While  the  matter  appears  quite  anomalous,  and  contrary  to  the  general  ecclesiastical
law  of  the  country,  how  far  a  Court  of  Law  or  Equity  might  support  the  application


3  PHILL  ECC.  17.  ANDREWS    V.   LITTON  1245

if  there  is  any  trust,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say.  But  for  an  Ecclesiastical  Court  to  support
the  contribution,  it  must  be  shewn  to  have  been  legally  laid.  I  know  of  no  authority
[17]  but  that  of  Parliament  which  can  authorize  a  levy  different  from  that  which  the
general  law  allows.
How  the  chapel  wardens  are  constituted  does  not  appear,  or  bow  the  vestry  is
constituted  or  of  whom.  The  law  knows  no  vestry,  but  of  the  parishioners — here
they  may  be  all  foreigners.  I  doubt  whether  any  authority  could  establish  such  an
institution,  except  Parliament.  If  it  is  to  be  considered  as  a  mere  private  agreement,
they  must  go  to  other  authority  than  this  to  enforce  it.
I  think  they  have  not  set  up  a  case  which  this  Court  can  enforce.  I  shall  reverse
the  sentence  of  the  Court  below,  and  reject  the  libel.
[18]   Andrews  v.  Litton.     Arches  Court,  Michaelmas  Term,  Nov.  11th,  1818.—

Sentence  of  an  inferior  Court  in  a  tithe-cause  reversed.
(An  appeal  from  the  Consistory  Court  of  Salisbury.)

Judgment — Sir  John  Nicholl.  This  was  originally  a  suit  for  subtraction  of  tithes
commenced  in  November,  1815.  A  libel  and  schedule  were  brought  in — answers  were
given  to  the  libel,  and  a  sum  paid  into  Court — three  witnesses  were  examined  on  the
libel:  and,  on  the  16th  of  May,  1817,  sentence  was  given;  from  that  sentence  this
appeal  is  interposed.
