case.

ham v. Sir William Lumley-Sir James Scarlett stated the plaintiff's The plaintiff was a resident in the island of St. George, one of the Bermudas. The defendant, sir William Lumley, the brother of the late earl of Scarborough, was an officer in the army, and, at the time of committing the act of which the plaintiff complained, was governor of the Bermudas. It had been usual for the churchwardens (who were appointed annually) to collect the rates made by the select vestry of the parish, and they were to account to the vestry for the monies they received. The time usually allowed for them to render their accounts and pay over the balance to their successors was thirty days after the time of their going out of office had expired. In consequence of an epidemic disorder which was prevalent in the year 1819, no assessment was made for that year, and consequently the churchwardens who came into office for the ensuing year had a double duty to perform. The plaintiff and a Mr. James Till were chosen churchwardens for the year 1820. They had to make collections not only for the current year, but for that of the former year, in which no rate had been made. They found it necessary, therefore,

VOL. LXXI.

lowed by the select vestry. That body held a meeting on the 1st of June, 1821, at which they came to a resolution directing that the whole of the monies in arrear should be collected; but, it appearing that those of the inhabitants who had not paid were persons of responsibility, it was determined to extend the time to sixty days, and the vestry then passed a resolution in these words:-"1st of June, 1821.

Pursuant to an adjournment of the 30th ult., the vestry met this day. Mr. James Till, one of the late churchwardens, presented to the vestry a statement of their accounts with the parish, and observed, that several persons had not yet paid their assessments, for which reason he requested to be allowed the term of sixty days from this date for the collection of those sums, and the completion of the churchwardens' accounts. The same was agreed to, and they were' directed to give public notice in the Bermuda Gazette, that all persons who did not pay the assessments within ten days from that date, would be proceeded against as the law directs for the recovery thereof. They were also ordered to pay the following sums, so soon as they had as much funds in their hands; -To Mr. John Nowlen, for main◄

B

tenance of Thomas Flynn, 71.; Mr. A. Holmes, for printing, 201.; the committee for managing memorial to the throne, 30l.; Mr. J. Roxburgh, as voted the 17th of June, 1820, 201." This was the resolution passed at the vestry meeting of the 1st of June. With respect to the item of 30l. which the vestry had ordered the churchwardens to pay to the committee for managing a memorial to the throne, the fact was, that sir W. Lumley had, by some conduct of his, induced the inhabitants of St. George's Island to prepare a memorial to his majesty containing a complaint against him, which had reference principally to his having caused the soldiers to attend at the church, instead of having divine service performed at the barracks, as had been the custom before sir William came to the island. The preparation of this memorial had made some noise in the island; and, sir W. Lumley having determined to oppose the proceedings of the select vestry, attended at a meeting held on the 11th of June, and placed himself in the chair, though he was not a select vestryman, and had no right to interfere in their proceedings. The minutes which were made of this meeting were in these words: "Parish of St. George, Monday, 11th June, 1821. The minutes of the vestry on the 1st instant were perused by the rector, who declared that he protested against the said proceedings ordering the late churchwardens to pay certain sums in their hands; he then produced a written document which he desired should be read, and was accordingly read by the clerk." By this it appeared that the rector had taken part with the governor, whose own language, as recorded at the meeting, was in these words :-" It

is my decided opinion, that, if the vestry of St. George's persevere in their decision of the 1st of June, they will commit a most illegal act. I shall cite them before me as ordinary, or in the Court of Chancery, and if they persist in the order to the late churchwardens, and the latter should obey it, I shall direct a prosecution against all parties in the Ecclesiastical Court; and the parishioners are hereby authorized to refuse the rate. The late churchwardens will be guilty of a fraud if they pay any monies for any purpose, to any persons whatever, except to their successors; and the actual churchwardens will be equally guilty of a fraud, if they dispose of any monies except for church purposes; and I am determined to punish the parties if such frauds are committed.

"WM. LUMLEY, "Lt.-Gen. Governor and Commander-in-chief, and Ordinary. "Government House,

June 6, 1821.

"To the Rev. J. Lough, Rector of St. George's."

The minutes of the vestry meeting, in which this letter of the governor's was recorded, proceeded thus:

"Immediately after the above was read, his excellency sir William Lumley entered the vestryroom, and addressed himself to the vestry in language to the purport of the above note. Mr. James Till, one of the churchwardens, having declared that the sums of money ordered by the vestry, as above alluded to, had really been paid by him, his excellency observed, that he had acted illegally, and desired him, as one of the late churchwardens, to produce their accounts with the parish to him the go

vernor and ordinary; and that they, the late churchwardens, should be allowed fourteen days from hence for that purpose, in failure of which a prosecution in the Ecclesiastical Court should be instituted against them. Mr. John Till then proposed to dissolve the meeting, which being seconded by Mr. Atwood, the several parties quitted the vestry." These proceedings having taken place on the 11th of June, the defendant, who united in his government the character of chancellor, and assumed also the power of acting as ordinary, and exercising other functions connected with the Ecclesiastical Court, proceeded to put in force his supposed authority, to compel the churchwardens to render their accounts, notwithstanding the extended time allowed them by the select vestry had not expired. On the 17th of July, while the plaintiff, who was an auctioneer, was engaged in selling by auction some furniture belonging to a gentleman lately deceased, a constable came to him and told him, that the governor required his immediate attendance at the vestry-room. The plaintiff replied, that he could not leave the auction then, but he would come when his business was over, which he thought would be in about two hours. The consta ble then went away, and, in a short time, returned with three soldiers, who assisted him in conveying the plaintiff to the vestry-room. The governor was there sitting as chairman. He addressed the plaintiff, and asked him whether he was prepared with his accounts. The plaintiff replied that he was not, upon which the governor told him that they must be produced. While the conversation was going on, Mr. Till, the other churchwarden,

came into the vestry-room, and the governor then required the accounts to be produced. Mr. Till said they were not in readiness, and that the sixty days allowed by the select vestry did not expire till the 1st of August. The governor, in answer, said, “That won't do; we must have them immediately." Mr. Till then told the governor that he and his brother churchwarden could not submit to the directions of his excellency, as they were bound to account to the select vestry alone. The governor denied that the select vestry. had power to grant the time which they had allowed to the churchwardens, but expressed his willingness to give them a few days to produce their accounts. Mr. Till, however, insisted on having the whole of the time allowed by the vestry, and the governor then said, he would send them both to gaol, whence no power on earth could release them, and where they should remain till they rotted, unless they rendered the accounts. Having then come to the determination of committing them, he immediately produced from his pocket a warrant, which he had prepared, and having signed it, the parties were given in custody of the constable, who conveyed them to gaol. The gaoler, knowing them to be persons of respectability, was, in the first instance, induced to commit a little irregularity in their favour. For several days he allowed the plaintiff to go home after dark, as one of his children was ill, and his wife pregnant. The governor, however, having heard of this indulgence, issued an order prohibiting all persons from going out of the gaol after sunset, or before sunrise, and a sentinel was then posted at the

gaol gates to keep guard night and day. The parties remained in the gaol till the 1st of August, when, having rendered their accounts to the select vestry, they were released. The plaintiff was afterwards advised to bring an action against the constable who had arrested him, and another against the gaoler who had kept him in custody. A verdict, with 2001. damages, passed against the constable. A writ of error was then brought, and the governor, sitting in the Court of Error as chancellor, reversed the judgment. In the action against the gaoler, 500l. damages were given. He did not appeal to the Court of Error, and the reason was stated in a document which had issued from the governor, acting as chancellor. That document was an injunction, in which it was recited that the gaoler had been unable to procure sureties to prosecute an appeal to the Court of Error, and that as the payment of the enormous damages recovered in the action at the suit of the plaintiff would effect his ruin by depriving him of his property, it was prayed that execution might be stayed, until the cause could be heard before some competent tribunal. The injunction was accordingly issued, and thus had the plaintiff been deprived of the benefit of the verdict which he had obtained.

The defendant attempted to show that he possessed the power of Ordinary, and had done nothing which he might not legally do in that character; but lord Tenterden was of opinion, that, even if he had possessed the jurisdiction of an Ordinary, he had exercised it in an illegal manner. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with 1000l. damages.

9. BODY-SNATCHERS. UNION

HALL-A man named Huntington and his wife were charged with stealing the clothes of a man who died suddenly while walking along Walworth-common a few days be

fore.

The investigation of the charge exhibited an extraordinary instance of the manner in which dead bodies are procured for the purposes of dissection. From the evidence of Mr. Murray, the assistant overseer of the parish of Newington, it appeared, that, on the Monday preceding, the body of a man, who dropped down dead in that parish, was brought to the workhouse. On the Wednesday following, the prisoner, accompanied by his wife, attended at the committee-room in the workhouse, and, affecting great sorrow, represented themselves as nearly related to the deceased, and expressed a desire to have the body delivered up to them, adding, that they wished to have it decently interred at their own expense. The parishofficers made some inquiries relative to the applicants in the place where they resided, and heard nothing to their disadvantage; they therefore consented to deliver up the body to them, after the inquest was held upon it. The inquest was held on Thursday, and when it concluded, the prisoners again presented themselves at the workhouse, and demanded the corpse, which was then delivered up to them. Previous to the prisoners' departure, they told the parishofficers that the deceased was the female prisoner's brother; that he had come up to London from Shoreham, in Sussex, about four months ago, with 80l. in his pocket; and that he dissipated and squandered away the whole of the money in that short period. In fact, from the consistent statement

the prisoners had given, and the sorrow and anxiety they betrayed when they first made application at the workhouse for the body, the parish officers had not the slightest suspicion but that they were nearly allied to the deceased. On Wednesday night, however, in consequence of a quarrel that occurred between the two prisoners and another woman, relative to the division of the money which the corpse fetched, it appearing that it had been sold for eleven guineas at St. Bartholomew's hospital, the affair was brought to light, and ultimately led to the apprehension of the prisoners. An officer, on searching their lodgings in Southwark, discovered the clothes which belonged to the deceased, together with a great great variety of implements, used by body-snatchers, viz. screw-drivers, wrenching machines for opening the lids of coffins, large and small gimlets, and other articles useful for such purposes. He also found instruments for breaking open the repositories of the living as well as those of the dead, for there were secreted under Huntington's bed a whole bunch of house-breaking apparatus, with skeleton keys, &c. of all sizes-The prisoners were remanded both on the charge of stealing the clothes, and that of having burglarious instruments in their possession.

10. FIRE. About 12 o'clock, noon, the Theatre Royal, Glasgow, was discovered to be on fire. The flames spread so rapidly, that, in a few minutes, the whole of the edifice was one burning mass. Notwithstanding the immediate arrival of the engines, all that could be done was, to prevent the flames from spreading to the adjoining houses; which was accomplished.

The fire, in the mean time, was raging throughout the whole of the theatre so furiously, that all attempts at saving the contents were useless, and, in the course of an hour, only the four outer walls remained standing. Not less than 1,500l. were lost in scenery, dresses, and other articles. The building itself was insured to nearly the amount of the purchase money. The roof of the New Exchange was several times nearly on fire; but, by the prompt exertions of those connected with the building, it was preserved. The whole of the corps dramatique were, at the moment of the discovery, engaged in rehearsing the play which was to have been acted in the evening, and, had it not been for one of the party who first discovered the flames, it was doubtful whether any one of the whole company would have escaped.— The origin of the fire was not ascertained.

12. PERJURY.-GUILDHALL.This was an indictment at the prosecution of Mr. Pearson, owner of a coal-wharf on the Thames, against Thomas Munton, one of the coal-meters of the corporation of London, for perjury. The defence was conducted by the corporation. Munton, it appeared, was no favourite with the coalmerchants, and having got himself into a quarrel, at the plaintiff's wharf, on the 4th December 1827, the plaintiff and certain other parties were tried for an assault. Mr. Pearson was found guilty, Munton having sworn positively that he was present, and joining in the assault. For having so sworn, he was now indicted for perjury.

Mr. Edward Field stated, that he was concerned as attorney for Mr. Pearson on the trial for the