The Right Rev. Nathaniel Lord Bishop of Meath, and the Rev. James Alexander, Clerk, - Plaintiffs in Error; The Most Noble Charles, Marquis of Winchester, - Defendant in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 6 E.R. 125
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. v. 21, 1227, 1254; vi. 688, 700. S. C. 4 CL and F. 445; 3 Bing. N. C. 183. 3 Scott, 561. Explained and applied in, Carlisle v. Whaley, 1867, L. R. 2 H.L. 391. On point as to "proper custody" (10 Bli. N.S. 447), followed in Doe d. Neale v. Samples, 1838, 8 Ad. and E. 154.
[330] IRELAND. (exchequer chamber.) The Right Rev. NATHANIEL, Lord Bishop of MEATH, and the Rev. JAMES ALEXANDER, Clerk,-Plaintiffs in Error; The Most Noble CHARLES, Marquis of WINCHESTER,-Defendant in Error. [Mews' Dig. v. 21, 1227, 1254 ò vi. 688, 700. S. C. 4 CL and F. 445; 3 Bing. N. C. 183. 3 Scott, 561. Explained and applied in, Carlisle v. Whaley, 1867, L. R. 2 H.L. 391. On point as to " proper custody" (10 Bli. N.S. 447), followed in Doe d. Neale v. Samples, 1838, 8 Ad. and E. 154.] Upon a bill of exceptions toi the admission and rejection of evidence: and the directions of the judge, the following points were decided on a writ of error: 1. In Q-uatre invpedit, to recover the presentation to the church of K., the advowsoii whereof was claimed to- be part of the temporalities of the Bishop of M., the following documents were produced in evidence, viz., a deed, dated in 1637, granting to D. the next avoidance of the church of K., and a case dated in 1695, stated for the opinion of the counsel, on the part of A., then Bishop of M., containing a. statement that in 1637 C. granted to D., then incumbent of the church of K., the next presentation thereto; and that in 1642 both rectory and vicarage being void by the death of D., his widow and executrix presented pro hdc vice B. to both, who was instituted by the Bishop, and inducted by his successor. The deed and case were found by W. among books which W. stated to be visitation books and other papers of the diocese of M., in a, house in- 125 X BLIGH N.S. MEATH V. WINCHESTER [1836] habited by a, person of the same family name as A., Bishop of M., and which was stated in evidence to be the family house of A., and where his papers were kept. The documents so found were handed by W. to S., who delivered them over to C., by whom they were produced. C. was a descendant of Bishop A., but had never seen these document in the house, nor any papers of the family, or relating to the diocese. The proofs as to the custody being in some respects equivocal, on the examination in chief, were so left without cro'Ss-exaimination. It was proved that there was no registry of ecclesiastical or1 other records in the registry office of the diocese of M. anterior to 1717. Held that the deed and case were admissible in evidence on [331] behalf of the Plaintiff, against a successor of the Bishop in the see of M. 2. By Letters Patent 9 Edw. 4. the advowson of the rectory and vicarage of K. was granted ,to W. Bishop of M. and his successors. By an act of parliament 10 Hen. 7., reciting the necessity of protecting the King's subjects in Ireland, and reducing the land to obedience, and the diminution of the revenues by improvident grants, " to divers persons, such as for the most part do full little service to the common weal, for lack of which revenues the land could not be defended for the destruction of the Irish enemies," it was enacted that all manors, etc., advowsons of churches, etc., whereof the King or any of his progenitors Kings of England were at any time seised in fee simple or fee tail from the last day of the reign of Edw. 2. to tliis present act, etc., by any letters patent under the great seal of England or Ireland to any person or persons by whatsoever name, etc., be resumed, revoked, annulled and deemed void, and of none effect etc. But the manor of B. was, by a document annexed to the act, excepted. Held that the grant of Edw. 4. was avoided by the act of Hen. 7., and that the advowson was by the statute re-appended to' the manor. To a count in the declaration in Quwe impedit stating the title of the Plaintiff, and that the advowson was appendanti to the manor of R., the Bishop by his pleas asserted a seisin of the advowson in gross in right of his see, and traversed the appendancy of the advowson to the manor, and the title of the Plaintiff. The clerk's pleas were in substance the same. On these pleas, issue being joined, a fine levied by B., in respect of whose estate the Plaintiffs claim is not admissible in evidence upon siuch issue, and, if received ought not to be left to- the jury to say whether it barred the action of Quarre impedit; and, held, thalti it did not bar the action. This was a Writ of Error brought by the Plaintiffs in error, whoi were Defendants in the original cause, to' reverse a judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber of Ireland affirming a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, by which it was adjudged that the Marquis of Winchester, the Plaintiff in the original cause, [332] should receiver his presentation to the church of Killucam, otherwise Rathweir, situate in the diocese of Meath and county of Westmeath. On the 15th day of February, 1828, the benefice of Killucan, otherwise Rathweir, became vacant by the death of the Reverend Henry Wynne, the late incumbent thereof; whereupon-the Marquis of Winchester, the Defendant in, error, claiming the advowson as trustee for the Marquis of Clanricarde, presented his clerk, the Reverend Cecil Crampton, to1 the Bishop of the diocese of Meath, one of the Plaintiffs in error, as a fit and proper person to be admitted, instituted and inducted into the same. The Bishop of Meath refused to' admit the presentee of the Marquis of Winchester, and collated to the vacant benefice, being the rectory and vicarage of Killucan. his son, the Reverend James Alexander, the other Plaintiff in error. The Marquis of Winchester thereupon brought his action of Quare im-pedit in the Irish Court of Common Pleas against me Plaintiffs in Error, as of Michaelmas term in the year 1828 ; and upon the return, of the writ of distringas, being the last stage of process, the Bishop of Meath appeared by his attorney; but the other Defendant, instead of appearing tx any of the writs which had been successively served upon him, cast an essoign, which, upon the application of the Plaintiff below, was quashed by order of the Court of Common Pleas; and the Defendant, the Reverend James Alexander, wa.s ultimately compelled to appear. The Plaintiff's declaration contained six counts; but as the verdict for the De- 126 MEATH V. WINCHESTER [1836] X BLIGH N.S. feudant in error was taken upon the fifth count only, it is not necessary [333] further to advert to the other counts of the declaration or the pleas thereto. By the fifth count of the declaration the Plaintiff, after setting forth the pedigree of the house of Clanricarde, from the first to' the fourth Earl of the family, stated that RickaM, the fourth Earl of Clanricarde was in the year 1626 seised in his demesne as of feei of and in the manor of Rathweir, with the appurtenances, in the county of Westmeath, to which the advowson of the church of Killucan, otherwise Rathweir, was appendant!; and that being so- seised, he the said Rickard, Earl of Clanricarde, on the 12th of April, 1626, presented to' the said church Doctor Edward Donnellan, his clerk, who was on such presentation admitted, instituted and inducted into the said church: that upon the death of the said Earl in the year 1635, his eldest son and heir-atlaw, Ulick, the fifth Earl of Clanricarde, became seised of the said manor of Rathweir, and the said advowson appendant thereto. The count then stated the rebellion in Ireland in the year 1641, and that by reason thereof the manor of Ra!thweir,with the advowson appendant, were, with the other possessions of the Earl o-f Clanricarde, seized and sequestrated into' the hands of the Crown. The pedigree of the Clanricarde family is then deduced to Rickard, the sixth Earl of Clanricarde, and heir male of the body of Ulick, the first Earl of Clanricarde. The count proceeds to' state that by letters patent, bearing date the 8th day of April, in the fourteenth year of the reign of his late Majesty King Charles II., his said late Majesty granted unto' the said Riokard, sixth Earl of Clanricarde, (amongst other ppoperties of which Ulick, the fifth [334] Earl had been seised in the year 1641,) the manor of Rathweir, with the advowson appendant thereto, to hold to the said Rickard and the heirs male of his body, with remainder to the heirs male of the body of Ulick, first Earl of Clanricarde, remainder in fee to tJie heirs of the said Ulick, first Earl of Clanricarde. Thaiti by the statute made in Ireland in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of his said Majesty King Charles II., commonly called the Act of Settlement, the said letters patent were fully confirmed. That upon the death of the said Rickard on the 10th of August, 1666, without issue male, his only brofcher, William, seventh Earl of Clanricarde, as heir male of the body of Ulick, the first Earjl of Clanricarde, became seised in fee tail of the manor of Rathweir, with the advowson of Killucan appendant thereto'; and being so seised, the said William, Earl of Clanricarde, by indenture made on the 2d of May, 1670, conveyed to Sir Patrick Mulledy and his heirs the said manor of Rathweir; expressly excepting and reserving to' him the said Earl, and the heirs male of his body, the advowson of the said church of Killucan, whereby the said Sir Patrick Mulledy became seised of the manor of Rathweir; and the said William, Earl of Clanricarde continued to be seised in tail male of the said advowson, which thenceforward became an advo-wson in gross. That William, the seventh Earl being so' seised of the advowson in gross, died on the 10th day of October, 1687, leaving Rickard his eldesfc son, eighth Earl of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Right Rev. Nathaniel Lord Bishop of Meath, and the Rev. James Alexander, Clerk, - Plaintiffs in Error; The Most Noble Charles, Marquis of Winchester, - Defendant in Error
...in Error The Most Noble Charles, Marquis of Winchester,-Defendant in Error Mews' Dig. v. 21, 1227, 1254; vi. 688, 700; S.C. 10 Bli. N.S. 330; 3 Bing. N.C. 183, 3 Scott, 561. Explained and applied in Carlisle v. Whaley, 1867, L.R., 2 H.L. 391. On point as to proper custody (10 Bli. N.S. 447)......
-
The Lord Bishop of Meath, and James Alexander, Clerk, Plaintiffs in Error, v The Marquess of Winchester, Defendant in Error
...The Lord Bishop of Meath, and James Alexander, Clerk, Plaintiffs in Error and The Marquess of Winchester, Defendant in Error S. C. 10 Bligh (N. S.), 330; 6 E. R. 125 (with note); 4 Cl. & F. 445; 7 E. R. 171 (with note). [183] in the house of lobjds. (In Error from the Exchequer Chamber in I......