Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
The Times, 1824-01-29T00:00:00

In this case the plea came on to be argued up6n the plaintiff's de- murrer. The bill is filed by the plaintiff, an attorney of lincolri's- inn, the lay-imopropriator of the tithes -of the parish of St. Heln, Bishopsgate, for a discovery and account of all the tithes due from tlte defendant; and the suit may be considered as brought for the Purpose of trying the right of rectors and impropriators generaUy to the sum of 2s. Yd. in the pound upon house-rents in the parishes of the city of London, in lieu of tithes. 'The defendant is a West In- dia merchant, who has chosen to resist the demand of.the impropria- ter. The bill alleges the plaintiff to be entitled under an act of Par- liament of the 37th year of Henry VIlL.,;cap. 12., entitled, " An Act for Tithes in London." This act recites an orUer of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a former statute of the 27th year of the same King, cap. 21, which had been passed, contirmatory of thatorder and for thepurpose of settling kill disputes rcspecting the payment of tithes. The act of the 37th Henry VIII. also recites, that " Sithen which (latter) act divers variances, contentions, and strifes, arc new- ly risen and grown between the parsons, vicars, and curates, and the citizens and inhabitants, touching the payment of the tithes, obla- tions, and other duties, by reason of certain words and terms specified in the said order, which are not so plainly and fully set forth as is thought coavenient and umeet to be ;" and for appeasing these dif- ferences it is furtlier recited, that the vicars, &c., and the citizens nad submitted to the arbitration of the Arebbishop of Canterbury, alnd the state and law-officers "- for a final end and conclusion to be had and made touching the premises for ever." The same act then gDacts, " that such end, order, and direction, as shall be made, de- creed and concluded by the forenamed Arsbbishop, Lords, and Knights, or any six of them, before the 1st day of i\larch next en- saing, of, for, and concerning the payment of the tithes, oblations, and other duties within the said city and liberties of the same, aend enrolled in t/se Ring's High Court of Chancery of Record, shall stand, remain, and be as an act of Parliansent, and shaL bind as well all citizens and inhabitants of the said cty and liberties ior the time being, as the said parsons, vicars, curates, and their successors for ever, according to the effect, purport, and intent of the said order and decree so to be made and enrolled." The decree referred to was made andbearsdate on the24th February, le4s, and directs "C that thecitizensand inhabitants ofthe sam cityof London and liberties of the same for the time being, shall yearly without fraud or covin, for ever pay their tithes to the parsons, vicars, and curates of the said city, and their successors for the time being, after the rate hereafeerfollowing-that is, to wit, of everyx. s. rent bv the year of all and every house and houses, shops, warehouses, cellars, stables, and every of them within the said city and liberty of the same, xvi. d. ob.; and of every xx. s. rent by the year o all and e very suh house &c., and every of them, within the said city and liberties, ij. s. aned xx. d.; and so above the rentof xx. s. by the year, ascending from x. s. to x..s., according to the rate aforesaid." The defendant has pleaded in bar of the claim set up by the plaintiff, that the decree direeted by the act of Parliament to be made and enrolled has never been so enrolled, and that therefore it is voih; and that lie, asthe proprietor of a house in the city of London,is not bound by it. To thlis plea the plaintiffdemurred for inisufficiency, and it came on to-day for argument. MiIr. Srpzrce,,for the defendant, had stated the principal facts of the case; when \lr. Ii E.A.D, whlo was on the same side, entered the court, and said that he understoad that the cause wag to stand over by the con- sent of all parties. It was a case in which the whole of the city of London was concerned, and it was intended tlat somne gentlemen from the qther courts were to be engaged in it. TVhe VICE-CgfANCELLOR thought that the Recorder and the CoMmon-Sergeant were to attend to a7gue the case. Alr. HEAii) said it was intended theyshould do so; and as it was- well known that those gen tlemen were engaged at this time elsewhere, lie had intended to ask his Honour to fix some day not in tenn for hearine the argument, which must needs be veryvlorg. 3lr.RouPELsL for the plaintiff; could not usiderstand why the at- tendtnce of the learned gentlemenwYas nece.ssary, nor did he know tnat the whole city of London was-interested in'the case before the Court. The single fact at issue unon the plea was, w*hether the de- cree had been or had not been enrolled. The VICEa-CANCELLLOt imust, nevertleless, if he wtas asked, allow the case to stand over, not because the city of London was in- terested init, but becatuse certain learned gentlemen who were usual- ly employed in the courts of common law, and who were to be en, gaged in this eause, could not conveniently attend at present. rhe V1CE-CHsANCELLOIb-~The pleintiff is entitled to amend his bill: and as you wish it to stand ovcr, I think yotu must be con- tented with thec common cos(;,o VICE.CHANCELLORWS COURT. WVEDNNESDAY, JAN. 28, CITY TITI1E4S.-MACDOTMAY.T. V. 'PIIJRRIER.