There were many other ers admitted, who might ve taken it as well as the er; and, although undoubtɔme spoons had been traced possession, still there was tisfactory identity of their g belonged to the club. prisoner was a person, as had heard, who had been opulent, and there was nounreasonable in his having silver spoons in his pos n, and still less unreasonwas it that he should raise yupon them in the time of The case, to say the most was one of suspicion only, he thought it was one in they would not be able, Sentiously, to say that the er was guilty. jor M'Lean stated that he known the prisoner many , and was one of his assigwhen he became a bankrupt always considered him to be pright and honest man-he ys bore that character. veral other witnesses were 1, who also spoke of the priin similar terms. e Recorder in summing up, the prisoner was charged stealing eight silver spoons, property of Sir J. Watson, ht, and others, and if they satisfied from the evidence Sir J. Watson, Knight, was ember of the club, then the etment was good. The main tion, however, for their concation was the identity of the erty, and in order to arrive conclusion upon that subject would have to look at the ner in which the prisoner all the way through dealt the property-whether he whether the erasures which appeared upon the different articles had not been made for the purpose of disguising them. The jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty. The Recorder said, the learned counsel had neglected to prove in what parish the club-house was situated, consequently they could not find the prisoner guilty of stealing in a dwelling-house, as laid in the indictment; they could find him guilty of the simple larceny only. The Jury accordingly returned a verdict to that effect. The Recorder said, he found by his abstract, that there were seven other indictments against the prisoner for precisely similar offences. Mr. Clarkson said he thought it unnecessary to proceed with the other charges, but he asked the permission of the Court to call the pawnbrokers, who held the property in the other cases, in order that it might be given up to the respective owners. He understood there were in court upwards of 100 silver spoons and forks, which had been stolen by the prisoner. The Recorder said the property must, of course, be given up. No less than sixteen pawnbrokers were then called, each of whom produced from four to two and a half dozen of massive silver table spoons and forks, which were identified by the secretaries of the respective clubs, and were forthwith handed over to the owners, to the very great dissatisfaction of the pawnbro. kers, who, of course, will suffer the loss. The Recorder, in passing sen convicted, upon very satisfactory evidence, of the crime of which he stood charged, that of stealing the property named, belonging to Sir J.Watson. It was evident there were various other charges, which the learned counsel for the prosecution had declined to proceed with upon the property being given up. There had been an omission in the case, inasmuch as the name of the parish in which the offence had been committed had not been proved, and he would have the benefit of it; but he could assure him that had it been proved, the Court would have felt it its duty to pass upon him the full punishment allowed by law for such an offence. As it was he could only receive the punishment for a common larceny. It was evident that he had been for a considerable time getting his living by plundering club-houses, where he had the privilege of entering. The sentence of the Court therefore was, that he be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years. ARCHES COURT, VELEY AND JOSLIN AGAINST Gos- Sir H. Jenner Fust gave sentence in this case, which was an appeal from the Consistory Court of London, in a suit of subtraction of church-rate, promoted by the churchwardens of the parish of Braintree, Essex, against Mr. John Gosling, a parishioner and inhabitant. The Court below rejected the libel, on the ground made by the churchwardens and the minority of the parishioners assembled at a vestry meeting, summoned in obedience to a monition to make a rate for the repair of the church, the majority refusing to make any rate, was illegal and invalid. The learned Dean of the Arches commenced by observing, that the parish of Braintree had obtained a considerable degree of notoriety from the determined opposition given by a great majority of its inhabitants to churchrates. In 1837, a question as to the validity of a rate in that parish gave rise to proceedings which commenced in the Consistory Court of London, and went to the Courts of Common Law, being finally adjudicated in the Court of Exchequer Chamber. In that case the majority of the parishioners in vestry having refused a rate, the churchwardens, not at the same vestry meeting, but several days after, and without any further notice to the parishioners, made a rate by themselves. The Judge of the Consistory Court, contrary to his own opinion, admitted the libel in a suit against Mr. Burder, a parishioner, for the recovery of his quota of this rate, conceiving himself bound by the authority of a case in this court, that of "Gaudern v. Selby," in 1796. A prohibition having issued from the Court of King's Bench, the plaintiff on prohibition declared, the defendant demurred, and the judgment of the Court was against the validity of that rate. The case then went by writ of error to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which affirmed the judgment of the Court of King's Bench. In valid unless made with the consent of the majority of the parishioners; but the Court of Exchequer Chamber did not affirm so general a proposition; they guarded themselves against being supposed to do so; they recognized "a wide and substantial difference" between a rate made by churchwardens and the minority at the same vestry, where a rate had been refused, and a rate made by the churchwardens alone at a subsequent time, which was the case in the former Braintree suit. The prohibition in that case put a stop to the proceedings, but still the church continued in a state of great dilapidation, and the necessity of repairs being very pressing, the churchwardens adopted the suggestion thrown out by Lord Chief Justice Tindal. In order that the proceedings should be perfectly regular, a decree under the seal of the Consistory Court of London, issued at the instance of the vicar, called upon the churchwardens and parishioners to appear and show cause why they should not meet in vestry to make a rate for the necessary repairs of the church. The churchwardens appeared, and professed a readiness to obey the directions of the Court. judges (eight in number) in the Exchequer Chamber, Lord Chief Justice Tindal stated, that the questions to be determined werefirst, whether the churchwardens, after a rate for the necessary repairs of the church had been proposed to the parishioners in vestry, and refused by a majority, could of their own sole authority, at a subsequent time, by themselves, and not at any parish meeting, impose a valid rate on the parishioners-secondly, whether a Court of Common Law could issue a writ of prohibition to the Spiritual Court, to stay proceedings to enforce payment of such a rate. The Court of Exchequer Chamber was of opinion, that such a rate was invalid, and that the writ of prohibition was properly issued; but the Lord Chief Justice expressed that opinion in a guarded manner, and accompanied it with this observation"It is obvious that there is a wide and substantial difference between the churchwardens alone, or the churchwardens and the minority together, making a rate at the meeting of the parishioners, when the refusal takes place, and the churchwardens possessing the power of rating the parish by themselves at any future time, however distant. It is unnecessary, however, to discuss that point, as the facts of this case do not bring it before us; it is sufficient to say, whilst we give no opinion upon it, that we desire to be understood as reserving to ourselves the liberty of forming an opinion whenever the case shall occur." These expressions were very remarkable. The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench had expressed his opinion, that no rate could be No ap pearance was given on the part of the parishioners; and as no objection was therefore made on their part, a monition issued, requiring them to meet in vestry on a certain day, and to make a rate for the necessary repairs of the church. In obedience to this monition the churchwardens convened a vestry, at which they submitted the surveys and estimates, and proposed a rate of 2s. in the pound. in the pound. An amendment was, however, moved, to the convicted, upon very satisfactory evidence, of the crime of which he stood charged, that of stealing the property named, belonging to Sir J.Watson. It was evident there were various other charges, which the learned counsel for the prosecution had declined to proceed with upon the property being given up. There had been an omission in the case, inasmuch as the name of the parish in which the offence had been committed had not been proved, and he would have the benefit of it; but he could assure him that had it been proved, the Court would have felt it its duty to pass upon him the full punishment allowed by law for such an offence. As it was he could only receive the punishment for a common larceny. It was evident that he had been for a considerable time getting his living by plundering club-houses, where he had the privilege of entering. The sentence of the Court therefore was, that he be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years. ARCHES COURT, VELEY AND JOSLIN AGAINST GOS- Sir H. Jenner Fust gave sentence in this case, which was an appeal from the Consistory Court of London, in a suit of subtraction of church-rate, promoted by the churchwardens of the parish of Braintree, Essex, against Mr. John Gosling, a parishioner and inhabitant. The Court below rejected the libel, on the ground 4 made by the churchwardens and the minority of the parishioners assembled at a vestry meeting, summoned in obedience to a monition to make a rate for the repair of the church, the majority refusing to make any rate, was illegal and invalid. The learned Dean of the Arches commenced by observing, that the parish of Braintree had obtained a considerable degree of notoriety from the determined opposition given by a great majority of its inhabitants to churchrates. In 1837, a question as to the validity of a rate in that parish gave rise to proceedings which commenced in the Consistory Court of London, and went to the Courts of Common Law, being finally adjudicated in the Court of Exchequer Chamber. In that case the majority of the parishioners in vestry having refused a rate, the churchwardens, not at the same vestry meeting, but several days after, and without any further notice to the parishioners, made a rate by themselves. The Judge of the Consistory Court, contrary to his own opinion, admitted the libel in a suit against Mr. Burder, a parishioner, for the recovery of his quota of this rate, conceiving himself bound by the authority of a case in this court, that of "Gaudern v. Selby," in 1796. A prohibition having issued from the Court of King's Bench, the plaintiff on prohibition declared, the defendant demurred, and the judgment of the Court was against the validity of that rate. case then went by writ of error to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which affirmed the judgment of the Court of King's Bench. In The judges (eight in number) in the Exchequer Chamber, Lord Chief Justice Tindal stated, that the questions to be determined werefirst, whether the churchwardens, after a rate for the necessary repairs of the church had been proposed to the parishioners in vestry, and refused by a majority, could of their own sole authority, at a subsequent time, by themselves, and not at any parish meeting, impose a valid rate on the parishioners-secondly, whether a Court of Common Law could issue a writ of prohibition to the Spiritual Court, to stay proceedings to enforce payment of such a rate. The Court of Exchequer Chamber was of opinion, that such a rate was invalid, and that the writ of prohibition was properly issued; but the Lord Chief Justice expressed that opinion in a guarded manner, and accompanied it with this observation"It is obvious that there is a wide and substantial difference between the churchwardens alone, or the churchwardens and the minority together, making a rate at the meeting of the parishioners, when the refusal takes place, and the churchwardens possessing the power of rating the parish by themselves at any future time, however distant. It is unnecessary, however, to discuss that point, as the facts of this case do not bring it before us; it is sufficient to say, whilst we give no opinion upon it, that we desire to be understood as reserving to ourselves the liberty of forming an opinion whenever the case shall occur." These expressions were very remarkable. The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench had expressed his opinion, that no rate could be valid unless made with the consent of the majority of the parishioners; but the Court of Exchequer Chamber did not affirm so general a proposition; they guarded themselves against being supposed to do so; they recognized "a wide and substantial difference" between a rate made by churchwardens and the minority at the same vestry, where a rate had been refused, and a rate made by the churchwardens alone at a subsequent time, which was the case in the former Braintree suit. The prohibition in that case put a stop to the proceedings, but still the church continued in a state of great dilapidation, and the necessity of repairs being very pressing, the churchwardens adopted the suggestion thrown out by Lord Chief Justice Tindal. In order that the proceedings should be perfectly regular, a decree under the seal of the Consistory Court of London, issued at the instance of the vicar, called upon the churchwardens and parishioners to appear and show cause why they should not meet in vestry to make a rate for the necessary repairs of the church. The churchwardens appeared, and professed a readiness to obey the directions of the Court. No appearance was given on the part of the parishioners; and as no objection was therefore made on their part, a monition issued, requiring them to meet in vestry on a certain day, and to make a rate for the necessary repairs of the church. In obedience to this monition the churchwardens convened a vestry, at which they submitted the surveys and estimates, and proposed a rate of 2s. in the pound. An amendment was, however, moved, to the |