Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

continent of Europe, but having sheep, he hoped the defendant fised his residence in Cumberland, would take care of his dogs, as he purchased a house and a small there was great reason to think quantity of land in the immediate they would worry the sheep. Mr. neighbourhood of Mr. Hartley. Harriman sent back word to Mr. Coming from a foreign land (Flo- Hartley, that he kept his dogs for rence in Italy) he had given this the purpose of guarding his proresidence the classical name of Ti- perty, and if they were not enough voli—a name much celebrated in he would keep 50 more.

As was ancient times, and of course carry- suspected, the dogs did fall upon ing with it the most pleasing re the sheep several times, and at collections, as well as an idea of last they killed three, and bit four refinement. It did not appear, others so severely as to cause their however, that the defendant had deaths, thus spoiling the whole of imported the urbanity of the coun the flock. As soon as Mr. Hartley tries he had visited—those refine was informed of this, he wrote a ments which we expect from one letter to Mr. Harriman couched who has cultivated and has a taste in the mildest terms: it beganfor the fine arts; this would most “ Accidents will happen. 1 am clearly appear in the course of sorry that your dogs have injured what he had to advance. In the my unfortunate little flock; I month of November last, Mr. should have seen you this morning Hartley wishing to ornament the on the subject, but understood you ground near his house, and to im were not up:” and it concluded prove the breed of his sheep, made a in the same strain and spirit by a purchase of eleven fine Leicester proposition to Mr. Harriman to shire sheep, commonly called mug take the flock off his hands, paying sheep, which were sent to him all him the first cost of 50 guineas. the way from Tadcaster, and for What could be fairer, or more genwhich he gave 50 guineas; when tlemanly, or more neighbourly they arrived, he turned them into than this? Mr. Hartley wanted noa field which lies between his own thing for bringing the sheep into garden and that of the defendant. Cumberland-he required nothing Mr. Harriman, it appears, keeps for their keep-he only wished to three dogs at Tivoli (two pointers cover the expense of the first purand a little terrier) for the purpose chase, and so let the matter drop. of defending his possessions. One But does Mr. Harriman follow the of these pointers was of so savage example of his neighbour ? No, a nature, that he spared neither he waits some time, and then he man nor beast. Mr. Hartley and replies by letter in a strain the his servants had all been attacked very reverse of conciliatory. He by these outrageous dogs; they says, having had time to investiwere not safe to come home at gate the charge of his dogs killing night, for it was at that time these the sheep, he believes the same to animals were permitted to prowl be unfounded. He cannot but rewherever they pleased. When the gret, therefore, that Mr. Hartley sheep arrived, Mr. Hartley sent a should have made such a charge ; message to Mr. Harriman, stating and in a strain of indignation he that as he had got some valuable refuses to pay the 50 guineas, and

rejects

It was

rejects any farther discussion of had entered into an agreement the subject. Now, contended the with the plaintiff to accept a lease learned counsel, no man of proper for 21 years of a house in Crescent feeling would have acted thus to Place, Tavistock Square, was juswards a neighbour who had always tified in refusing to carry the lived on the best terms with him, agreement into execution under and who had been injured. Mr. the following circumstances: The Hartley was reluctantly driven into defendant having contracted to acCourt to seek that redress which cept the lease for 21 years, desired he failed to get in a more amicable to see the title of the plaintiff to way: and Mr. Scarlett trusted the grant him the term, upon which result of the appeal would convince the plaintiff delivered him an abthe defendant that the law will not stract of his title, deducing it from authorize him to keep dogs to as a Mr. Burton, tu whom the Skinsail either people or property. ners' Company had, in 1809, de

After evidence was heard on mised it, with other premises, for both sides, the judge, Mr. Baron a long term. The defendant, not Wood, summed up. He said there satisfied with this, desired to look were three questions for the con into the title of the Skinners' Com. sideration of the jury–First, whe pany, but their solicitor refused ther the sheep had been attacked, to produce the deeds. or worried, as it was called, by the argued at the bar, that they had dogs? Secondly, if they had been

no right to expose their title at so worried, was it by Mr. Har- the risk of having some flaw found riman's dogs ? And, thirdly, in it. Perhaps there was not a whether Mr. Harriman had re corporate company in the City of ceived sufficient previous notice to London who could show a good take care of his dogs ? These title to the property of which they were the simple questions for de pretend to be the owners. It was cision. In his opinion it was not à circumstance recent in the menecessary for the dogs to have mory of the court, that the Coractually bitten the persons they poration of Newcastle had lost attacked to prove their savage na 70001. a year, by imprudently exture.

posing their title, to satisfy the Verdict for the plaintiff--Da curiosity of a person to whom mages 241. 10s. Both plaintiff and their tenant had agreed to grant defendant were in court during the an underlease. It would be suffitrial.

cient for the defendant to have

from the plaintiff a covenant for Before the Master of the Rolls. quiet enjoyment. The defendant Fieldes v. Hooker. - This was a insisted, that unless he was percase extremely interesting to all fectly satisfied as to the title of the persons standing in the situation

Skinners’ Company, he could not of owners or tenants of leasehold

be compelled to perform the conproperty. The question, which tract, and the company refusing came before the court on an ex to have their title inquired into, ception to the Master's Report, there was an end of the agreewas, whether the defendant, who ment.

The

was

The Master of the Rolls said, he traordinary description, and exshould hesitate a long while before cited a considerable degree of inhe determined that an owner of terest throughout the county. Dr. real property, by merely agreeing Free, who is Rector of Sutton, apto grant a lease, became bound to peared in Court, dressed in his shew a title to the estate out of canonicals, and was prepared to which it was to be granted: but take part in the conduct of his it was quite a different question, own cause. The Court throughwhether he who was unable, or out was crowded almost to suffothought it inexpedient, to show cation. . The jury, which his titles to the property to be common, having been sworn, leased, should have a right to com Dr. Free addressed the learned pel a defendant to take a lease of Judge on the Bench. He obsuch property, without any other served, that he had been driven security for enjoyment than the into Court on the present occacovenants into which the lessor sion, in consequence of a motion commonly entered. What the made by the learned Counsel on defendant had contracted for was the other side for judgment, in not a piece of parchment, or a consequence of his not having precarious enjoyment from one proceeded to trial at the last asyear to another, but an absolute sizes : aided by the remarkable enjoyment for 21 years, the value fondness of the attorney on the of which depended upon the cer same side for money. It was not tainty of its duration. Of this his intention to have taken any certainty of duration he could not farther steps in this business, bebe satisfied without examining the cause he had observed with satistitle of the Skinners' Company ; faction that Sir Montague had beand as the plaintiff was unwilling gun to return to reason, by coming to trust the inspection of it to to church on the 7 th of April last. those who might probably dis The steps taken by the defendant's cover some defect in it, the de- legal advisers, however, had comfendant was well justified in pelled him to come forward : and refusing to accept the lease. His in doing so, he felt he was vindiHonour accordingly decreed, that cating ihe cause, not alone of his the Master's judgment was erro brother clergyınen, who had been neous, in having reported that a but too frequently maligned, but good title to the lease could be of the Church of England itself. made, and that consequently the He trusted the example which exception must be allowed.

would be made of the defendant would operate as a warning to others, and prevent that inexcusable inattention to divine worship

which, when occurring with a Bedfordshire Lent Assizes.

person of influence in the county, The Rev. Edward Drake Free, had the worst effects upon

the Clerk, v. Sir Montague Roger Bur- habits and manners of the lower goine. This was an action of a orders of society. Laving made very novel as well as of a very ex- this short preface, he should leave

NON-ATTENDANCE

AT

DIVINE

WORSHIP.

a

plaintiff in the most conclusive his religious duties, the action manner: for, in the first instance, should be quashed. On this head he should be enabled to prove, of defence he should be enabled to that for several months of that prove that Sir Montague Burperiod during which the servant goyne, who was a general in the of the reverend plaintiff had so British service, had returned from positively sworn that she had re Gibraltar in 1814, in a most pregularly attended Sutton church, carious state of health, and had no divine service had been per continued thus afflicted down to formed in the church at all : he the present day, a circumstance meant the months of June, July, which he hoped, in addition to the August, and part of September ; uncertainty of the performance of during which months the plaintiff church service at Sutton, would had so shamefully neglected his be considered a sufficient excuse for duties, that he had received his non-attendance. With regard monition from the bishop of the to his sentiments on the subject diocese. He should also prove, of religion, those would be best that at other periods, the reve- proved by the evidence he would rend plaintiff was so inattentive adduce of its being his invariable to the performance of the religi- practice to read the church prayers ous service of his church, that his to his family every Sunday, when parishioners were constantly in a capable from the state of his health state of uncertainty as to the hour so to do; and if unable himself to at which service was to commence, perform that duty, to call upon or whether it would be performed Lady Burgoyne to read for him. at all. Independent of this, it was He should also prove, that prayers no very pleasant thing for the de were frequently read in his house fendant, when he did go to church, by the Rev. Dr. Hughes, in his octo hear a sermon delivered, which, casional visits to his family. There instead of inculcating divine truths, was another ground on which he

mnade the vehicle of per was still more decidedly cntitled sonal abuse to hiniself. With to a verdict. This was to be found these facts before them, the jury in the statute of the 1st James II. would be able to form a pretty cor C. 4, whereby it was enacted, that rect judgment of the motives of any person offending against the this action. The next ground on statute of Elizabeth, by a non-atwhich he rested with confidence, tendance of divine worship, beon the goodness of his own cause, came exonerated from all consehe derived from the statute of Eli- quences, by conforming to the zabeth itself; for by the statute of rules of his church before judgthe 1st of Elizabeth, which was ment was obtained, and declaring embraced by the 23d, it was himself publicly to be a faithful enacted, that where the defendant son of the Church of England. in a qui tam action, such as that This Sir M. Burgoyne had done in now before the Court, could as the presence of the bishop of the sign a reasonable excuse for absent- diocese himself, and was there ing himself from public worship, ready again to declare openly in and should afterwards conform to court his high veneration for, and

acrordance

was

a nount of the penalties, or in all that the assertion made by Dr. events for twelve months, which Free, that he had stood forward was the period within which the as the champion of the Church of statute required the action to be England and of the clergy, was brought. Witnesses were then not borne out by the facts. When called to prove the case.

a reverend gentlenian came forMrs. Margarete Johnstone de- ward into a Court of Justice in posed as follows :-- resided at his canonicals, and in the characthe parish of Sutton on the 2d of ter of an informer, to support a April, 1815. I attended the church qui tam action upon a statute every Sunday from that day to the which, although unrepealed, had, - first Sunday in April, 1816. I been in disuse for upwards of one know the person of Sir Montague hundred and fifty years, he rather Burgoyne, and during all that pe- apprehended he would not be riod I never saw him come to hailed by those whose interests be church. I am quite sure I at- professed to represent, as a person tended church every Sunday. I likely to reflect much credit upon sometimes saw Sir Montague on their sacred character. That such horseback. In cross-examination conduct was consistent with the she said she was servant to Dr. true spirit of the Christian reliFree, and had been so for four gion, he believed no man of libeyears.

ral feelings would allow. With John Northfield, parish-clerk of regard to the statute on which this Sutton, corroborated the testimony action was brought, he was willof the last witness. He saw Sir ing to admit that it remained unMontague come to church in repealed; but, at the same time, April, 1816. He sometimes saw it was proper to remark, that it him coursing during the year originated in causes of a political 1815.

nature, and was by no means apMr. Jamesson here closed his plicable to times like the present.

Its operations were meant only to Mr. Sergeant Blosset said, if apply to Roman Catholics and Disthis was the plaintiff's case, his senters, at a period when the client was entitled to a verdict, as Church of England might be consino evidence had been offered of dered as in danger. The principles Sir Montague Burgoyne living in of toleration which had since been the parish of Sutton.

disseminated, however, and the Mr. Baron Graham, however, firm foundation upon which the considered this to be a mere over Church of England had been estasight, and recalling the witnesses, blished, were such, that no man they proved the fact alluded to. possessing the slightest claims to

Mr. Sergeant Blossett now ad- liberality would venture to put dressed the jury on the part of the the construction upon the statute defendant. He said, that how. which it had received from the ever unwilling he might be to rcverend plaintiff in this case. trespass on the Court by any very Without entering on the construcextended observations on this case, tion of the statute, however, he yet he could not help remarking, should be enabled to meet the

plaintiff

cage.

« ForrigeFortsæt »