food upon which he subsisted. At least, if he was determined to attempt it, the defendant, himself a clergyman, might have avoided the indecency of sitting in judgment upon such a claim, and have referred it to a layman. When the plaintiff applied for redress, he was insulted with a denial of every thing; and when at length the arm of the law began to be stretched out in the behalf of this poor man, the defendant, under a certain statute, made for the protection of magistrates who commit "small and involuntary errors," offered 251. as amends for all the injury and indignity the plaintiff had received at his hands. This was refused, and it would now be for the jury to say whether they would think it sufficient. The learned gentleman then eulogized these institutions of our country, which, according to the ancient philosophers of Greece, approached the perfection of government in giving equal justice to the poor and the rich.

The various facts and documents necessary to substantiate the case stated by the learned counsel were then proved and put in in evidence, and it was admitted that 257. had been tendered as amends.

Mr. WILLIAMS (with whom was Mr. Coltman) addressed the jury for the defendant. He stated that in the parish of Lockington tithes of the kind in question had been paid as long as man could remember. He cited the canon

of Archbishop Winchelsea, and stat. 2 and 3 Edward VI., c. 13, to support the right to such tithes, and the 7 and 8 William III. cap. 6, made perpetual by a statute in the reign of Queen Anne, giving power to magistrates to recover tithes by distress. And as to the commitment, he contended that the defendant was justified by statute 5 Geo. IV. c. 18, s. 2. He then adverted to the tender of amends, and said that 257., which was about as much as the plaintiff would earn in two years, was quite ample and abundant. He would quote the letters and appeal to the authority of Junius, who had said that what was sufficient compensation to one person, was none to another; and it would be so till the commencement of those millennium days described, and no doubt earnestly desired, by the present poet Laureat in his young and hungry days, when all men would be equal, body and goods and all. Of the near approach of those glorious days he thought the following moderate demand, contained in a letter from the plaintiff's attorney to the defendant, a tolerable omen :-"I think he (the plaintiff) ought to receive at least 5001. for the damage he has received at your hands." His learned friend had expressed his affection for the establishments of his country; no doubt it was because he loved the church that he was so desirous to chastise her sons.

The learned counsel for the defendant then put in several terriers of the parish of Lockington, as far back as 1693, in all of which was inserted "particulars of tithe from the Easter book are as follows:-servants' wages 4d. in the pound." A witness then proved that he had collected these tithes for 40 years. It was usual to take 18. for man, and 6d. for woman servants. If they refused to pay that, they demanded 4d. in the pound, according to the terriers.

On cross-examination, it appeared that two persons had been summoned for non-payment in 1831. One paid, the other refused. There were informations against 10 other persons for refusing to pay. None had ever been sent to gaol before. It was also stated that the rector, Lundy, was in debt, and had been absent, the witness believed, in the island of Guernsey, for two years.

Mr. POLLOCK addressed the jury in reply, and contended against the legality of such a claim for tithe, and it was admitted that it could not be supported, and that the only question that remained was, whether the 251. tendered by the defendant was sufficient amends or not. The learned gentleman spoke at length, and with considerable eloquence, upon this last topic, and his Lordship having summed up the case, the jury retired for a short time, and returned with a verdict for the defendant.

Nisi Prius Court.— (Before Mr. Justice Park, and a Special Jury.) Derby, July 27. COLLINS, CLERK, v. GRESLEY, BART., AND OTHERS.

THIS was an issue direct by the equity side of the Court of Exchequer, to try whether or not the plaintiff was entitled, as vicar of Lullington, to the small tithes of that parish.

Mr. Serjeant Goulburn (with whom were Mr. Amos and Mr. Hill) conducted the plaintiff's case; and Sir James Scarlett (who came special, assisted by Mr. Balguy and Mr. Sergeant Adams) that of the defendants.

The trial occupied the Court during the whole of yesterday and to-day, the evidence consisting principally of ancient documents. The plaintiff, it appeared, had formerly received the tithes in question, as vicar of the parish; but Sir Roger Gresley and his tenants objected to the plaintiff's right to receive them, they contending that the vicarage had never been endowed, and that consequently Sir Roger was entitled to them as lay rector. The evidence went back as far

as the survey of Pope Nicholas, in the 13th century, but no direct evidence - was adduced of any endowment of the vicarage. The particulars have been already published more than once from the Court of Exchequer.

The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the Jury, complimented both the learned counsel on the able manner in which they had conducted their respective cases.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, thereby negativing the presumption of any endowment.

Court of Exchequer, Gray's-Inn Hall, Aug. 3.

(SITTINGS IN EQUITY BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF BARON.)

KEMP v. PECHELL.

HIS LORDSHIP gave judgment in this case. He said that the plaintiff in this suit was the vicar of East Meon, in the county of Southampton, and this bill was filed for an account of the tithe of turnips against the defendant, who was an occupier of land in that parish. The defendant insisted, by way of defence, that he was in the habit of sowing his land with turnips for the purpose of depasturing them with sheep; and that, in fact, he had fed off these turnips with sheep, and therefore that no tithe was payable in respect of turnips, except the agistment tithe, where such was payable. The facts of the case were shortly these:-As to that part of the turnips which were fed on the ground, and after being fed the roots were picked up, no question could arise as to that portion. With respect to another part, where the sheep were turned in and fed on the turnips on the ground, and persons were employed to pick turnips for the convenience of the feeding of the sheep, he understood that no tithe was claimed for that portion. But the third portion was of a different description, where persons were employed to pick turnips in advance of the hurdles before the whole flock of sheep were turned in, it appeared that some sickly sheep had been turned in before this operation commenced, and that some lambs had entered through the gates and were also fed. From the evidence it appeared that turnips in this way were severed to a considerable extent; it was also in evidence, and distinctly sworn to, that as much as was necessary for the consumption of one, two, or three days, was picked up, and severed before the entire flock had been turned in. The sickly sheep only had been previously turned in as described, and the lambs had found an opportunity of running in through the gates. This was sworn to by several witnesses on the part of the plaintiff, and was not contradicted by the witnesses

for the defendant, who, as far as their evidence went, confirmed the statement. There was no dispute that turnips, to a considerable extent, in advance of the hurdles, had been picked up and severed from the ground before the flock was turned in, and the question was, whether, under such circumstances, these turnips were liable to the payment of tithe? There could be no doubt as a general question, that where turnips were severed from the ground, as in this case, or drawn away, that they were subject to the payment of tithe; and the question was, whether they were liable to the payment of tithe where they were consumed by cattle or sheep in the manner described. The use to which the turnips were applied by being consumed by sheep did not render them less liable to the payment of tithe, and that circumstance alone would not meet the plaintiff's demand. There were a number of cases to which reference had been made, where turnips had been severed from the ground for the purpose of their being eaten by cattle as in this case. One of the cases referred to was in Burn, that of " Eckard v. Brown and Dowsey," where the defendant Dowsey admitted that several loads of turnips had been severed, but were fed upon by cattle. The plaintiff had received tithe for calves and cattle, but demanded an account of tithe for turnips severed and drawn, and it was ruled that turnips thus drawn and disposed of did not deprive the plaintiff of his right to the tithe. Burn, who was himself a high authority, stated if cattle were fed on the unsevered, there could only be an agistment tithe; but if they were severed, there must be a tithe in kind paid by the severers. In addition to that case, which was decided in the time of William III., three others were referred to on the same point; one was "Humphreys v. Slophen," 4th Anne, where, after a long debate, and a search after precedents, it was ordered and directed that tithes for turnips drawn and severed from the ground, and given to dry or milch cattle, although on the same farm, yet were due in kind. In another case," Ringstead v. Young," vol. 1, Wood's Reports, after it had been ordered to stand over for the purpose of searching after precedents, the Court, after mature consideration, declared that for turnips drawn and severed from the ground, and fed on by profitable or unprofitable cattle, tithes in kind were due. The same inference might be drawn from the case of "Blaney v. Whittaker," in the 10th of East, in which Mr. Justice Le Blanc decided, where the only question agitated was as to the mode in which such tithes were to be set out. The principle was clear that the circumstance of the turnips being drawn and severed for sheep did not deprive the plaintiff of his right to tithe; but it was said that they were fed upon the same spot where they grew. A distinction was attempted to be set up on these grounds, but it did not appear to him that any distinction could be made as to where the feeding took place: whether the turnips where fed on where they grew, or where they were severed, or whether they were removed to a different part of the farm, it did not appear to him that it could make any difference, nor was there any case cited to shew such difference. It did not appear to him, on looking over the case, that any reliance could be placed, or any distinction drawn, on these grounds. It seemed to him (Lord Lyndhurst), therefore, that the turnips having been severed before the entire of the flock was turned in, they having been turned in afterwards, and the turnips fed on by the sheep, the tithes in kind must be paid. There was one argument as to the difficulty of this mode of taking tithes, but it did not appear to him that there was any difficulty which was not pointed out in the case of "Blaney v. Whittaker." The rule was thisthat in those cases where the farmer, with respect to his own turnips, and for his own use, puts them in heaps, if he does he must take care either to heap the tithe for the parson, or throw aside every tenth turnip so drawn. In that case the turnips were drawn to feed cattle, and every tenth turnip was thrown aside; and the question was whether they had been properly set out, or, as the parson contended, they ought to be gathered into heaps. The Court decided that as the farmer set them out for himself, so he must set them out

for the parson. Therefore any difficulty as to the mode of tithing, which had been contended for in the argument, did not appear to exist here, which was not pointed out in the case of " Blaney v. Whittaker." There was another argument, that it bore an analogy to the case of "Lewis v. Young," as to the tithe of tares and vetches cut green, and given and carried off for the feeding of cattle and husbandry horses. In that case it was decided that it was in the nature of the agistment tithe. It was said this case was like that, but the case of "Lewis v. Young" was founded on the dictum of Chief Baron Richards, and also on the case of " Dormer v. Seares," the main ground on which Chief Baron Alexander decided was the difficulty of treating of articles of this description, as grass and hay, and the impracticability of setting it out in the shape of tithe. In his judgment he pointed out this difficulty as the main cause of his coming to the conclusion that it was in the nature of agistment tithe. Afterwards, when the question came before him (Lord Lyndhurst) in the case of "Allnutt v. Allen,” he considered himself bound by that decision. If the case rested on the difficulty or impossibility of setting out the tithe in the ordinary way, it would then be different; but that did not exist in this case, therefore the principle of that decision could not be made use of as a valid argument for the defendant in the present cause. It appeared to him, therefore, that the claim of the plaintiff was founded on law, supported by concurrent decisions, which had not been impeached, and that as there were no valid grounds to oppose this claim, there must be an account for the tithes of such turnips as were severed in advance of the hurdles, and before the entire flock of sheep had been turned in. The costs to be paid, so far as they related to that part of the case to which the account was directed.

Rolls Court.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. ATHERSTONE SCHOOL.

THIS cause, which has previously occupied the attention of the Master of the Rolls on several occasions, came before his Honour for further directions. The principal point of the case turned upon the respective right and privileges of the Master and Governors of the school in question. The Free Grammar School of Atherstone, in Warwickshire, was founded by Queen Elizabeth, and possesses certain endowments and privileges. The present Master, the Rev. William Bradley, (the relator of this suit,) claimed the surplus revenue of the school property, after the reduction of certain contingent expences. The Governors and Trustees, on the other hand, contended for the right to assign the master a limited salary; and on the appointment of the present master, in 1817, they had allotted to him the use of the house and premises attached to the school, a piece of land, and an annual stipend of £110. They alleged, in answer to the Master's claims, the additional circumstance that his misconduct had driven all the free scholars on the foundation from the school; and that having got rid of all the free scholars, he retained the premises for the advantage of instructing his private pupils. On behalf of the Master, it was averred that the cause of their being no free scholars was the refusal of the Governors, who were at variance with him, to nominate any boys for that purpose.

His Honour thought the points did not vary from those which had undergone consideration in the Rolls Court; no additional circumstances had been introduced which could affect the case, and therefore he did not think that he had any power to interfere. The Governors of the school had rights under the charter of foundation, and they were the best judges as to the proper proceedings relative to any attempt at a removal of the Master.

Cornwall Assizes.-Nisi Prius Court.-(Before Mr. JUSTICE PATTESON.)

THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION

OF REV. J. PASCOE,
WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.

INDICTMENT.

AGAINST

MR. Sergeant Wilde, on the part of the prosecutor, stated that the defendants were charged under the indictment with rioting in the Church-yard of St. Hilary in this county, assaulting the prosecutor, and assaulting Thomas Bray, a constable of the said parish, whilst in the execution of his duty (in trying to repress the riot), and they were also charged with a common assault on the said Thomas Bray. The indictment was preferred with a view of obtaining a legal decision on the question, upon which some persons profess to maintain doubts, and also for the purpose of securing the personal safety of Mr. Pascoe, who is the clergyman of the parish. He begged to say that whatever might be the consequences of this indictment against defendants, no one would regret the results of the present inquiry more than Mr. Pascoe himself. In this county, as well as many others, funerals took place on a Sunday, and for the last two years every funeral which has taken place on the Sabbath in certain districts (in consequence of its being a day of rest, when persons are not at work) occasions a great concourse of persons to assemble to witness the ceremony; and some of them having taken more drink than was consistent with sobriety, it was often the case that serious riots and conflicts take place, and frequently those who came from innocent purposes have been betrayed into a breach of peace or some offence against the law, by fighting, quarrelling and other disorderly conduct, utterly inconsistent with the day, and the solemn proceedings which they assembled to witness. The frequent repetition of such disorders had at length called the attention of the Bishop and Clergy towards it, and accordingly it has been thought right not to permit funerals to take place on the Sabbath unless it be a case of necessity, for in this county deceased persons are seldom or ever kept more than three days after their deaths, and those who die on any day in the middle of the week have always been interred on a Sunday.

His Lordship said that it would be quite impossible for defendants to obtain a verdict: they must see that they had been guilty of an error in this case, and it would be for the benefit of each party to put an end to this indictment by defendants acknowledging themselves in the wrong.

Mr. Crowder (defendant's counsel) assented to this course, and observed that his clients had formed mistaken notions on the subject with no intentional ill will towards Mr. Pascoe.

Sergeant Wilde said, that termination would be in exact accordance with his client's wishes. It was the clergyman's province to appoint a time for burying a corpse, and it was not in the power of any person to bury it when the Minister did not approve of it, and such persons so offending were amenable to the laws.

His Lordship said his opinion was, that it was the duty of the clergyman of the parish to appoint a fit and proper time for a funeral to take place, and nothing could be more reasonable than that funerals should not take place on a Sunday, because it was a means of occasioning an assemblage of persons who too often conduct themselves with great impropriety, and in direct opposition to the solemn rites which they attend to witness, and not in accordance with the day set apart for our devotions and rest from labour-but it was not a question for this Court to determine: it was properly a question on which the Ecclesiastical Court should give a decision.-The Jury, under the direction of the Judge, found the defendants Guilty.