Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1044

relating to some misdemeanours of one Gittings, the Second Master, in breach of the ordinances, the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere decreed, "That the said Gittings should depart from the said school, and that the Master and Fellows of St. John's college should forth with be acquainted therewith, and proceed to a new election for that purpose, according to the true meaning of the said ordinances." That it might be of mischievous consequence, to suffer the corporation to depart from these ordinances, and thereby get to themselves the entire nomination and election of the Head School-master; for by the said indenture and ordinances, the Head Schoolmaster is in the nature of a trustee or check upon the Corporation, that the revenue of the school may not be misapplied or embezzled; for the preservation of which, the Head Master, by the following ordinances, hath the chief management and government. By the sixteenth ordinance, made by Mr. Ashton, "The Bailiffs are to be yearly sworn, in the presence of the Head Master, to observe the ordinances relating to the school revenue." By the fourteenth, "No lease of the revenue can be granted, without being countersigned by the Master." By the seventh, "The Head Master is to have the custody of one of the four keys of the treasury, where the stock remanent is kept in the said town." By the eighth, "No money is to be disposed of out of the stock remanent exceeding £10 without the consent of the Head Master and St. John's college, under their common seal." And by the seventeenth ordinance, made by the Bailiffs and Burgesses, with the advice and consent of the Bishop and Mr. Ashton, No Second Master is to be chosen, without the consent of the said Bishop and the "Head Master." It was therefore prayed, that [407] the decree made by the Barons of the Exchequer might be affirmed, with costs.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed, and the decree therein complained of affirmed. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 52.)

The Dean and Chapter of Worcester, being in right of their church seised in fee of the impropriate rectory or parsonage of Old Radnor, and of all manner of tithes arising and renewing yearly within the said parish, by indenture of lease under their common seal, dated the 25th of November 1723, demised the same to the Most Noble James, Duke of Chandos, his executors, administrators, and assigns, from the date of the said lease, for 21 years, under the yearly rent therein mentioned.

And, by indenture, dated the 15th of February 1728, the Duke assigned the said lease and premises to the respondent, his executors, administrators, and assigns, subject to the said yearly rent; whereby the respondent became well entitled to all the tithes and duties arising and growing within the said rectory, and the titheable places thereof.

The appellant, after the said 15th of February 1728, occupied a messuage and lands within the said parish, and particularly thirty acres of meadow and pasture ground; but neglecting to tithe the same for the years 1729 and 1730, or to make the respondent any satisfaction for such tithes, he, in Michaelmas term 1730, filed his bill in the Court of Exchequer against the appellant, for an account and satisfaction thereof.

To this bill the appellant put in his answer; and thereby admitted it to be the general opinion of the country, that the respondent was owner of the tithes; said, that he occupied one messuage, a small garden, five acres of arable, four acres of pasture ground, and an acre and an half of meadow; that as to the meadow, he was tenant at will at £1 6s. a year; and that it was in the general opinion tithe free, and never any tithe hay was paid for the same; but, being only tenant at will, and the value of