But THE COURT permitted the defendant to go to tri al, upon the terms of paying costs and giving judg ment of the term. MOSELEY, Bart. against STONEHOUSE.-Feb. 4. 1806. CLEWEY and Another versus RAMSBOTTOM. W. 3, c. 23, s. 1, Constable. Certificate of Acertificate, under the stat. 10 and 11 W. HI. c. 23, of conviction of Stat. 10 and 11 a burglar in the parish of Manchester, which consists of several townships, having separate parish officers, held, upon demurrer, to Parish office. exempt a person from serving the office of constable for the separale conviction of township of Manchester, although the manor of Manchester at felon. the leet for which such constable is chosen, is not co-extensive with the parish of Manchester. Held, also, that the office of constable is a parish office within the said act of parliament. MOSELY versus THE plaintiff declared in debt, in substance, as follows, that he was on, &c. seised of the manor of Manchester in the county of Lancaster, in his demesne as of fee; and that he and those whose estate he STONEHOURS had from time whereof, &c. had, &c. a court leet and view of frank pledge within the said manor of, &c. And that within the said manor there is, and from time whereof, &c. has been a custom, that the inhabitants and residents charged to enquire and present,&c. have yearly at that court leet or view of frank pledge, held within the said manor, within one month next after the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, elected and have been used and been accustomed to elect two fit and proper persons of the inhabitants and residents within. the said manor to be respectively constables of Manchester in the county of Lancaster, aforesaid, for the year then next following, &c. and that they were. then accustomed to be sworn in open court. The declaration then proceeded to state, that at a court leet held on the 1st day of October, 1804, the defendant and one John Railton then and long before being in 1806. MOSELY versus STONEHOUSE. habitants and residents within the said manor, and being fit and proper persons in that behalf, were elected to be constables of Manchester aforesaid, for the year next following, by, &c. that the defendant was then and there requested by the steward to take his oath in open court before the steward, well and truly to execute the said office, but he refused; in contempt of the said court. Whereupon the said steward, in the same county, to wit, on, &c. imposed a fine of 201., for the use of the plaintiff, upon the defendant, for such his refusal, &c. and so concluded in debt for the said fine. PLEAS. The defendant pleaded nil debet; and further that long before the election of the said defendant to be one of the constables of Manchester, as in the said declaration mentioned, to wit, at the general sessions of assizes of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery holden at the castle at Lancaster, in and for the county palatine of Lancaster, on Saturday the 15th day of August, in the 43d year" of the reign of his present majesty King George III, and in the year of our Lord 1801, before the Right Honourable Richard Pepper, Lord Alvanley, chief justice of our lord the king, assigned to deliver the gaol of the said county of the prisoners therein being, one Ellen Bradshaw was convicted of burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Samuel Hall, in the parish of Manchester in the said county, and stealing thereout one brass pan his property, and divers other articles; and that the said Richard Pepper, Lord Alvanley, being the justice before whom the said conviction was had, on the 24th day of August in the year of our Lord 1801, to wit, at Manchester in the said county, by his certificate under his hand, bearing date the same day and year last aforesaid, and which the said defendant now brings here into court, did, pursu quant to the said statute in that case made and provided, certify the said conviction in form aforesaid, and that the said Samuel Hall, and also John Holland and William Waters, of the parish aforesaid, did apprehend and take the said Ellen Bradshaw, and did prosecute her, so apprehended and taken, until she was convicted of the burglary aforesaid; and pursuant to an act of parliament passed in the 10th and 11th years of the reign of his late majesty King William III. intitled "An Act for the apprehending, prosecuting and punishing felons that commit burglary, house-breaking, or robbing in shops, warehouses, coach-houses, and stables, or that steal horses," the said justice did further certify, that by virtue thereof, and of the said act of parliament, the said Samuel Hall for the apprehension and conviction aforesaid, should and might be, and he was thereby declared to be discharged of and from all and all manner of parish offices within the parish of Manchester aforesaid, as by the said certificate appears; which said certificate according to the tenor of the said statute, was duly inrolled of record, at the general court of quarter ses sions of the peace, at Salford, in the said county, the 14th day of October, 1801, in the 41st year of the reign of our lord the now king, as is in and by the said sta tute required. And the said defendant further saith, that before such election as aforesaid, by a certain indenture made the 3d day of October in the said year of our Lord 1801, at Manchester aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, between the said Samuel by the name and description of Samuel Hall of the parish of Manchester in the county of Lancaster, clerk, of the one part, and the said defendant, by the name and description of John Stonehouse, of the parish of Manchester aforesaid, merchant, of the other part; which said in denture, sealed with the seal of the said Samuel, he the said defendant now brings here into court, the 1806. MOSELEY versus STONE HOUSE 1806. MOSELY versus STONZHOUSE. date whereof is the day and year last aforesaid, reciting the said certificate, and that the said defendant had contracted and agreed with the said Samuel for an assignment of the said recited certificate; in consideration of 351. of lawful money; it was by the said indenture witnessed, that in consideration of $51. of lawful money by the said John Stonehouse to the said Samuel in hand paid, at or immediately before the sealing and delivery thereof, the receipt whereof the said Samuel did thereby acknowledge, and from the same did thereby acquit and discharge the said defendant, his executors, and administrators; be the said Samuel in pursuance of the power given to him by the act of parliament in the said recited certificate mentioned, did bargain, sell, assign, and transfer unto the said defendant as well the said recited certificate, as all the right, interest, and demand of him the said Samuel thereto, and all exemptions, privileges, bes nefit, and advantage that might be had and made thereof, or derived therefrom by virtue of the said act of parliament, as fully as he the said Samuel might or would have had, or derived, if the said indenture had not been made; as by the said indenture appears. And the said defendant avers that the said Samuel had not at any time before the making of the said indenture, assigned the said certificate, neither had he made any use thereof to exempt himself from any parish or ward office; and the said defendant avers, that the said Samuel Hall in the said certificate mentioned, and the said Samuel Hall who made the said assignment, are one and the same persons, and not other or different, to wit, at the parish of Manchester aforesaid; and that the parish of Manchester in the said certificate mentioned from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, hath been divided into and contained, and still is divided into and contains, divers distinct townships, one of such township, during all the time aforesaid, being the township of Manchester and, that the said manor of Manchester and the said township of Manchester, from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, have been and still are co-extensive and wholly within the said parish of Manchester; and, that the said election of the said defendant to be a constable of Manchester, as in the said declaration mentioned, was an election of the said defendant to be a constable of the township of Manchester, being a parish office within the said parish of Manchester wherein the said felony was committed as aforesaid, to wit, at the parish of Manchester aforesaid; whereby and by force of the statute in that case made and provided, the said defendant at the time of such election, was and is exempt and discharged from the said office of constable, to which he was so elected as aforesaid, so being a parish office within the said parish of Manchester as aforesaid, to wit, at the parish of Manchester aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment if the said plaintiff ought to have or maintain his aforesaid action thereof against him the said defendant. The plaintiff replied, protesting that the said plea is insufficient, &c. that the said parish of Manchester in the said certificate of the said last plea mentioned, from time whereof, &c. hath been divided into and contained, and still is divided into and contains, divers distinct townships, one of such townships during all the time aforesaid, being the said parish of Manchester, and that the said manor of Manchester, and the said township of Manchester during all the time aforesaid, have been and still are co-extensive. And further, that the said several townships, in the said parish of Manchester, during all the time aforesaid, have had and been used to have, and of right ought to have, &c.several and respective constables for each and every seve B b NO. XXIX. N. S. 1806. MOSELY versus STONEHOUSE. |