278 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



years, yet sometimes the servants 

 would stop persons going through, 

 and make them turn back. He 

 slioultl show these instances in evi- 

 dence, and it would be for the 

 jury to >ay, whether, wlien tiiey 

 had heard that testimony, coupled 

 with the situation in which the 

 estate had been for so many years, 

 it did not explain the evidence 

 which had been given on the other 

 side. The serjeant then called 

 some witnesses, but their testimo- 

 ny was so weak, that the learned 

 judge directed the jury to find the 

 defendant guilty, which they did 

 without hesitation. 



Court of Chnncery, May 15.— 

 Before the Lord Chancellor — The 

 ■ Minor Canons of St. Paul s v. 

 Kettle and others. — This case, 

 which has been long depending, 

 was decided on Saturday last. It 

 was a bill filed by the minor 

 canons of St. Paul's against cer- 

 tain inhabitants of the parishes 

 of St. Gregory and St. Mary Mag- 

 dalene, in the city of London, to 

 compel the payment of 25. 9d. in 

 the pound upon the value and 

 rents of their houses, under the 

 Tithe Statute of the 37th of Henry 

 Vin. To this the defendants 

 pleaded an exemption from the 

 payment of the lull amount, under 

 a particular clause in the statute, 

 by which customary payments were 

 left as before. To support this de- 

 fence it was necessary for each in- 

 dividual to prove a customary pay- 

 ment far his house, or.'or the houses 

 that had stood on the site of his 

 present house, before and since the 

 37th Hen.Vin. This the plaintiffs 

 conceived they might be able to 

 do, at least as to some of them, 

 by the production of certain docu- 

 ments in the possession of the mi- 

 nor canons: and accordingly a 



cross bill was filed by Morris, one 

 of their number, against the minor 

 canons, merely for the purpose of 

 discovery. It appeared that the 

 parishes themselves had held these 

 tithes on lease for some time, by 

 which means they paid eight times 

 less than the statutary value; but 

 the Lord Chancellor was of opi- 

 nion, that no such specific cus- 

 tomary payments were proved as 

 exempted any of the houses of the 

 defendants from the operation of 

 the statute. He had occasion late- 

 ly to examine this question mi- 

 nutely in the House of Lords, (in 

 the case of the East India Com- 

 pany and Antrobus.) He had no 

 doubt as to the law; and, there- 

 fore, thought it unnecessary even 

 to direct an issue. — Decree for the 

 plaintiffs. 



Court oj^ King's Bench, Saturday, 

 March 6. — Beaurain, v. sir IV. 

 Scott.— Mr. Tindall opened the 

 pleadings, and stated, that this was 

 an action on the case, brought by 

 plaintiff, who was an attorney, 

 against the defendant, who, as 

 judge of the Consistorial Court of 

 the bishop of London, had ex- 

 communicated the plaintiff with- 

 out having cited him, because, be- 

 ing assigned as guardian ad litem 

 for his son, in a cause between his 

 son, a minor, and his son's wife, 

 in which the wife sought to get a 

 divorce from bed and board, on 

 account of alleged cruelty and 

 adultery on the part of her hus- 

 band, he refused to become such 

 guardian. 



Mr. Parke said, that his situation 

 was most unpleasant ; but it was 

 not in the power of the advocate 

 to choose what causes he would 

 defend. It was the proud boast of 

 the British courts of justice, that 

 no person in them ever wanted an 



