Parish of Aston v Castle-Birmidge Chapel

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1792
Date01 January 1792
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 215

King's Bench Division

Parish of Aston
Castle-Birmidge Chapel

71. parish of aston versus castle-birmidge chapel. Consultation. Warwick. Church and chapel the precincts and separations. Ro. 2 290. 1 Cr. 92. 394. March 91. 2 Ro. R. 265. 5 Co. 66. b. Palm. 552. Ro. 12. b. Bulst. 1. 16, 17. Degg. 76. Jones 355. The case was in the county of Warvvicke, that there was a parish called Aston, and a parish church there ; there was also in the same parish a chapel called Castle-Birmidge Chapel, and a certain precinct called Castle-Birmidge: the inhabitants whereof did resort to the chapel, and there married, christned, and received sacrament and sacramentals, and had church-wardens there, and a perambulation there of it self, but they buried not there, but at Aston for the parsonage was appropriate, and the vicar found them a curate at his charge, to serve them at the chapel. Now the church of Aston being in decay, the parishioners of Castle-Birmidge were taxed towards the reparation thereof, with the rest of the parish of Aston, and obtained a prohibition upon surmise, that there was a chapel parochial: and that they alone had used time out of mind to repair that at their own charge, and by reason thereof, had been discharged of the reparation of Aston Church, yet in their prohibition they confessed they were within the pariah of Aston, and that they buried [67] there. Now motion waa made for a consultation, and clay given to both parties, and being heard it appeared to be as before, saving that there were shewed on the behalf of Aston two sentences in the Ecclesiastical Court, one in the 16 of Eliz. whereby the parishioners of the chapel were sentenced to pay towards the reparation of the church, and another in the 30 of Queen Elizabeth, whereby they were sentenced to bear the office of church-wardens, at the church of Aston. And now where there were five sentences on the contrary on the behalf of the parishioners of the chapel they were all by appeal disannulled; whereupon the Court awarded a consultation ; 216 CUDDINGTON V. WILKINS HOBABT.68. for though the surmise were matter of fact, and triable by the jury, yet it is in discretion of the Court to deny a prohibition, when it appears unto them that the surmise is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • 80 ER 214
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • Invalid date
    ...if he require two, an audita querela will lie. 80 E.R. 215" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> English Reports Citation: 80 E.R. 215 King's Bench Division Ledsham against Rowe and Mudge 70. ledsham against rowe and mudge. Co. B. Trespass. Venire fac. awarded ad triandum exit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT