Court Of Exchequer, Satur...
in tluls case a bill was filed by the plaintiff, the Reverend H. B. Owen, as rector of St. Olavc's, Hlart-street, to enfoice the payment of tithes by the defendant, in respect of his house in Crutched- fin.ts. The plaintid by this bill claimed 2s. 9d. in the pound upon the rent or value of the defendant's uremises, under a decree made in pursuance of an act of Parliament; passed in the 37th year of the reign of Henry VIII.; but if that title failed him, in consequencc of the non-enrilment of the decree, as objected by the defendant, he then claimed 3s. 5d. in the pound, under the 27th of Henry VII I.; and if that title also falled, he then founded his claim upon the custom and usage, which had existedI from timie inmorial before the passing of those acts, of certain sums of money, in the nature of oblations or offeriags, being paid on certain days in the year by the parishioners to the incumbent. The bill, after going on to state the Period for which the defendant owed tithes, concluded by prayinz that he might be called on to account, &c,, in the usual form. To this bill the defendant demurred, on the ground of multifariousness; and that demurrer camine on to bc argued to-day. The Cosm:boN SEIGEANT, Mr. ABEaCitoSIBE, and ir. ROE, appeared in su,'port of the demurrer, and argued that as tie bill contained three different clainis, founded upon diff:rent and distinct titles, all inconsistent with, and destructive of, each other, the defendant ought not to be bound to answer it; for, as it was quite Clear that two oat of the three titles set forth by the plaintiff must be bad, it would be imposing an un- juSt and unnecessary expense and trouble upon the defendant to oblige him to make out a defence to the three cascs instead of one. Air. AlAtTlsN (with whom was Mr. SPENCE) was proceeding to reply in support of the bill, when lie was intemipted brv The CotIRT.-The bill contained substantially but one claim- namely, tithestdue in respectof the defendant's house, althouigh the plaintiff hal set forth the diff'ercnt grounds upon which he con- ceived that claim might be foutded. A demurrer for multifatious- ness could only be sustained where the plaintiff'sued different per- sonS on different rights in one bill. So far from imposing additional expense upon the defendant, by including each of the several POs- sible titles he might have to the tithes in q4ucstion in one bin, Uhead in point of fact adepted the Icast expenstie course, by refrainibg from filing three separate bills; vrhichi, if the a unnents in support of the demurrer were well founded, hc must otiherwise have done. Their lordships were clearly ef opinion, therefore. that thedemurrer must be overruled. This decision leaves the case precisely in the same situation as be- fore the demurrer was taken, as the ilefenidant will now have to plead to the bill. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. SATURDAY. MAY 22. LONDON TITHES.-OWEN. CLERK. V. NODY.