Carlisle Patriot, 19 Nov 1825 - Vice-Chancellor's Court (2)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 19 Nov 1825   (p. 3, col. 2-3)

 

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOV. 10-14.

 

[continued]

 

ROSS v. AGLIONBY.

 

This case came on on Saturday. On being called upon, it appeared that the attorney for the plaintiff had not delivered to his Honour a copy of the prayer of the bill.

 

The Vice-Chancellor.—Now, here is another negligence. It has been the settled practice of the Court, for upwards of two centuries, to deliver such a copy to me. I have had occasion, more than one hundred times, to notice this neglect in solicitors. It is time it was put an end to, and, therefore, I order the plaintiff's solicitor to pay the costs of the day.

 

The case then proceeded. It was a bill filed by plaintiff, who was Rector of the parish of Ainstable, in the county of Cumberland, claiming tithes of corn upon certain demesne lands of the manor of Armathwaite, situate within the boundaries of the plaintiff's parish. The defendant was the Lord of the manor, and claimed the tithes in question as a portion of tithes separated to his own use by right immemorial.

 

Mr. HEALD and Mr. BOTELER, for the defendant, put in several ancient documents, as well as the depositions of living witnesses, to establish the case for which they contended. It appeared that William Rufus, by letters patent in the second year of his reign, established on the manor in question, a nunnery for certain holy sisters, who were called the Black Nuns of the Order of St. Benedict, and who were to pray for William's soul and the souls of his ancestors. With this nunnery he granted to them the land in question, with all its appurtenances, profits, &c. &c. In the reign of Henry the VIII. at the dissolution of the monasteries, this nunnery shared the fate of similar religious establishments, became the property of the Crown, and was granted away to a subject. From the original grantee several grants were proved down to the present occupant; and though no grant contained specifically a grant of tithes eo nomine, yet as far as living memory could reach, no tithes had been paid for this manor to the several impropriate Rectors of the parish in which it was situated. It was therefore contended, that as the tithes of it had originally belonged to the nunnery, the grant of the manor, with all "profits and appurtenances," included tithes; and the non-payment to the Rector, for upwards of a hundred years, shewed that he had no right to them, otherwise he would have claimed them long before.

 

Mr. HORNE, Mr. CLAYTON, and Mr. DUCKWORTH contended that the tithes of the parish were specifically granted to the Impropriate Rector; and that the moment the dissolution of the monasteries took place in the reign of Henry 8th, all tithes of the parish became vested by the common law in the Rector, this being one of the minor monasteries.

 

The Vice-Chancellor was at first inclined to direct an issue; but afterwards delivered a most elaborate judgment, by which he decided that the Rector was entitled to the tithes of the whole parish; and that "appurtenances" in the original grant of the manor in question did not include "tithes."

 

MONKHOUSE v. ADAMTHWAITE.

 

In this case the plaintiff had filed a bill praying that the purchase of certain property by the defendant at Appleby, in the county of Westmorland, should be confirmed. The defendant declined completing the purchase, on the ground of his having become intoxicated through the means of persons employed at the sale, which influenced him to bid for it more than it was worth, and also because the property had been fraudulently raised above its value by two puffers employed by the plaintiff.

 

The pleadings shewed that BRIGGS, the auctioneer by whom the sale was made, had employed a person to bid for the property until it should have reached the price at which the plaintiff would allow it to be "at sale;" but fearing that no real bidder up to that amount might offer, and thinking that if the property should be bought in by such puffer at a small price the character of the property would be deteriorated, he employed a person named HAMMOND to bid against the other puffer for any sum between £600 and £800.

 

The defendant employed a man of the name of BRADLEY to bid for him to the amount of 800 guineas. When the price reached that sum, the defendant in person bid for the property, which was knocked down to him at the sum of 800 guineas.

 

The depositions were read at considerable length. That of —— HAMMOND stated, that he had been commissioned by Mr. BRIGGS (the auctioneer) to bid for the property in the amount of 600 guineas. The bidding having reached that sum he was then desired (with the knowledge of the defendant) to continue his biddings up to £800, at which sum the property should be deemed at sale. That he had bidden up to between six and seven hundred pounds. The Vice-Chancellor here asked Mr. LOVATT what sum did Mr. HAMMOND bid?

 

Mr. LOVATT.—That does not appear; but it was above £600 and under £700.

 

The Vice-Chancellor said, that was only conjecture; the sum bid by him was material, for upon that fact the whole case turned. If the puffer (HAMMOND) bid for the property while the sum was below £600, it must be deemed a fraud upon the defendant; while, if his bidding was beyond the sum of £600, and under £800, no fraudulent influence upon the defendant's conduct could have been produced by it. Had the defendant relied upon the ground of intemperance, as alleged by the plaintiff, he (the Vice-Chancellor) would never have affirmed the sale. On the whole, however, it was necessary that the amount of HAMMOND's several biddings should be known, for which reason he (the Vice-Chancellor) would refer the matter to the Master, to ascertain what were the biddings of HAMMOND—with power to the Master to state special circumstances.