Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/886

declaration, according to the said act of uniformity; and, after morning prayer, read openly and publicly the said several certificates of the Archbishop and of the Dean and Chapter, in presence of the congregation there assembled, in time of divine service; and that after, and before noon of the said Sunday the 9th of November 1707, the defendant shut the said church doors, so that the lessor of the plaintiff, and some others then assembled in the said church, could not go out; and, that in the afternoon, the lessor desired the defendant to open the church doors at the usual hour of prayers, that the parishioners might come in to prayers, which the defendant denied and thereupon the lessor began at the usual hour in the afternoon of the same day, to read the evening prayers, appointed by the said act and book of common prayer, but was stopped by the defendant, with his hands covering Mr. Williamson's eyes and mouth, and snatching from him the book; so that Mr. Williamson could not in the afternoon read the prayers, or the said declaration or certificates.—That the defendant held Mr. Williamson out of possession of the said church ever since: and that on the 7th of May 1708, the Dean and Chapter, under their common seal, styling themselves the undoubted patrons of the rectory of St. Paul, Dublin, did, as being [176] Ordinary of that place, allow and approve this to be a lawful impediment.—That in Michaelmas term 1707, Mr. Williamson took the oaths to the government, and subscribed the declaration according to the statutes, in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland; and on the 1st of March 1707, he made the demise to the plaintiff, as in the declaration.

This ejectment was brought, to try the right to the said rectory of St. Paul, as between the lessor of the plaintiff, thus put in by the Dean and Chapter, and the defendant, who was collated by the Archbishop; and upon the above evidence, the defendant's counsel insisted upon the four following points:

I. That this new-erected rectory of St. Paul, whereof the patronage was in the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church, Dublin, was presentative; and that the incumbent ought to be presented to the Archbishop of Dublin, as Ordinary of the diocess, and be instituted by him, which the lessor of the plaintiff not having been, he was not lawful incumbent of the parish church of St. Paul. But the Court of Common Pleas ruled the evidence sufficient to prove it a donative, and that the incumbent was elective and collative by the Dean and Chapter, and not presentative to any other Ordinary; and that therefore the plaintiff's lessor coming in by the nomination and appointment of the Dean and Chapter, was the legal incumbent.

II. That this impediment, admitting it to be a legal impediment, ought to have been allowed by the Archbishop of Dublin, as Ordinary of the diocess, according to the act, and not by the Dean and Chapter.

III. That no proof of an impediment of this nature, by witnesses, ought to be admitted.

IV. That the fact was not a sufficient impediment in law.

But it was ruled by the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, that the impediment was a sufficient excuse for the lessor's not reading the Common Prayer, in the afternoon; that the Dean and Chapter was Ordinary, and their certificate good, and not the Archbishop's; that the evidence for the plaintiff was sufficient, and therefore they directed the jury to find a verdict for him.

Accordingly, the jury brought in a general verdict for the plaintiff, which occasioned the defendant to bring a bill of exceptions, containing the several matters before stated, and upon which the four points above mentioned arose.

In Hilary term 1709, the defendant brought a writ of error in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, to reverse the judgment of the said Court of Common Pleas; and having assigned for errors the said bill of exceptions, the judgment, after several arguments, was reversed.

Whereupon, on the 4th of December 1812, the plaintiff brought a writ of error in the King's Bench in England, to reverse the judgment of reversal, given by the Court of King's Bench in Ireland; and in Trinity term 1717, all the Judges of that court unanimously gave judgment upon the first point only, and which [177] was the chief point in the cause, viz. that the said rectory of St. Paul was presentative, and not a donative; and therefore affirmed the judgment of reversal.

But to reverse this judgment of affirmance, the plaintiff brought a writ of error in parliament; and on his behalf it was insisted (T. Lutwyche, C. Phipps), that