Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/913

to any benefice with cure of souls, for or by reason of any such bond, such presentation will not be void? 5th, Whether the Ordinary of a diocese wherein there is any benefice, with cure of souls, has been compellable in law to accept the resignation of the incumbent thereof, in a case where the resignation should appear to be not spontaneous, but at the instance of another, and under the coercion of a bond, to pay money in case of a neglect or refusal to resign? 6th, Whether a bond given by the incumbent of a benefice, with cure of souls, to the patron thereof, in the sum of £3000 defeasible only by such act as is afterwards to be done by the Ordinary, be not a bond for the benefit of the said patron, in respect of the contingency which such incumbent cannot controul? 7th, Whether if a patron shall present any parson to any benefice, with cure of souls, for or by reason of any such last-mentioned bond, such presentation will not be void? 8th, Whether the unfitness of the defendant in error in the second plea mentioned, be alledged with sufficient certainty? 9th, Whether the said plea be sufficient in law to bar the defendant in error from maintaining his action? 10th, Whether the unfitness in the said plea set forth is traversable? 11th, Whether the excuse alledged upon this record for not admitting, instituting, and inducting the clerk of the plaintiff, is sufficient in law? 12th, Whether the bond stated in either of the pleas, is good and valid, or corrupt or void in law? (MS. Jour. sub anno 1783. p. 610.)

[218] The Judges having differed in opinion upon these questions, delivered their opinions seriatim. Six of the Judges present, namely, Mr. Justice Heath, Mr. Justice Buller, Mr. Justice Nares, Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Justice Gould, and the Lord Chief Baron, delivered their opinions as follow:

To the 1st question, That the agreement stated in this case was not an agreement for a benefit to the patron, within the meaning of the statute. To the 2d, That if the patron should present for or by reason of such an agreement, the presentation would not be void. To the 3d, That giving such a bond did not secure a corrupt or illegal benefit to the patron, being only intended to enforce the resignation of the benefice, and that the being obliged to have recourse to the penalty of the bond, would be no benefit to the patron within the intent and meaning of the statute. To the 4th, That if the patron should present to a benefice for or by reason of such bond, such presentation would not be void. To the 5th, That it not being a question made in the courts below, or ever argued at their Lordships bar, they begged leave to decline giving any opinion upon it. To the 6th, Whether the incumbent could compel the Ordinary to accept of the resignation or not, they were of opinion it was not a corrupt benefit to the patron. To the 7th, That this was answered by what was said to the fourth question. To the 8th, That the unfitness of the defendant was not alledged with sufficient certainty. To the 9th, That the plea was not sufficient in law to bar the defendant in error. To the 10th, That the unfitness, as set forth in the plea, was not traversable. To the 11th, That the excuse alledged upon this record for not admitting, instituting, and inducting the clerk, was not sufficient in law. And to the 12th, That the bond stated in the pleas was good and valid in law.

Then Mr. Baron Perryn delivered his opinion upon the said questions as follows:

To the 1st question, That it was a benefit, but not corrupt, within the statute 31st Eliz. c. 6. s. 5. To the 2d, That such presentation would not be void within the intent and meaning of the statute. To the 3rd, That it was a bond for securing a benefit to the patron. To the 4th, That notwithstanding a patron did present by reason of such bond, such presentation would not be void. To the 5th. That the Ordinary was compellable to accept the resignation in the case stated, unless he could shew a simoniacal or corrupt agreement, or other sufficient cause to the contrary. To the 6th, Whether the incumbent could or could not controul in the cases stated, such bond was a benefit, but not a corrupt one, within the meaning of the statute 31 Eliz. To the 7th, That if a patron did present for or by reason of such last-mentioned bond, such presentation would not be void. To the 8th, 9th, and 10th, on the second plea, That the unfitness of the defendant in error in the second plea mentioned, was not alledged with sufficient certainty. That the said plea was not sufficient in law to bar the defendant in error from maintaining [219] his action, and that the unfitness in the said plea set forth, was not traversable. To the 11th and 12th, That the excuse alledged upon this record for not admitting, instituting, and inducting