Page images
PDF
EPUB

DEATHS-DEC.

a Viscount, which title descended at his death to his nephew Sir Rowland Hill of Hawkstone, Bart., previously one of the Members of Parliament for Shropshire.

13. At Maghera, co. Derry, Dr. M'Cullagh, late 84th Regiment. His death was accidentally caused by a friend, who was in the act of uncorking a bottle of soda water; the cork flew out, and struck Dr. M'Cullagh on the jugular vein, who fell down and instantly expired.

At Castle Hill, Ealing, General Sir Frederick Wetherall, G.C.H., in his 88th year.

-

At Easington Rectory, Yorkshire, the Rev. Robert Morehead, D.D., formerly Rector of Easington.

14. At Marlborough Buildings, Bath, the Baron Browne Mill.

15. At the Haining, Selkirkshire, R. Pringle, esq., of Clifton and Haining. 16. Aged 48, Lieut. Col. George DougJas Standen, late of the Scots Fusileer Guards.

In Eaton-place, the Countess of Denbigh, in her 44th year.

At the Citadel, Hawkstone, Elizabeth Rhodes, Relict of the late John Hill, esq., of Hawkstone, and mother of the present Viscount Hill, in her 65th year.

17. The Rev. Robert Grosvenor, Fellow of All Souls' College Oxford, brother to General Grosvenor.

At Colonel Wyndham's House in Grosvenor-place, Francis Scowan Blunt, esq., of Crabbett in Sussex, in his 52nd year.

21. At Huntercombe, near Maidenhead, aged 85, the Right Hon. Elizabeth, Countess of Carysfort, sister of the late Lord Grenville.

At Sidmouth, Col. John Gray, late of the Royal Scots Greys.

22. At his residence, Grove-road, St. John's Wood, aged 86, Admiral Sir John Lawford, K.C.B. This much-respected old officer had been a commissioned officer in the Navy for sixty-five years, and served as First Lieutenant of the Nimrod, 98 guns, in the battle of the 12th April, 1782, that ship being Lord Rodney's second astern on that day.

23. At Bangor, aged 66, Lovell Edgeworth, esq., of Edgeworth Town, Ireland.

24. At Leamington, Lord Gillies, in his 80th year. He was admitted a member of the Faculty of Advocates in 1787; and after attaining the highest eminence in his profession, he was, in 1811, elevated to the Bench. As a judge, he was distinguished alike for his powerful grasp of intellect, and his profound knowledge of law. His judgments generally commanded the most unlimited confidence. His Lordship mixed little in the political world, though in the earlier part of his career he was a decided Whig. Latterly, however, his views on these subjects underwent a great change.

26. At Weymouth, Richard Silver Gascoigne, esq., only surviving son of Richard Oliver Gascoigne, esq., of Parlington, Yorkshire.

27. At the residence of his son-inlaw, the Rev. R. H. Fowler, Vicarage, Southwell, Notts., Thomas Bish, esq., formerly of Cornhill, in his 63rd year.

At his residence in Chester, Francis Wrangham, M.A., late Archdeacon of the East Riding of York, Chaplain to the Archbishop of York, Canon of York and Chester, Rector of Hunmanby, Yorkshire, and of Doddleston, Cheshire, in his 74th year.

18. At his house, Potsford Hill, near Guildford, occasioned by a fall from his horse, James Magnay, esq., third son of the late Christopher Magnay, esq., of East Hill, Wandsworth, one of the Aldermen of the City of London, in his 45th year.

19. At Chavenage, near Tetbury, aged 78 John Delafield Phelps, esq., F.R.S. F.S.A. He was of Oriel Col. lege, Oxford, B.A., 1785. Mr. Phelps was a well-known collector of books and antiquities, particularly such as related to his native county, Gloucestershire, and has left a very valuable library. He was one of the original members of the Roxburghe Club.

20. At Boughton, Malherbe, the Rev. Simeon Clayton, Rector of that parish, and Prebendary of Lichfield, in his 48th year.

At his seat, Studley Priory, Oxfordshire, Sir Alexander Croke, in his 84th year.

30. Major-Gen. Sir Charles Deacon, K.C.B., of Great Berkhampstead. He entered the military service of the East India Company, in the Madras Presidency, in 1793; was made a Captain in 1803; a Colonel in 1829; and attained the rank of a Major-General in 1837.

TRIALS, LAW CASES, &c.

COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS.

January, 20.

SITTINGS IN BANCO-EVANS V.
PRATT BETTING ON A STEE-
PLE-CHASE.

This was an action upon an agreement to run the plaintiff's mare, Matilda, against a brown mare belonging to the defendant, four miles across country, play or pay, each carrying thirteen stone; and the agreement provided that, if the brown mare won, the plaintiff should pay 251. to the defendant, while, in the event of Matilda's winning the race, the defendant was to pay the plaintiff 100l. The brown mare came in at the winning-post about fifty or sixty yards in advance of Matilda, but Mr. Holyoake, who acted as umpire, gave his decision in favour of Matilda, upon the ground that the defendant had ridden the brown mare through an open gate, contrary to the regulations which, in compliance with the admitted laws of steeple-chasing, he had drawn up for the guidance of the jockies, The trial took place before Mr. Justice Coltman at the last Shrewsbury assizes. The verdict passed for the plaintiff, and on the first day of last Michaelmas term a rule nisi was obtained to arrest the judgment, upon the ground that a steeple-chase was illegal, and

not within the protection of the statutes which regulate horse-racing.

Mr. Serjeant Talfourd showed cause, and Mr. Serjeant Ludlow appeared in support of the rule. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel the following judgment was delivered by Lord Chief Justice Tindal. "The difficulty which is thrown into this case by the argument on the part of the defendant, is the conclusion at which it would compel us to arrive; for if my brother Ludlow is right, then, as the law now stands, no race would be legal, because the 13th George 2nd, having only licensed the running of races at Black Hambleton and Newmarket-heath, and that statute having been repealed by the act 3 & 4 Vic., c. 5, unless the statute 18 George 2nd renders horse-races legal, all horse-races are illegal under the statute 9 Anne, c. 14. Now, it would be a most singular thing, if the act 3 & 4 Vic. had the effect attributed to it, when we cannot but see that the object and intention of that statute was to encourage horseracing, by preventing common informers from suing for penalties, rather than to increase the restrictions which the law had already laid upon it. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the law on this subject now stands upon the just construction of the statute 18

a

George 2nd, c. 34, and, looking at the 11th section of that statute, I see no objection to the match set out upon the present record being considered to be a legal race within the meaning of that clause." The Learned Judge then read the 11th section. "These words appear to me, taking the whole clause together, to include any other place or places, over and besides Black Hambleton and Newmarket-heath. I cannot but think, that if the whole intent of that section had been to relieve persons from penalties for racing with other weights than those permitted by the act of the 13th of George 2nd, c. 19, the words, 'at any place or places whatsoever' would not have been found in this clause. Besides, we must recollect that this act was passed to take away penalties, and an act which is to relieve the subject from penalties must have liberal exposition. But the argument for the defendant is, that the words 'place or places' must mean places where races are usually run. Certainly Lord Eldon, whose authority no man could be more ready to bow to than myself, seems, in 'Whaley v. Pajot,' to have leaned to the conclusion, that a horse-race is not legal unless it be run upon the turf; but the case itself was ultimately decided, and was certainly capable of being decided, upon other grounds. There the agreement was, that a single horse should run from point A to point B, against two horses performing the same distance between them, and that could hardly be said to be a race between two horses starting from the same point and going to a given point, in order to determine which of the two was the best. That, therefore, might well be understood not to be a horse

race within the meaning of the statute. But on the present record the starting-point is the same, and the place at which the horses are to arrive is the same, and the case, therefore, steers clear of the difficulty presented by 'Whaley v. Pajot. Upon the whole, it seems to me that this was a race within the meaning of the statute 13 George 2nd, because it was a trial of the speed, strength, and vigour of the horses engaged in it, just as much as if it had been run upon a level course, and perhaps even more so. If we were to say that no race was legal unless it were run upon a course free from impediment, it would be impossible for a horse even to take a leap åt starting. I think, therefore, that this objection is not made out, and that the plaintiff is entitled to his judgment." The other members of the court concurred, and the rule was discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. January 29.

SITTINGS IN BANCO-JERVISON V. DYSON.

The

This was an action brought by the plaintiff nominally for money had and received by the defendant to his use, but in effect to try a most important question. plaintiff claimed to exercise the office of coroner within the liberty of the honour of Pontefract, in the West Riding of York, to which he had been appointed by the Crown, by virtue of the Duchy of Lancaster, the rights, privileges, and emoluments of which title, as is well known, have become merged in the kingly office. Under this appointment, the plaintiff claimed to have the exclusive right of holding inquests super visum corporis within the honour, and the defendant, on the other hand, as the county coroner, asserted his right to, at least, a concurrent jurisdiction with that of the plaintiff, if not an exclusive one, he being elected by the freeholders of the West Riding to the office of county coroner. At the trial before Lord Denman, at the last assizes at York, a great mass of evidence was gone into on both sides, when it appeared that the plaintiff chiefly rested his claim upon an ancient charter by Edward 3rd, granted in the year 1349, to the then Earl of Lancaster, by which the possessions of the duchy were conferred upon that nobleman. By this instrument, as was contended then and now, the Crown granted the right to appoint a coroner, to the exclusion of all others, within the Duchy. The plaintiff also proved the appointment of coroners under this charter in the reign of Elizabeth, though it did not appear that any instance was adduced of the exercise of the duties of that office till within the last seventy years, while the defendant proved a regular and unbroken exercise of those duties on the part of his predecessors, from time immemorial. Besides the original charter, however, the plaintiff put in two others, granted by Richard 2nd, (after the banishment of the Duke of Hereford, better known Henry 4th) to the Dukes of Surrey and Albemarle, on the occasion of his taking possession of all John Gaunt's property, which he did immediately on his death. These charters purported to grant to these noblemen portions of the duchy, and by them it was expressly stated, that the right to

as

appoint coronors had been given by the original charter of Edward 3rd. The verdict having passed for the plaintiff at the trial, a rule nisi was afterwards granted to the defendant for a new trial, the question to be discussed therein being, whether the words of the charter included such a grant as was contended for by the plaintiff, the court being of opinion with Lord Denman that if they did, it was an exclusive one. This rule came on for argument, when the recently appointed judge, Mr. Cresswell, appeared for the last time at the bar, and argued for the plaintiff, that though there was no express mention of coroner in the charter, yet that, upon investigation thereof and comparison with others, it would be abundantly clear, that that officer was included in the passages of the charter upon which the plaintiff rested his case. One of the duties of the coroner was to attach the pleas of the Crown, and though the word coronator did not occur in the grant, yet as the grant was of attachiamenta de placitis Coronæ, it would follow that the Crown meant to empower the grantee to appoint that officer exclusively within the duchy. The particular clause upon which the case turned was as follows:- "Et etiam quod idem comes habeat retorna omnium brevium nostrorum et hæredum nostrorum, et summonitionum de scaccario nostro et hæredum nostrorum, et attachiamenta, tam de placitis Coronæ quam de aliis quibuscunque, in omnibus terris et feodis suis: ita quod nullus vicecomes vel alius ballivus seu minister noster vel hæredum nostrorum terras vel feoda illa ingrediatur ad executiones quorundam brevium et summonitionum, seu ad atta

chiamenta de placitis Coronæ vel aliis prædictis, aut aliquod aliud officium ibidem faciendum, nisi in defectum ipsius comitis et ballivorum ac ministrorum suorum in terris et feodis suis predictis." Added to this was the subsequent passage called the "ne intromittant" clause which was in the following terms:- "Ita quod idem comes, per se vel per ballivos ac ministros suos, fines, amerciamenta, exitus, et foris facturos hujusmodi hominum et tenentium suorum prædictorum, et omnia quæ ad nos et hæredes nostros pertinere poterunt de anno, die, et vasto sive streppo, et murdris predictis levare, percipere, et habere possint, sine occasione vel impedimento nostri vel heredum nostrorum, justiciariorum, exactorum, vicecomitum, coronatorum, aut aliorum ballivorum, seu ministrorum nostrorum quorumcunque." It would appear, therefore, that all other coroners were inhibited from entering the Duchy, and if so, the former passage must be taken to have included the grant of that office. The learned gentleman then entered upon an elaborate examination of various ancient documents and charters with the view of showing, that there was no difference between a grant of attachiamenta de placitis Coronæ and that of attachiamenta placitorum, which were said to be used indifferently. The latter was frequently construed to include the office of coroner, which need not be granted co nomine, for it was enough that its duties were exercised, though under another name. Mr. Ellis, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Robinson followed on the same side.

Mr. Wortley, Mr. Watson, and Mr. Hardy were a few days after

wards heard in reply, and urged that this charter ought to be construed strictly, as it went to deprive the Crown of a prerogative which at that time existed, though the right of electing coroners was afterwards, by the statute 25 Edward 3rd, declared to belong to the freeholders, "saving all franchises not previously granted." There had been a similar statute passed in a preceding reign with the same intent, so that it might be well

doubted whether the Crown had the power of granting to the Earl of Lancaster such a right as was now sought to be founded upon this charter. Where the Crown was supposed to grant such rights, however, it was submitted that the words ought to be clear and express. Great stress had been laid upon the grant of attachiamenta de placitis Corona; but it was not necessary to have a coroner in order to hold such pleas, for there were many instances known where sheriffs held them. Besides, if such was the force of those words, the effect of a grant of retorna brevium, in the same clause, must be, by implication, a grant of a right to appoint sheriffs, whose duty it was to return all writs, and that was not contended at all. This exposed the fallacy of the argument which advanced this as a grant by necessary implication. As for the indifferent use of the two expressions, it was well known that the one included the other, so that it might well be that both might appear in the same instrument. There is, however, a distinction between them, and the question is, whether attachiamenta de placitis Coronæ mean more than the attachments arising out of pleas of the Crown of a similar nature to the writs previously

« PreviousContinue »