APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



193 



his counsel to proceed with the 

 case, reserving the power to him- 

 self of occaeionally addressing the 

 Court. 



Mr. Baron Graham. — You must 

 either leave the duty of conduct- 

 ing your case altogether to your 

 counsel, or take it upon yourself- 

 I shall be happy to hear you : but 

 it is not regular or consistent with 

 the forms of the Court to have 

 you constantly interruptmg youi* 

 Counsel, where he may not ex* 

 actly meet your ideas. 



Dr. Free. — Am I to be silent if 

 I see persons coming forward, 

 with the most audacious front, to 

 commit perjury. 



Mr. Baron Graham. — The rules 

 of the Court are imperative j you 

 will therefore exercise your own 

 discretion in taking the cause into 

 your own hand*, or leaving it in 

 those of your Counsel, 



Dr. Free. — If that is the law, 

 I must abide by it. 1 have every 

 confidence in the ability of nay 

 Counsel. 



Mr. Jamesson, Counsel for the 

 plaintiff. — I had much rather Dr. 

 Free would take the business in 

 his own hands ; but if he leaves it 

 with me, I shall e.\crt my humble 

 efiForts in his behalf. 



Dr Free. — I shall leave my in- 

 terests with my Counsel. 



Mr. Daniels then proceeded to 

 open the pleadings : he stated, 

 that this was a (^ui tarn action, 

 brought by the Rev. Dr. Free, 

 under the statute of the 23d of 

 Elizabeth, torecovei penalties from 

 the defendant, for neglecting to at- 

 tend divine worship, in the parish 

 church of Sutton, in this county, 

 or any other place of public pray- 

 ers fur 19 months, whereby he 

 became liable to pay a fine of 2G/. 

 Vol. LIX. 



per month, amounting in the 

 whole to 3S0Z. 



Mr. Jamessou said, it became 

 his duty to detail to the Court and 

 Jury the particulars of this case. 

 The plaintiff was Rector of the 

 parish of Sutton, and the defend- 

 ant was lord of the manor in 

 which the said parish was situated. 

 The action was brought, as stated 

 by his learned fiiend, to recover 

 penalties under the statute of Eli- 

 zabeth, for non-attendance at 

 divine worship at his parish church, 

 thereby, and in consequence of 

 his example, spreading contagion 

 around the country in which he 

 resided. It was his wish to ab- 

 stain altogether froni a statement 

 of the circumstances under which 

 this action had been brought ; he 

 should, therefore, confine himself 

 to the simple observation, that the 

 plaintiff, in coming forward as the 

 accuser of the defendant, was 

 solely actuated by a desire to en- 

 force the laws for the observance ' 

 of religious worship. The sta- 

 tute under which this action was 

 brought was the 23d of Eliza 

 beih, by the fifth section of which 

 it was enacted, that all persons in 

 England absenting themselves 

 from divine worship, either at 

 their own parish church, or some 

 other place appointed for public 

 prayer, for one month, forfeited 

 a penalty of 201. This penalty was 

 equally divided into three i)arts, 

 one of which went to the Queen, 

 another to the poor of the parish, 

 and the third to the informer. He 

 should be enabled to prove, in 

 this case, that the defendant had 

 absented himself fiom his parish 

 church for nineteen months ; and 

 having done so, he should be en- 

 titled to a verdict for the full 

 O amount 



