APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



S13 



them with a constable's staff, and 

 forced him out. In doing this 

 the congregation Avas much dis- 

 turbed, and several persons cried 

 out " Shame." 



The statement of his being thus 

 forced out was coniiimed by a 

 Mr. Stuart, a magistrate of the 

 place. 



Mr. Marryat, for the defen- 

 dant, contended, that the prose- 

 cutor, not being un inhabitant, 

 had no right to the pew in ques- 

 tion ; tliat the rector and church- 

 wardens had a right to regulate 

 the seals in church, and becau'se 

 the seat in question was wanted 

 for Captain Warner's family who 

 had come to reside in the parish. 

 The prosecutor was told he could 

 not have the few, but that he had 

 told the prosecutor he should he 

 acctjramudated in his own pew ; 

 but the old man obstinately per- 

 sisted in going to the disputed 

 place, and therefore the defendant 

 Fowle, as churchwarden, removed 

 him from the place. 



Mr. Justice Bailey said, the 

 prosecutor had clearly no right to 

 intrude into that pew, but they 

 did wrong in removing him in 

 the indecent manner they did. 

 They should have locked the pew ; 

 and besides, if they had a right 

 to remove him from the pew, they 

 had no right to turn him out of 

 the church, which they had also 

 done. In this they had clearly 

 exceeded their authority, and 

 upon tl'.is ground alone there 

 must be a verdict against them. — 

 Verdict — Guilty. 



Kingston, Wednesday , April 3. — 

 AJuylifw v. the Rev. J. Lock- — 

 Thi.s was an action for assault and 

 false impiisonmcnt against a ma- 

 gistrate of this county. 



Mr. Serjeant Onslow stated the 

 particulars of the case. He said 

 that he was glad to see that the 

 defendant had made this cause a 

 special jury, because they would 

 judge temperately of the amount 

 of damages to be awarded against 

 a brother magistrate for an act of 

 tyrannical oppression. 'J'he ques- 

 tion of damages would be the 

 only one they had to consider, for 

 his conduct was clearly indefen- 

 sible at law. The plaintiff was 

 tithing man of Chart, in this 

 county, and on the 19A of Sep- 

 tember last he executed a v> arrant 

 of the defendant'-;, by taking a 

 pers©n in custody for some as- 

 sault, or other trivial offence. He 

 had to carry him to Furnham, 

 which was near nine miles from 

 his own home : and when before 

 the defendant, he nsked to be al- 

 lowed something fur his trouble. 

 This the defendant refused to al- 

 low him, upon which the plaintiff 

 said he would not execute any 

 more of his warrants. For this 

 offence alone — for this affrent to 

 the dignity of the defendant, he 

 immediately ordered him to be 

 committed to the cage, where he 

 was imprisoned the A\holc of the 

 night, and not released imtil the 

 next morning. This, the Serjeant 

 said, was clearly an illegal act, 

 and beyond the magistrate's 

 power. Admitting what the pri- 

 roner had said was a contempt of 

 the justice, yet none but a court 

 of record could commit for a con- 

 teroi)t, which a single justice 

 cleaily was not. The question, 

 therefore, which the jury woidd 

 alone have to consider was, what 

 damages they shoidd give. 



Mr.Shuter, the attorney, proved 

 sen'ing the notice of action on the 



defendant. 



