APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 265 



tried before Mr. Justice Holroyd, 

 who presided at NisiPrhis. Both 

 related to Protestant Dissenters ; 

 the first, to tlieir exemption from 

 turnpike tolls on Sundays, when 

 attending their places of religious 

 worship ; and the second, to their 

 protection from riots and noises 

 without their meeting - houses, 

 even when unaccompanied by 

 internal interruption or assaults. 



Lewis V. Hammond. — In this 

 case it appeared from the state- 

 ment of Mr. Sergeant Pell, coun- 

 sel for the plaintift^ and the proofs, 

 that the plaintiit, being a farmer 

 at Foxhanger, in the parish of 

 Rowde, near Devizes, attended 

 regularly a congregation of In- 

 dependent Dissenters in that 

 town, and in passing through a 

 turnpike gate, called Seend-gate, 

 on Sundays, he claimed from the 

 defendant, who is a collector of 

 . tolls at the gate, an exemption 

 from the toll of ten-pence de- 

 manded from him, because he was 

 going to his proper place of 

 religious worship at Devizes, and 

 that such claim being rejected, 

 and the toll enforced, the action 

 was brought, in his name, by the 

 society in the metropolis for the 

 protection of the religious liberty 

 of Dissenters, to recover back the 

 amount of the toll so obtained. 



For the defendant it was con- 

 tended by Mr. Casberd, tliat 

 under the particular words of that 

 turnpike act the plaintiff was not 

 entitled to the exemption, because 

 he went out of his own parish to 

 attend at a place of public worship, 

 and because there was in such 

 parish a dissenting place of 

 worship. 



But a case being mentioned by 

 Mr, Sergeant Pell, where, at the 



Suffolk assizes, Mr. Justice Grose 

 had held such defence to be 

 unavailing, 



Mr. Justice Holroyd deter- 

 mined that the plaintiff was entitled 

 to the exemption, notwithstand- 

 ing the topics urged for the 

 defendant ; but he permitted his 

 counsel to apply to the Court, 

 if they on reflection should deem 

 it expedient to correct his judg- 

 ment ; and directed the jury to 

 find a verdict for plaintiff, and 

 they accordingly returned a 

 verdict for plaintiff. — Damages 

 lOcl. and costs. 



The King v. Rev. Wm, Easton, 

 Clerk, James Jerrard, and eight 

 other persons, for a conspiracy to 

 disturb a congregation of Dissen- 

 ters at Anstey, near Tisbury, in 

 this county, and for a Riot. — The 

 following were the facts of this 

 case, conducted like the former, 

 by the society established in 

 London for the protection of the 

 religious liberty of the Dissenters, 

 as stated by Mr. Sergeant Pell, 

 and proved by the witnesses for 

 the prosecution. The Reverend 

 William Hopkins, a dissenting 

 minister at Tisbury, was invited 

 to preach at Anstey, an adjoin- 

 ing parish. Of that parish the 

 Reverend William Easton was 

 the perpetual curate, and James 

 Jerrard was the tythingman, but 

 the clergyman resided also at 

 Tisbury, three miles from the 

 place of riot. A dwelling-house 

 belonging to James Butt was 

 certified as the place of the meet- 

 ing of the Dissenters. Hopkins 

 first attended in Nov. 1816; he 

 repeated his visits, and noises 

 were made without the house, 

 which interrupted the worship at 



the 



