APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE, 



819 



like a proving Rgainst the separate 

 estate of Lee ; and afforded the 

 most favourable complexion to the 

 case contended for on tlie part of 

 the defendant Robinson. This, 

 however, was the onlj' material cir- 

 cumstance upon which reliance 

 could be placed ; and in cases of 

 this sort the law was, tliat both 

 partners were liable, for money 

 entrusted to one in the employ- 

 ment of both ; and it was for the 

 defendant to establish that this 

 case came under the head of an 

 exception to this general rule. 

 The circumstance of the plaintiff's 

 seeing only Mr. Lee on the sub- 

 ject of his business, was recon- 

 cileable with the practice of attor- 

 neys' offices, where the acquaint- 

 ance and transactions might be in- 

 dividual and personal with one, and 

 still the firm should be liable, un- 

 less it was plainly understood that 

 the dealing was individual and 

 exclusive. The communications 

 of the other client of the defend- 

 ants, Mr. Illingworth, were as 

 much se|.arate from Mr. Robinson 

 as the plaintiff's : but this was not 

 the less the employment of both. 



The Jury, after retiring for 

 about an hour, came back to hear 

 the evidence of Mr. Illin^worth 

 read again, when they again re- 

 tired : and in a short lime re- 

 turned with their verdict for the 

 plaintiff, — damages 2,000/. 



Holme, Clerk, v. Smith, D. D. 

 — The defendant is a Doctor of 

 Divinity, and rector of Headley, 

 in Hampshire. The plaintiff is a 

 clergyman, and resided at the par- 

 sonage-house at Headley. The 

 action was brought by the plain- 

 tiff to recover a penalty for non- 

 residence, under the 43rd Geo. III. 



c. 84. and 5:3rd Geo. HL c. 149. 



The first Act enacts, that the 

 rector shall reside on his rectoi-y ; 

 and the latter provides, that if he 

 cannot, or do not reside there, he 

 shall keep a licensed curate to 

 perform the dutifs of his church. 

 It appeared, that though Dr. Smith 

 kept no regular licensed curate, 

 as he ought to do, under the latter 

 Act, yet the plaintiff himself had 

 actually resided there, and did the 

 duties which he now came into 

 court to complain were neglected ; 

 and the rector, though he liad not 

 so licensed the plaintiff as his 

 curate, had actually nominated 

 him as such to the bishop ; but 

 such nomination appeared to have 

 been informal. Much animad- 

 version was made by the defend- 

 ant's counsel on the plaintiff's 

 conduct in bringing this action, 

 and the Learned Chief Justice, Sir 

 Vicary Gibbs, made some obser- 

 vations of the same nature thereon, 

 but observed, that, however im- 

 proper or unbecoming a Christian, 

 a gentleman, and a neighbour, 

 towards the defendant, yet the 

 action must be treated in the 

 same manner as others of the same 

 kind, inasmuch as the plaintiff 

 had a right to bring such action, 

 the defendant not having complied 

 with the before-mentioned sta- 

 tutes. The annual value of the 

 living, and the rector's absence 

 from it, being proved, the Jury, 

 under the direction of his Lord* 

 ship, gave a verdict for 170/., one- 

 third of that value, after deduct- 

 ing out-goings, agreeably to the 

 provisions of the act. 



Meatk Assizes, Avgust, 1814. — 

 Thomas Burrotees, Esq. Plaintiff. 

 — The Inhabitants of the Barony 



