surround- ed by the parish, and though in the wllI of Ir. Theavie it was described as within it, yet it was holdean to have a jurisdiction of ts own. In this case, therefore, he contended, that though the spot for wich he claimed exemption was locally within tile parish, it was entirelyindependent of its authorities. Tathe perauibutations of the parish, made once in three years, the persons who ascertained the boundaries were obliged, by the intervention of buildissis to go out of the line by which otherwise thley would have proceeded but this could prove nothing as to boundary. The Individuals by whom the perambulation was performed were persons of the greatest con- sequence in the parish-the clergyman, the parish-officers, and the moat opuleat inhabitants; and therefore it was not surprising that the benchers, iiith the hospitality which became them, should en- tertain the party with, a collation in the hall. Nor would it excite surprise that, as, in thie course of the procession, prayers were read in particular eitwtudons-as In Flcet-market_ethle Society allowed them tb ofNer up a prayer in their chapel. Thus, he believed, he ?d antitipeted the whole case on the other side; and if this were the case, or any thing resembling it, the issue could not be doubtful. On the other, 6ide, tnere were many considerations which must be decisive. If thep_rish had a claim to include Linceln'ss-inn in its rates, it was strange that a right so important had been allowed to sleep till now. The inbabstants of Lincoln's-inn were mostly persons of wealth; the chambers whiclh they occupied were of no inconsider. able value; and therefore it was hard to conceive that their liability to pay rates could be overlooked or neglected. Itwould be proved.that the benchers of the 7nn h d always made order for its-government independent of the authorities of the parish. They 'had reared founidiings leftthere; they had relieved their poor even at a distance - they had a chapel in which a clergyman of their own choice perform. cd divine worshi , and who, before the Alarriage Act, had cclebrat. ra narriagea. she inhabitants had never been required to till pa- rechia ofafces ; the constables of the parish had no jurisdiction, but the Inn had a constable of its own; and no claim had been made tlno for poor rates or for Easter oferings. Surely, under these circum stances, it was scarcely possible for the jury to hesitate as to .the right of the plaintiff to resist the attempt which iad been made to subjecthim to the paynent of rates to the parish of St. Andrew, Francis Burton, Esq. said he was called to the bar in 1768, and escupied chambers in Lincoln's-inn a year before that period. HIe once had chambers in Stone-buildings, for nine years. He never paid rates toSt. Anmdew's, Holborn* never had a seit in church; never was called on to perform any of the dutiea of a parishioner. His Jirat cbambers adjoined the c ape]; he occupied them from 1767 to 788; they were in the part of Lincolr's.inn called Old Lincoln's Inn. He never paid ratea for them. Daring the time he reol- lected the chapel,therewas a preacher, divine service was performed, and the sacrament was administered. The chapel was repaired by the $ociety. He recollected the erection of Stoae-buildings; they were bailt on the gardens of the Society. Croes-examinii.ed.-Re-never saw any deed of consecration of the chaipel: it was understood to be consecrated. It wvas a building of the timne of James LII Re.e.amined.-This chapel was erected in-the room of the ord one. iMir. Yerrot, Mr. Benbowv, Mr. Tripp, gentlemen having cham- bes iri Stone-buildings, Lincoln'a-itm, severallv gave eaInce to the same efiect, as tar as their recollection extehded; and,Ar. lorgaa, the reader, pYoved that divine service was regularly, held in the chapel, baptisms performed and the sacrament administered by a Clergyman chosen by the bchcLers. He stated that Arl. Wlier, the presntclergyman, was too ill person'ally to.atttrid as a witnew. Jonathan Nlder was called to provo that he resided in Old-build. les, Linceln's-rin, and that on the deatb of his wiFe she was ba. 'Ied in St. Andrev's, Holborn, wheu an extra charge was made as 'for a nbn-parishioaer; and that, when he afterwartis wished to set Up a hesd and foot-stone at the grave, an ex*ia charge was made for the same reason. Afr.-Jhp WVright, tOeundertaker who buried Air.. Reed, of No. 9, .Old-.rquare, in 1820, proved that he paid the burial fees at St. Andrew's as for a non-pirishioner, to Mri. Perry,whs held the office of sexton. Jand Perri, whbr received the burial fees for St. Andicv's, Hnl. bon, on bebulfof the sextoni, 8aid extra fees were paid for those who lived out or the parish. On referring to the books, ahe said Mrs. Ann Nider's buIal seemed to have an extra fee Cttachsed to it, and also the permissionfor ahead-stone. On cross-examination 'Mrs; Perry sald hter late husband became rtxor,in 1806, beford wfiieh time he assisted his father. Since 1816, hten lie died, she had received ihefees for the use of his successor. When an untdertaker brought a body from lincoln's-inn, 6he was eccustomed-t0 ask whether the deceased lived in'that part of the inn which was within the parishk or the othes: if he said it was withlin Ae twook single; if without, double fees. On reterring to the hsOO1;, thepointed outteveral instanscs frem the year l795 to the vear -OM6 in lIichlpersonsdyIn inStoned.butidlngs had been lbu ied .sititl te tbarge only of MOgJ tee. gle ees W0 liad been steward o f LinIoli'a,ititi for ilyears, stAted, that dur-iiio that time no poor..rates'batf4er l~e. e mteande within the nn of tYie parish of St. Andrew' Hflborr. no darge nmadefor paving orlighting, noassessmnent y3 thelandi.tax, no daim for Eisester'Offerngg ,t he Inn wet paved and lijhtc4tlat,the eCpenseoftletocietY;,and the land-tax raised in' adistiuctasness- rnet antnong tioe metmbers. Foundlings were reared by thesocictv, sad relief, In reverirl instances, given to decaytd'scrvartts, fhicnrc, siding in dissent parishes.1 l1790 a militialist w4s madb.outWy the constable ofSt. Andrew'i Holoam inchiding,tbe ,isf the re. aidents,in' te Inn but, on :sppLea, the DepittyLietite iit wsas convinced shtt tlhc nsiertion was iniproper, andt anrhddid the gmtusn byeraslng the names ofthe member-s. Na resfideints inijhe Inn blsid to his know-ledi,e, been-inclitldtl in the list heforr indr itice. On crossTex,rminnaton by-lk UGAeLETT, b Mr.- cavowed himuseali the author of a ibrk relative to Licoln's-iimn, 41ubisheul by pernimiion of the Benliers,'hnd dcdicated to them. Iae ras, then asked ethether in obedience toa siJpmias dure,fecann served on the part of -the defendaiti, 'he htiad.,biought'with himn lfiei dcids under which the gogety bel'-the !min '' s-fie riz6xeplied lie hia 'brought theim. IDlr :5C FETT.-IIave the beneheri forbid you to ptoiuc6 Mr. Jtre. ;_P y have not: tbey merely 'alowed me to bring Inn. ~Mr. OA~LET~D6 oa apear en as thecounsel. for the benciersof adln'dnn 1 s1derto~~ yo to ga QuLippearcd on~~~ for tb individual plaertntiii'?eo IV Mr Cook, TToltNEY en weA. Iapa Thyare-mere strangers and th*is getletnan,appears as-st. witneus wtsdteds wbich'I ca~L.n him to6tro'd qi'.'ri'ow can ie resisi the demand which Il make that he hilpouetem AIr. Justice LTiTLDAE-At,presen t, certainly, we know no- thingr of the bencers oflAclesin; if thney- brinig the action, it is aniother matter. nlssoeneinstructed. for them objects, I th1ink the witness m tpr thue~e deeds. * The ATToRNx ss~et conferred with tine of the benchers in court, and then said- "-I1 was; not tiware oIf It before, but I find I am to appear for the-benchers of-Liaeoln'r..inn".1 I Mlr. SCAULETTf.".VOry Well;' then wTe have, given you notice to produce thje deedls, andI I shall cross-examnine as to thefr contents. The learned counsel than preceedled to croiss-examine thte witness from his own book. He begged him to look- at that volunme and say wvhether the boe'ncets had not lists of thecir predecessors since 1580. Thp witness said he did not thiink they had. Alr. Scarlett then asked whether the Society clid not held under a deed of the age of Elizabethi, expressing that the Inni vas a rresinuage and six acres of land, lying in the parishes of 8r. Clement Danes, St . Danstan In the West, and St. Andrew, Hiolborn. The witness replied that hie could not say that he had read tht deed. The Society had deeds of as early a date as 1580. He was then asked resnecting an abstract mnade by the solicitors of the Society, relative to the' contents of an old chest - but the learned Judge hield this wvouild not be evidlence. On re-examination, AMr. Lanie said he chiefly compiled his book f'rom printed authorities, as Du:gdlae, anil the Histories of tuje Inns of Couirt. His manuscript was inspected by one of the benchers deput.ed fortijeurpose,and published with' the sanction ef the body. New-square bad bee2n annexed to the Inn in modlern times; and Serle's-court wasraited to St. Clement Danes parishi. The chambers ocupied by hir. Sergeant Mill, next the garden, hiad never paid rates; an attempt was made toiate them, but resisted, andc it fa leo.. Allr. SCAULETT begged- to ask thie vwitness, as he had chiefly com- piled his wvoik from written authorities, f.rom whiat authority had he taken a passage at page 113 ? The witness said it was from his own idea ; not, he beli evetl, from any munmimen or deed. MnAir.fli!1worth produced az examined copy of a grant of land, fromi the D amtinicar.-Friars, to Hfenry (le Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, and, to coninect this grant with Lincoln's-inn, was asked as to the arms over the gateway. He said they were those of H-enry die Lacy, but only of the date of 1518. The earl died in the 10th y-ear of the reign of Edward It. Thiis was the case f'or the plaintifF: Alr. SCkRLETT addressed the jury for the defendant. If ever he had cause to boast of a triumph over his learned friend, it was now that he hid driven him to confess the fact, thai~this action was really brought by tho benchers of Lincoln's Inn--a fact which he would. have used as a shield, to be displayed or thrown aside as thec exigency of the cause might require. Against the benchiers of Lincoln's Inn he had no complaint to make ; they were meni of hfgh chacacter andl honour: but, ini a c-ourt of justice, they were only to be judged as others, shaping their case In thie way mo3t likely to ensure sucees. When these gentlemien kept back from vic,v thec deeds under which thtey held, and when they attemptedl to supply the place of solemn instruments, which they dared not produce, biv tile imperfect recollection of witniesses, the'jury had a right to pre- sume, net only as strongly against them as against others, but more strongly, because their learning andl experience enabled thern more exactly to estimate the eff'ect of the insLtruments which they chiose to withhold. His learned frienid first mnade an admnission of 'what lie could not de-ny-that Stone-buildings were situate wvithiin the parish; bait then lie thought to take off the efieet offl4this circumstance, by citing instances of counties and townships which were distitict froefi thie places by which thiey were encircled, It had been said " cases are no mnore like than factsi," and the expression applied to the attempt made to-day. Whiere one parish,-Ir part of' a county, wvas surrounded by another, there the inhabitants of the parisih sur- rounxding it mnust necessarily go roundic the boundaries of the inner parish ; but the situatiqn of Lincoln's Inn was otherwvise ; it abuitted in other parislies besides St. Anidrew's, 1-lolborn, and the perambu- latorsi did not go round, but across a corner of it. Next, it was said, that Lincoln's-inin never paidl tithes. Thijs poveI nothing ; for oither parts of St. Atidrew's, Holborn, ialso didr noit pay tithes, and if the Inn were extra-parochial, it wouldI be liable to pay tithes to the Crown. It was also urgedl that the inhiabit- ants had not been required to fill parochia offices. Was this surprising when it was recollected who thesfe inhabitants were ? They were practising barristers, aett6rnies, andI attornies' clerks, wvho would scarcely be appoinjted constables or overseers, or be able to perform ithe dluties if required to serve. If any of the- jury were ma- gistrates, would they think of making an attorney overseer ? And if a barrister were appointed, mnighit he not 'obtain hiis discharge by appeal to the discretion of the bebeh ? But great stress was laid onl the circumstance that poor rates lhad not beeii demaxided thirouigh a long course of' years. OIf this the solution wvas easv. Parishi-offi- cerg miight trot be very ready to encounter a hoey ef'lawy'ers-to at- tackthe Lord Chancellor,the Alasterof the Rolls,and the King's(Coun- ael in their own abodes,and with their own weapons; and f'avour wouild soon be conciliated atid opposition silenced. The profession of the law itsielf had once been more reaDeCted and venerated tlitan it was now; wh its members did net hold their heads so hiigh andt ruile teworld as they hail done, was not for him to say, tbough he mighit gaess; bitt now wheni thie people grewv bolder, they calledl on the sage~ of the pro?6sion to state their case, to produce their title, and Show their claim- to the privileges whichi they had beenl suffered to enjoy. The benchers hadl reftised to produice their deedis; hut hie could tell tltejury the c-ontelits of some of them. The Society held under a deed, executed bef'ore the first compulsory statute for the re- lief'of the poor, by which a me2suage and six acres of land we?t con- Veyed tos6o~ral benchers as~ "lvingin thte threeparislies of St.Chement Daries, St. Dunstatt in the WVest, and Sc. Andrew, 1-lolborn. Of th~se, lnds aine was levied by Ailr. Kingsmill, one of the benebers, in wvhich the same description was found. And after this, how was it to be contended that the inn was exempt from the payment of rates? One or two instances liad been produced Of' paRtieS (lying in this part of the inn, where relatives paid extra fees. But Alirs. Perry not only explained this, but furnished strong evidence againsit those who called her, when she stated it to be the practice to inquire whe- ther the deceaved lived in that part of' the inn which was withiin the praor not, and regulate the fees according to the answer; anid w$hren s'itoe produced a series of instances in wlich residen,ts of the inni had been buried, andi single fees only taken. The Attorney- Genertal had attempted to destroy the efFect of the perambu- lations, bv reoresentiitg that the parishiotiers onlv deviated a little fromj their course in order to avoid the buifildings. But this was not so ; for there were ancient stones in the walls of the garden and the inn, correspondingwith cacti other, andI showing that the boundary line opf the pariah passedI immediately through the garden. The parties were entertainedl itn the hall ; but it was said "theg Only shows8 the hospitality of the benclhers !" flow was it that their hospitality was conifined to this parishi ; and that thiough the procession of St. Clemsent Danes, atnd St. Dunstan, came to their doors, they did not bestow On theni a puff, it tartlet, or a glmas of wine, while an elegant repast awaited the favoured body of St. Antlrew, Ilolborni ? Did not tliiN look like a little! attemypt at a bargain of civility on the one side, and forbear. aiice oni the oilier, whichi certainty would not be goodi in lawv ? It was said that, as a mere matter of courtesy, the cIergyntan of St. Andrew was allowed to read a prayer in the chapel : bitt lie w~ould prove that the clergymoan pertbrined service in assertion of a i-iirht, and notma a favour. If the becichers hadi felt that these acts did not make against them, whiy did they lock their gates last year, after the determination to agitate the question was known ? 1,tt titis was not ail. The searchiers for the dead of St. Andrew, Holbern, regularly visited Linicolni's-inn;, and persons actually buried its the chapel were registered by surviving friends in the parish bookcs of St. Andrew, Rolborn. Wasnot thi3 pos'itive evidencemore than sufficient tooutweigh all the negative proof.-.theumere evidence of forbeavaencc.-I on which the platintiffs' casenhad been reeted? Thtestatute of Elizabeth was inexorable; and though no rates ever werepaid, yet if this place wvere not exempted by law, the liability was not lost by the lapse of years. Whazt proof', thten, was there that the old part ~f ILincoln's. inn was extra-piarochial P Literally none, for the grant to the E~arl of Lincoln did not necessarily relate to this spot, nor was there any proof to connect it with the benchero. 'rhev had xvithlield their dleeds, and the jury would judge how those deeds would operate if they had pfodnced them. Air. liane, on being questioned as to one passage in his book,had said that litt introduced it from his own idea, andl not from any deed. Now rhiis passage contained a statement thatpar oftheinnwas extra-paroclsial, and iiot liable to rates; and it herfoe flloedthat the benchers under whose authority this workwaswritenhadno dleed whichl could justify the notion wlitich Mr. utehadfored, atid under which thiey broughit the Prsent acton. Had an -such deedI existed, it would have been pr cd; bu the silence of the benchers spoke loudly As to the nierits of theilr tae.n and, joined with the facts already elicited, and whichi would be yet further developedI in proof, would'no doubt induce the jury to tfind a verdict for the dtefendants. Benjamin Spring, examtined by Mfr. (fUaRNY_.4 was for 25 years beadle of' St. Andrew's, liolboni. I attended the triennial perpambulationason Ascension..dayduxring ii.h1that time. The clergy- men, parish-officers, and charity chilidren attended them. We went along Ctursitor-street inte Chancery-lane ; we crossed Chancery. lane, and went on to the south-east corner of Lincoln'sinzi, just by the Baptist Chambers. At that place were two stones, one of' our patrish, and the other of St. Danstan's. WVe then) came up to the gate of Lincoln's-.inn, and best with otur wanlds against the Wall. We then went thtouigh Lincoln's-inn to the foutitain of water in Newv-square. [Here the wvitness described the other boundaries of the parish in Lincoln 's-ton. 1 To make the boys remnem-ber the masrk:; by which the parish was bounded, we U3ed to bumnp thiemi agaist ne o th stoes n Litcoa's.nn,nd to sinig the 104thi Psaltii agaist he ther (A lagh.)We hentook the boys throutgh the garen ntothebal5 her thy rceieda ban each from lthe So- ciey o Licol's-nn. Tit clrt'menand getitlhenen of the parsh en ino he h'pel aterreeivngentertainment from the Socity.Igo eseerainieneformyslt'in the buitler's pantrv. 1807, Mlr. C, Griffiths, chuvchwarden of it in 1807 and 1808, AlIr. W. Pattison, a person 63 years of age, and whio remneniberec Cthe perambulations for ithe last 51 Year's, the Rev. Al r. Cotton and an- Dther reverend gentlemnan, who had been bothi curates inA the parilsh, Kave thie sanie descriptioti of' the bounids of it as liadl been given by the preceding witness. The first of thern stated thiat the bouindary- stones of St. Andrew's parishi withi the (late of 1724, were built inito Lib wallhs oh' Iitticoln' -inn. A porter of thje iiame of W. Smith, .tIed 84, also describe4tlie boodaries inthe sameimannier. li-it aid Ithat he recollected theii from having, whien a boy, scramibled for The buns which were thrown out fromi Uineoln's-irn. S,LTTth6n offetred certain extracts from Mnlr Iane's iluieto inco ian lji. as evidence. The ATraRwE Y-GuscatAr.denied its adn-disibilily- The bookc, s1"oordiirg to the eviderm,e already before the Court, was a compila- *i, YTrom Duigdulc's 0rigince lJndiciaies, anti other authlorities, which had been) sutbmittedt to a benchier of the name of-Darrell; boit it (lid not appear that it had ever been revised by that- gentle- iih,or that Wir. Lanie haid ever referredi to the originals of the (rinted oapers whtich) wel'c contained in it. He tiiretorcsubnmittcd lb.Pt the' extruipts could not be rendi. llAr.:?ctRLa1TTv submitted that hie learited tinriend hadi not given) a correct aqcount - of the evidence' with regard' to, this bookc. It lied been. published, as )Jr. Lane iatl told theisi, withi the consent and by the autthority - ef' the bdncehcrs of )inisiola's- Inu,, and to0t uintil it heed b-een referecd by thlem to a, mewt- ber of their own body for inxptc;16ijy, It 'did ott' purport to be- taken from- books or cneal's~ but froni the recorde of the Society. The very first wQrds'6fthle-extraet wvhich lie w,ished to have read, began " It apPears from the~ records of the Society, as well as froni.Dugdale, &e.": Now, as -his learned- friend hid -ie-~ fitsed to produce the records of the societyr, d'hlch he liad called for,' of'eVIdenceab othiitconte .,, ey,- i ? e W. N:t ' MIr. Justice IFxTLr xs.i,: thbuWeht thattheieqti.a ip. qseatior 'wete ndm1elsbte" in'- idenced"Tlidieiehe' Atl hdytt3iechal list) identified himnself withlthe-.benebeys oiRgonibynTbymittirr that they were the 'r51 defc-ifanis in'- this action. tiieot ha been told by Air. Lane, th't'thi? t ol his book and as-they refusedl . FrOlP99,the dqgumnents afidviumi. meats wioichi the learned counsel or the defence-jad called on,them to.producec, he held this e'id'ence to b'e teAeivabYe' fiAthe -hmic li ff e he iPt;St declare, that the evidence itsa'drdle4 di4intium to1deser.ve much attention, as it ajieared to bc fousnde~d artyfr opt._ at Mlr. Lane called his own notion4, partly't@bnW gttalYanartlyupon other buooks which had been wrjttcr uon'thowanmbsnbject. : ' An extract from Mr' Lanc's bodok wns ?hon read, for the ures of showingfthat the part-of Jjin6oin'ifjiin-a;ici0 Mr. C6Sk" chambers are situated wer.part-. 'of eetain. inssjage and 'rders which had been tr-ansfetr~e; by E3dward.Sulyards in the year. I 8i to Richard Kingsmill and certain other gentletrcn, for theus'ad benefit of the students of the law bfLincolnr-ina;. thatat.thattime a fine had been levied by Edward Sulyard,an& his wifc,tn glee ef. fect to that transfer; and tliat.the Society seere in possssion of a re- gilar succession of deeds from that time downwards to establish their title to the property in question. . ir. Middleton produceda copy of nflne whichhad been levied In fhe Court of Common Pleas in the 23d yeseef the seign-of Qncen Elizabeth. The fine was read, from which it appeared that it related to two *nessuages, with the gardens and six acres of land adjoining thereto, being appurtenances of the parishes of St. Dunstan, -St. Clement Danes, and St. Andrew7 Holborn. Air. SCAUL.ETT reminded the jury that his learned friend had told them that Sezle's estate had not then been purchased by the Society of Lincoln's-inn. Now the six acres alluded to in this fine muse be tbat part of Lincoln's-inn in which Alr. Coak's chambers were, for there were no other six acres in the pnssession or the city which were in the three distinct parishes of St.. Danstan, Ct Cle- cnt Danes, and St. Andrew Holborn. The examination of Atr. 1ltiddleton then proceeded._He bad ex- amined the registers of' St, Andrewo'ss, Holborn, from the year 1635 dlownwards; and he stated that it appeared from .th;kt examination t hat nnany members of Lincoln's-inn had been buried in.the V,arilh. There r ere also instances of the deaths of persons being registered in the books of St. Andrew's, Hlaborn, wbenxP4hey iwtre even buriedl in lsincoln's-inn. The viiei.ess read several extracts.Trom tbe reis ters to that effect, of which one6'-s " ---1640, -H1ny LddhWey of Lincoln's.inn, slain by - Young, of the same house-i i^ncrag; broughtto the Quest-houseabove nirsand-buried in:Lincoln t-inn. The Rev. G. Beresford, recto ofSt'Andiews, Elbori'provld that the extracts justreasi had been taken fromlthe zegitera belonge ing to his parislh. Inhabitans of the parishes of St. Giles-in-the.fiddleift Dunstan's, Fleet-street, were then called to proO that parOfbin- coln'hs.inm were in their respective parishes. The Churehwarden of St. Duns,an?, r ' da account of the donations to the poor ofthe pals8h;5.wbict.had;,been- congi3led by one of his predecessors in 1734. 'Phis'beed contaiocnr, besides, ccrtai memnoranda of utllity t-the'parisliCidf lyditahii.- One of them putported to be a copy of an itqnjsieion-oihe'boimdae rIec of that parish in 1536. The ATTO ntwry-GEIfRAL-SaibMitted thsat ibis fri6m6irmndnu could not be received-first, becauseit was siot an origin,l document,- and secondly, because it was made by a parishioner, who iniglit haye had an interest in m.isrepresenting the boundaries otbheiparish. AMr. SCAItLET'T contended thatl he biad a right te;offer itnse-gvi, dence of the replitntion of the bounds of the parish in 1731. Hle allowed that the evidence of the inqaisition of 1536- vas pe Sierwo evidence at all, except to show on what thie reputatiaon of 1732-was founded. Alr. Justice LITTLE-DALr ruled- that this evidence was not ad. missible. Ilary Borkett was then put into the box.-l have been searcher for the last 20 years, of the parish of St. A-ndrew, Ilolborn. It ishniv business to exanmine the bodies of the dead in gitr parish. r bave. examined many dead betlies in Stone.buildings, and also in Old. square, which are in our parish. I have received fees for doing so, and have made a return of them to the pariSh. If any person is buried out of our parish who died within it, I give their friends a certificate that I have examined the corpse as searchier. By Mr. Justice LITTLEDAL1t.._I never searched -a person that was buried in the Chapel of Lincoln's-inn. I report to the clerk of the parish the age of eyery person who dies, and also the disease of which he died. Alr. Gu}nwEY_.-lt is out of these reports, my Lord, that the bill of mortality are drawn up, Cross-examinied by the ATTO.EY-GEXBFlAL.- I have been searcher in our parish for 20 years.' I cannot say how many timed I have executed my office in Uincoln's-inn; many times; I can't say how many; more than a dozen, or a score. I cannot tell the names of the persons whom I searched. I onlv remnember themn till the next day. when I give them in to the clerli. John Hicks.l- have been sexton of the parish since 1813. It is the business of the searcher, when parties die, to go to their houses and inquire abont their death. If the party dying is to be buried out of the parish, the searclhers give his friends a certificate; and within the bills of mortality, no body is buried without it. The registers were then put in. Mir. Nowlan observed, that there were many-persons buried in Lincoln's.inn whose names wtere not to be found in the registers of' St. Andrew. Mlr. Justice LITTLExALD.AM Vhen does your earliest register comnience, Nir. Nowlan ? Mr. Nowlan.-Tlie esrliest register of Lincoln's-inn for buriels begins in 1696; ofbaptisms aid marringes, In 1722. AIlr. SCARLETT took one of them up, and read an extract from them, which caused some amusement in Court. It' was thus- " Tris day were married by Afr. Ilalloway, I think, a couple, whose names I could never learn, for he-allowed theiO to carry away Certain admissions were then-put in that the rate had been pre- per}y levied for, and that the distress to obtain it ha4 beea regularly le v i ed. The ATTORMEYrG ENIRAL replied upon the evidence at somc length. Alr. Justice LTTTLEDALE summed up with great perspicuity, wlhen the jury, after deliberating for a fewr moments, returoc a ver- diet for the defendant. This part of Lincoln's-inn Is therefore no longer extra-parochial. COURT OF KING'S ]3ENtCIE Wrv-. 'nfl 11R COOK V..BANKS.