Arches' Court, Feb. 7.
The Times, 1824-02-10T00:00:00

In this case, which-arises upon an application by - Lane, Esq., oF Lingfield, fot the grant of a faculty, appropriating to him and his family a cettain pew ih the church of Iiongfieldi an allegation was this day offered on behalf ot AIr. Vollet. Dr. JENNArF stated the drigin tind proeeedirigs of the ccuse Wth in the court below and upion theappeal; and he now supported the allegation, pleading the facts upon which Air. Fuller, and other of the inhabitants of this parish, relied, as the ground& of their opposition to the grant. Dr. IuSSIIXGTON, on behalf of Mlr. Lane, contended, that the facts now pleaded, though stringent ones, oughtto have been brought orward itt en earlier stage of the eause; and he imputed a want of 5incrty to the other party, for now first assigning grounds of oppo- 'stion, wzhich they ought to have possessed the Court of beforem Sir J. Nrcseor.a,in considering thc admi.ssibility of this allegation, adverted to the facts of the case. M7r. Lane had married a descendant ofthe Ferrender f'amily, to whom, upwards of a century ago, in consi- deration of their having liresented the church with the communion plate, a pew was appropriated and allotted fot ever in Lingfield ..hurch. The estate of the family was caled Battlers; and the pre^ seDt ptobrietor of that estite, iiir. Kelsey, asserted a poisessory right to the sane pew whichl Mr. Lane dtnaedin virtue of his narriage Wiith a descendant of the driginal lholders of it Now as to IJl,, tal. ~e'te suo,bringingCorwaYdt}lefacte nowPlweadedb.t^'*stie rrsenthtme, he xigfit very naturallv iiave 'U&i awaiting the result ot- a legal dec cision as between the. civil right thus claimed by Mr. Lane on the one hand, and Alfr. Kelsey on the other. But with reference to the facts themselves, the Court would say, that generaUv speaking, it wouldbhe unwl'ling-looking to the increasing populaton of- the country_to support the grant of such ebclusive faculties; but if the circumstances of the parish were so peculiar that the population wasi a decreasing one, the Court might be induced to adopt a very dif- [ferent view. Now the allegation stated that the population of Jing- field consisted of 1,710 persos%si that the pari'5h Xoitained 925famnilies, that the church atbroam6dation was very insufficient, there being only 8s ptCs to accomnmodate these 326 famwlies. It -as further alleged. that the churchwarders were under the necessity of seating several families in the same pew; whereas the family of Air. Lane (con- sisting only of himself, his wife, and three childrer) were claiming theexclus'ive occupancy'of a pew just double the dimensions of the others; and moreover, it vas stated, that when the cause commenced, 1r. Lane was not even a parishioner, tbough he had subsequently built himself a house within the parish. to which 4 acres of land vwere attached. The Court considered that these were material facts, if thev should be proved, to guide the discretion of the Court as to whetWer or no it would ultimately grant the faculty; andbtherefome it admitted the allegation. Jorliszso Vr. +OBtsol1, In 'this cause ot separation and divorte, by reason ot aduiltery, promoted by Mm". Johnson against her husband, Henry Lees Johnson, (and vhich cause comes up to this Court by letters of re. quest from the Commissary Court of Sairrey.) Dr. JEssE AnnDA2es opposed the admission of the libel. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and gth artidespleaded constant solicitationxby Mr. Johnson of the chastity of several of his female servants at various times; and that on such occasions he endeavoured to accomplish his intentions, no: only by entreaty, but by force; which was only not effectual b,y reasson of the resistance opposed by these servants, Susannab Elliott, lUargaret King, and _ Weetwood. The learned counsel was of opinion that the story set up was altogether incredi- ble, seeing that the women never even comriplaiined to their mistress. Sir JOsear NICHOLL admitted the libel. CHARLES SMIrsTs, Esq., introduced by his Majestv's Proctor, and - Adams, Esq. (proctor), was admitted by the Juilge, in obe- dience to the rescript of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, as one of the Procurators.General exercent in this Court. After the Arches' Court, the Prerogative Court Rat for the purpose of pursuing the reading of the evidence in " Robson, formerly Pattle and Wirakefield, against Roche and others:" but this cause did not go on to the argument. ARCHfES' COTRn 1 7 TIE REV. AOBERT FITZHERBERT FULLEP. (CLERK) ,AND OTHERS. AGAINST LAVW.