Roberts v Aulton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1857 |
| Date | 09 June 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 178
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Referred to, Rex v. Vicar and Churchwardens of Dymock, (1915) 1 K. B. 150.
[432] roberts v. aulton. June 9, 1857.-In the year 1810, a chapel was purchased for the purpose of being consecrated as a chapel of ease in the parish of A. The chapel was consecrated under the provisions of a deed, dated the 25th August, IhlO, by which the parish cleik and sexton weie to be entitled to the fees for christenings, burials, and marriages in the chapel and cemetery thereof, as if they had taken'place in the mother chuich By an order of her Majesty in council, of the 2nd August, 1853, the chapel was created a district chapelry under the 16th section of the 59 Geo. 3, c 134. By the 10th section of that Act, when any parish shall be divided under the provisions of the 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, or this Act, all fees belonging to the parish clerk or sexton respectively of any such parish, which shall thereafter arise "in any district or division of any parish divided " under the provisions of the 58 Geo 3, c. 45, shall belong to and be recoverable by the clerks and sextons of each of the divisions of the parish to which they shall be assigned. The plaintiff, who was cleik and sexton of the parish of A., having brought an action foi money had and received, against the defendant, the clerk and sexton of the chapel, for the fees received by him for christenings, burials, and maniages in the chapel Held . Fust, that the action for money had and received would lie for these fees.-Secondly That this being a "district chapelry," was not within the operation of the 10th section of the 59 Geo 3, c. 134, and therefore that the plaintiff', as clerk and sexton of the parish was entitled to the fees aiising at the chapel [Referred to, Rt? v. Vicar and Churchwardens of Dymock, [1915] 1KB 150 ] In the above cause a special case was stated for the opinion of this Court (so far as material) as follows :- (b) See Thf Manchettfr, Sheffield and Lincolnshu e Railway Company, Appellants, WaUis, Respondent, 14 C B. 213, The Midland fiailioay Cmn^any v Dayhn, 17 C. B 126 2H&N433. ROBERTS r AtTLTON 179 This was an action to lecovei 431 15s. as money received by the defendant to the plaintiffs use, from the 19th ot August, 1853, until the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff during the above period was clerk and sexton to the parish church of Aston juxta Birmingham, in the county of \\raiwick, and the defendant during the same time was clerk and sexton to the district chapel of Ht James Ashted, in the same parish; and the above sum was the amount of fees received by the latter in that capacity, from time to time during that period, upon the publication of banns and marriages and churchings in the said chapel, and upon burials performed in the burial ground belonging to the same In the year 1810, the said chapel then called Ashted Chapel, situate at Ashted in the hamlet of Duddeston and parish of Aston juxta Birmingham, and 5430 square yards of land adjoining thereto, weie purchased by subscription, for the purpose of having the said chapel consecrated as a chapel of ease to the paush church of Aston aforesaid, and the said land belonging thereto consecrated [433] as burial ground for the interment of persons dying within the said hamlet By indenture, dated the 25th of August, 1810, made between George Simcox and John Botton of the first part, the Lord Bishop of Lichheld and Coventry of the second part, Heneage Legge of the third part, the Reverend Benjamin Spence of the fourth part, and Richard Spoouer, Thomas Jones and Thomas Beilby of the fifth part; the said chapel and land were by virtue of the 43 Geo 3, c. 108, conveyed to the said Richard Hpooner, Thomas Jones and Thomas Beilby and their heirs ; upon trust to get the said chapel consecrated as a chapel of ease to the parish church of Aston, near Birmingham, aforesaid, and the said land consecrated as a cemetery or place of burial for the bodies of persons dying in the said hamlet of Duddeston, and of the parish of Aston aforesaid , and the right of nominating the minister (being approved of by the bishop, patron, and incumbent for the time being of the said parish of Aston, and licensed by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield,) was thereby vested in the said George Smicox for sixty-tive years, and afterwards in the vicar of the parish church of Aston And the said chapel when consecrated was to be endowed by the pew rents. And by the said indenture it was declared that the curate and clerk should have the like fees, for christenings in the said chapel, and for burials in the vaults and in the chapel-yard, and for grave stones, as then were or should be taken by the vicar and parish clerk of the parish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Treacy v Corcoran
...Carter 8 Q. B. 134. Stephens v. BadcockENR 3 B. & Ad. 354. Cobb v. Becke 6 Q. B. 930. King v. Alston 12 Q. B. 971. Roberts v. AultonENR 2 H. & N. 432; 26 L. J. Ex. N. S. 380. The Queen v. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury 16 Q. B. 362, per Lord Campbell, C. J. Roberts v. AultonENR 2 H......