Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/908

could give the lessee such a right, as would entitle him to enter; for if his right of entry was then good, no subsequent act or neglect of his lessor could hinder him from recovering: the defendant, however, was ready to have proved his lessor's having taken the oaths and received the sacrament; but the court would not permit him to do it, as being unnecessary.

But the counsel for the plaintiff in error, finding that the statute 2° Ann (which was the only one insisted on at the trial, and upon the argument in the Court of Exchequer, and particularly mentioned in the bill of exceptions) would not serve their purpose, did, in the Exchequer Chamber, insist, that by the statute [210] 3 and 4 William and Mary, Mr. Dodd must have taken the oaths before he could receive, use, or exercise his promotion. This, however, was a question never made before the court which first tried the cause, and therefore ought not to be made afterwards; besides, by this statute, the oath of supremacy mentioned in the statute 1° Eliz. is abolished, and other oaths are therein substituted in the room of that; and in fact the defendant, in making out the title of Mr. Dodd his lessor upon the trial, did shew, under the hand and seal of the Bishop of the diocese, that he had taken the oaths pursuant to this statute of William and Mary; and those instruments were given in evidence upon the trial, and were perused by Montgomery's counsel. But upon the argument in the Exchequer Chamber, the Lord Chancellor and Chief Justices were of opinion, that on the bill of excptions no statute could be insisted upon but that of 2° Ann, it being the only statute therein mentioned, upon which there was but one single point to be considered; and that the words of the bill of exceptions, "That the said Charles Dodd, post collationem, should have taken the oaths," could not mean or intend the statute of 3 and 4 William and Mary, which being grounded on the statute 1° Eliz. requires the oaths to be taken before collation; and that even in this statute of William and Mary, there is no mention made of any penalties, disabilities, or forfeitures, upon the neglect of taking the oaths thereby prescribed. It was therefore hoped, that the judgment would be affirmed, with exemplary costs.

After hearing counsel on this writ of error, and the exceptions stated in the bill of exceptions appearing to be grounded on the act of parliament made in Ireland in the second year of the reign of Queen Ann, intitled, "An act against the further growth of popery:" it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Exchequer Chamber, affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, should be affirmed; and that the transcript of 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; and it was further ordered, that the plaintiff in error should pay to the defendant in error, £200 for his costs sustained, by reason of the bringing the said writ of error. (Jour. vol. 25. p. 119.)

The rectory of the parish church of Woodham Walter in Essex, in the diocese of Loudon, became vacant in May 1780, by the death of Foote Gower; and the Bishop of London, plaintiff in error, having, at the request of the defendant in error, Lewis Disney Ffytche, esq. the patron, waived the advantage of lapse, it was not till the