Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/905

the charter of King James I. had only assigned a special share to each one of the body, and particularly incorporated them for this purpose, that they might thereby have a distinct capacity to sue and be sued for their several [205] possessions; but this charter did not take away the Bishop's power of visitation, it only left it as it was before; that the plaintiff might be visited as Prebendary, touching his temporals, by the Dean and Chapter; for they have the government of the temporals, and may see how he administers the goods of the church; but the Archbishop alone is to call him to account as to spirituals. When therefore the Archbishop comes to visit him, perhaps he finds that the plaintiff neither officiates himself, nor appoints any person to officiate for him; in this case, it is the Archbishop's duty to take care, that the cure be well served; and though he cannot deprive him because he is Prebendary, yet he certainly may suspend him, and appoint another to officiate in his room, and pay such other person out of the profits; for otherwise, the Archbishop's power signifies nothing. That the plaintiff owning himself to be Rector, was summoned before his Ordinary, the Archbishop; and whatever defence he could have made, he ought at least to have appeared, and not to say, you have no right to visit me. For, whether the rectory be in the Dean and Chapter, or in a particular Prebendary, yet the plaintiff being the person acting and officiating in the cure of souls, was visitable, and ought to have appeared before the Archbishop accordingly; and since he did not, he was rightly suspended.

After hearing counsel on this writ of error, it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, and the several affirmances thereof, should be affirmed; and that the record should be remitted, to the end execution might be had thereupon, as if no such writ of error had been brought into the house. (Jour. vol. 19. p. 605.)

On the 3d of March 1732, Charles Dodd was collated to the vicarage of the united parishes of Drumlease and Kilarga, in the county of Leitrim, by the Bishop of Kilmore, the patron, William Hansard, the former Vicar, being removed to other livings. On the 15th of the same month he was inducted, and on the 18th read his assent and consent.

Soon after his induction, Mr. Dodd found the glebe lands of the said united parishes in the possession of the plaintiff in error; and therefore, in Trinity term 1733, he, by the said Charles Dempsey his lessee, brought his ejectment against Montgomery in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, for recovery of the said glebe lands; to which he appeared, and pleaded the general issue, not guilty.

On the 4th of August 1733, this ejectment came on to be tried at the assizes, when the said Charles Dempsey, to shew the said Charles Dodd, his lessor, to be legal incumbent of the said united parishes, proved his collation and induction, his reading his assent and consent; and that the lands, for which the ejectment was brought, were the globe lands of the said parishes, and which were admitted so to be by the said Hugh Montgomery and his counsel; and the jury, after a very full bearing, brought in their verdict in favour of the said Charles Dempsey.

But the said Hugh Montgomery's counsel then insisted, that the said Dempsey, as lessee of the said Charles Dodd, to entitle him to recover the said glebe lands, must shew that the said Charles Dodd, his lessor, had taken the oaths and received the