Law Report.
~tLL. ~.ACJLuIreduet ass adctre8s In SUPPort of the moition. There could be no complaint in equity, of the suspension, becmuse it operated nothking to the reduction of the functions and chiiractcr of Mr. Fletcher merely as a minister. Trhe Lostn CUAIMELLCRn-14ISat power bas the Synod,accord.. Ia t the lzw ot Scotland, with respect to the funds of the chiapel an.dt Mr4 Fletcher's salar,y? Mr. RAXTISDY.-N`One vwhatever. The LORD C2HANCELLoR.-Then whiat have I to do w,ith it? Can I put my prohibition upon any man to prevcnt hiis going intoa_ particular pulpit, independent of any qestion of properly? It ia only with respect to properEy that I muithfre any jurisdiction at all in thte case ? Mfr. RAMITUY said that the interfeasnee of the Court was asked with respect to the property in trust. which west the chapel. Thie LORD~ CHtAwCEttOR wlshed tO hear what WaS the injunc. tion which they prayed for. If the law of Scotbind left the Synoed no power with respec-t to property, what harlthisCourttro do teith thle puilpit of Mlr. Fletcher? _ Alir. RAITr1fnY contended, that thp pew-tents presented a tarigibie and cflective object of trust prep,rty, whic-h broughti the casqe clearly within th jturisdiction, He tditited that they-nust prepare them. selves with mote strict information as to the law of Scotland. The reason Why they were so ill prepared upon that point, was, that there wa.% no precedent.; in no insitance hod any congrejeatien attemapted di6sobedience to thie Synlod: thtat wras reserved for the congregatior Of Aiblon Chiapel. fie complainted of the contumiacious nature of the flidavits mnade by 16 of the trustees, who had siginified their dr.. teri.ination, in any case. to brek afith stith thieSynod; end, shiould the sentence of the C,-urt he against therm, to bufid another chapel for AIr. Fletcher. Thie LoRD CHAN C ELLORt saidl, that the case cited yeateidsv hiad gone baLck te the Court of Sessions for review, and was again berore the tiouse of Lords. uipn interlocutory appeal but it did not appeai what became of it. fle had heard that tit wa.scompromiised. Undoubt. edlyit did not apeeir what was the law ofScotland with respecttsothe administration or thze chtapel funds. He apprehendtd that the ma. nagers found that a very unmanageable question. ,51r. R{AITfHDJY contenided, that, Mlr. Fletcher's salJary and profits apart, he wasi answerable in this Court for breakinz the trust of i contract into whiich hie had solemnly andsdeliberately zatered. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he! might as, well be asked for an injuncticen to restrain the mob from breakng the windows of thle chiapel. 4ir. RtAJ THE3Y Said. the- law hiad pro-idedt a remedy fur thazt but ti'e remiedyv soughit hiere was that which lay winh the Court, to preyent Mlr. Fletcher from preaching contrary to the authority of the Svnod, because by so dloingi the trus4t property wsotild be damagzed, it not destroved. Th'lere was no doubt of Allt. Fletcher hav-ingbrokcnr hiiwcontract: If the Synod were not acknowledged, Albion Chapel mustt sink. The LORDT CHANrCELLOR said that this Court couldi only lhave jurisdiction by the trust deed. The rnly quiestion was,what e had he by thiat deed ? WhIat was it thaLt was asked of him?n I a Mlr. SISADWELL said, thiat some of thu trustees wer eniged with IM r. Fletcher In an obvious breachi Of the trust, and, indepet.- dently of the consideration of the Synod, or of any, other mode of church discipline, thte interests of p?rolperty ,:;ested' under the good faith of ra trust were in danger. Thiey held fTrcible possession of the Ichiapel, andI re-gulated it contrary to the declarations of the dced which made their trustees. The LoirD CIIANCE:LtOaX said, that there wag nio aLfidavit of the sentence,norof the offence with whi-ch Air. Fletcher was charged. It appeared that lie wasi only removable: for " error in dloctrine" ot "4matverse in conversation ;- hut ihete was no oftence specitfiedl whichi agreed with thii description. Atir. Fletcher's affidavi! stated, that he had uindergone an action for breac-h of' promise of marriage. Was that "1malverse in conversation ?" Thte peculiarity of this case was, that if ho wecre to grant an, injunction, considering tile lengtli of the period of the suspension, it would have the effectA of a tdecree. Couild it be pretended that he coDuld issue a decree without havinig all that made out by affidavits? - He wished to hear what was the "1malv'erse in conversation" attribu-ted te Al-l. Fletcher. Mlr. SHADWELL. showed, from Mfr. Fletcher's affildavit, the ad. missi4on of the facts, withi rertisect to the breach of promise ofrasrriage. The LoRDi CHAN CELLOR. asked if it was to be contenided that an actLion for bieach ot promisie of marriage was a "malverse in con. versation" cogniTeable by the Synod. Alr. SHAD WELL. said it was so contended. IThe LORDOHANCELLORL said that Mlr. Fletcher's statement was.,;, that ne was sue4 in the Court of King's; Benchi for breach of promise of marriage with the daughter Of a inember off the Synodl, a'nd thiac nobody appearee. Mlr. SriADWItLL offrcd to read extract from the tminuates of the Presbyterian Synod, to mnake out the sentence of suspension. Mlr. BoRtwy. objected to the admission. ofthis evidence. The SostC1TOii-GE?cgaAL* said, that if the gentlemen were de- werntined to tak-e that grountt of' objection, he mastrequest the Court. to let, the case stand over till they could obtain more regular proof. The L,otRD CnAsJCE,LaOR.-Yes ; but what am I to dlo with thie objec:tion in the mieani time ? The extracts were read, subject to the argumnent in objection. Mr. SHADWELL thought 'ha.t this was evidence enough of the sentence for the purposes of the miotion, It wns niot incumbent uip. on thein to defenid the sentence df the Synod, nor to showv that Mlr. Fletcher's conduct amounted to " malverse in conversation." The Syno hndderenuind th tac, an totheir authiority Al r. Fletclher had romsedhisobeiene uderthetrust. The Lon CIINCS'.LOtt toughtthat this. was a cas;e of per- sona wrrg,if ny, uchmor fiforan application to th-e Court of Kings Bnch Hewised he ounelto show him any one instance 4in whicit the Court had interfered unid-r such circumstanices.? Coulid he say to Mr. 1Fletcher, "1 Keep out Of that pulpit., or I will dlirect that none of the trrst-funde shall be paid intto your handst ?" The minlister was hounid by, the deed, but he was als'o to hauve the benefit of thiedeed. If suspersion did deprive him of the righitof going intot the pulpit, lie had no m-ore righit to enter it than any- othecr person: but tile casge must be dclarly muade out. L'e did nut nlow say how far tthis might go in a motion to restrain, the trustees from an abuise of thetrut-fnds bu agin e akedforany instance in wlitich the Cour hai enjineda prache fro ewig alto a Particular. Pulpit. Mr. HADELL aid tht th Co,rtunqneqtionabl.y had jitris.. dictio overthe tustee to peventthem rot abusing tfieir trust, b v alloing r. letcer o prachcontaryto thie provisions of tlb deed ifno odercoul heobtanedneajss iltr. Fletcher. an or- dter against the trustees, which was the seconid prayer of the petition, wouild be an equal!y efFectual injuttiEtion. He therefore applied him.- self to thie evidence and the usage (a mo-de of proof admnissible in thiese cases bv the role laid down- by his lordship in the "Attornee. General v. Pi-arson"). to show thiat IC of the 2G trustees actually in.- vaded the trust, by aliowing Mr. Fletcher to preach contrary to tlile order of' the Synod. Atir. SWAN-followCed On the same sitde, arid in-ferred tle coi.tract into which Mlr. Fletcher tacitly entered to eobey the Synod, by tltu- inherer.t necessity in thie Presbytery to maintain its own peculiar order and discipline, In the absence of such a motive, tUere could be nio fouindation for the Burgher Synod : ethe Established C;hurrh of' Scotland would be quite enough frr the spiritual wants of sitec people. It was that artier and discipline forr which the Sy-nod con- tended, and net for any of the emolumients, ot' the chapel. MVr. HiART appeared for tite trustees, coinpared with whose in- terests that of Mtr. Felecher was next to itothiuig. tle Observed upon the absurdi4y of the notion which seenied to Prevail on the other side, that this Court wasgbound to secureobeufieneeto every religious body constituting itself into f~ church government. So'widely hatd this. opinion been advanced, that one of his learned friends had asserted, Ccno matter what was lthe sentence-whether just or unjust-Air. Fletchier had nothing to do but to obey." No matter thioughi the scn. tence should exceed in cruelty any, tning adjudicatted in Algiers, thisz Court had nothing to do but to enforce obedience to the Synod. lilt. Fletcher would be defended better thata by hiim, whio appeared on behalf of If, of' the trustees to entreat the COutrt not to interrupt that flow of income into the chapel upon which the trustees had to rely, for puaying the rests and she interest of loans, to the payment of which thiey had hound themnselves. Suppase the Couirt s-hould, reatrRin Alr. Fletchier from preaching, the congrepation would follow him inito anothier chapel, and the deputies trom the S :,iod wouild take possession ofthtle churc-h; the rents and profits won id be nearly abolishe-d. What aiiswer would the trustees hiave to give to those to whomi they were bound to pay rerut, together with instal- ments and interest ef loans, oni receipt of the rent and profits of the cLhapel ? If titese resources faitled them, what"would they have to. o bitt to pu~t upj the chapel for sale to arty one who chose to buy it, thouigh it mi5ht he immediate-ly converted into a warehouse? And in that event the Solicitor-.General could not come here for a moo. tion to restrain thein, because their conduct would lie onlv' the di- rect and inevitable consequence of the sentence of the CourL. The Iadmsittiztration of the chapel funds was in the trustees : the sularv 1of thte minister depended on the maj6rity, not of the Synod, bat of the congregation. This was as clear fromn the deed as the general anti un9tue-tioned right otf the Synod to direct and order the disci- pline et the chiurchi. AllI the argumnents connected with the general safety of property militated against the -right et' thos-e-clergyment-de- puted by the Synod, to eniter the pulpit, contrary, as it must niani. tfestly, lo, to the assent of the majority of the congregation. The Synod admitted the right of that majoritv in nomnination, but re-. serred their absolute an-d unquulified right io suispend. if thjey had such a right, they might repeat the exercise of it so as entirely to de- feat the w;ill of the majority of the congregation. The Loan CHANWCELLOR said, that there was no evidence of what thie rules and c4onstitutisnal ordeir. of the Presbyter were. AMr. HAIST saidt that there was no such. evidence. Tie leanitA gentleman commented on the Synodical proceedings againsvt Alr- Fletcher, which he tbought were chargedt with muclt passion and prejdice If hey ere incee an cadid, and jtust aind impartial, as tey ugh tohavebee, wy dd tey insert an the preamble of theisenencs grbld ad ivered tatmen oftheproceed,~.i the our ofKin's Bnch Wh dii tenoatncead lt oneof hei ow boy, Ir Dik, ad o cmplinof abraho faithf ha lie ad clfedMr. Fetchr to nswe forit inth .~r of King's Bench-that Mlr. Dick was defendled by the ablest cusl and yet found his. case so infirm that he proposed a compromsise He admitted that hbe had nothing to complain of in Mr. Fletcheers conduict which-could be visited by the Tenerigence of the C-ourt. His metive was a dread lest the chairacter of his daughter should have been stigmatized. by the neglect of Air. Fletcher. He 2ccptei of bMr. Fletcher's handsomne and unqualified testinionv in favour of his daughter's chiaracter, and M1r. Fletcher, qeite suire of a verdict if the cause ham~ been Pressed, offered to pay the costs of suit. Was that a ground of mnisconduct ?-_was that a statementupon which the inter- ference of sthe Court could be asked?, Re cotended that the rha. eil was no:hing more than a congregation of individuils bound as far as they might choose to observe the directions and distciline of the Synod, but answerable in no way to that Synod in regat to the management of the chapel property. The LORD CHANCELLOR saide knew nothing ofthu rules asd - constitution of the Synod. How did they rake ut. lln action .r a breach of promise of marriage a spiritual offence ? Suppose they succeeded in eloing it, would this Court iBterfere to euiforce a trust. the obligation of which must be that the minister shal not subject himself to a chargc of breach of promise ef marriage? Coula he de- viate so far from the general nature of trusts, and the coommon obli- gations of comton contract ? At any rate lie coald not do it with- oat knowing more of the constitution ofthe Synod. Mr. tloRNtE appeared for AIr.Fletcher, and felt much relieved by the effect of the proccelings, which had nearly divested the whole of the petition. The owily remainingquestIoR ias one offoreign jaUis. diction, which mustin this Court be treated ots the fooeing of matter of fact. There could be no case, unless the constitutiorn. -rules of the Synod were before tle Court. It had been argued that-they hnd notling to do bu produce thesentence of the Synod. Iar it teally the law that there was nothitig satnting byu the sentence of a forci,n Court, no matter how incongruutis ani Unjust, to eniltle thtm to the interference of the Court ? They could not he striouR in sach an, assumption. Not only mast 211 Ote facts be madeout by evidence, but theexact state of the cae now befoze ibe Court mugt- be s clearly gni"de out. A bill had been filed eatly in November, anai Ir. Fletcher itad nio timie td put in an answer, nor to consult with his leFal advisers before the notion for injunction c, ains upon hirn. Dir. Fletcher might hiave sat by, and h,ard their caw out, and scen it-fail alto.tether fo. wrant of correct and sufficient evidencei. Injunctior wasdue in cases of irremediable mischief; but wiere was the proof of it in this case? There was no objection to his doctrinese and the Solcitor-General observed, rather too quai-intly forcomnmon apptehensrion, that lie (did not oppose Dlir. Fletcher's preaching as a preacher. Mhat injury, then, had they to allege? The irreme(liable mischief to Alr. Fletcher was obvious. The injunction not to preachi wotild nor only deprive him of his emoluients, but wiould Actaally divest him of Christian fellowehip. 'Vould the Court, upon the mere as%ertion alnd presumption of the jtstice of the Synodical gentence, inflict this extent of wrong ? He did not say that a case eould liot be nmade out to the degree of crimi- nation in which MLr. FletCher was stai4 te be involved; but there must be evidence of all the proceedings against him so ns to satisfy the Court of the justice of tile sentence. The arguttent which sought to connect AIr. Fletcher with the trust wax a? ridiculous as Inaing the chaplail of the Lord Alayeo a part of the corporgtion. ilr. Fletcher could not tottch one penny of the. trust funls, nor wens he it any way con- fttid with the trust. Mr. Raithby bad worked hiimself up to such a pitch of feeling, that being calleA upon for an example, he atssured the Court that there was none of rebellion against the decree of the Synod in Scotland. Then what becamiie of their case? They bdd been repeatedly called on by the Court to show what was the law of Stotland with iespeet to the punishmetit of that spiritual disobedi- ence. Their answer was, that there was no exarnle of it in Scot- land. Then there could be neither ease, nor precedent, nor rule of any sort, to be derived from the civil law of Se-dand, for the guid- ance of the Court, in app lying an snalogotis remedy. Every thing in the laws afeetilig real property in England was agaist them. 'Further bearing postponed till Monday. VIC13CIHANCELI,OR'S COLRT, FRIDAY, NOV. 19. lROO};E V. A2NSTON AND ANOTHEI. kr. KIrGnT moved, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the bill in this suit should be restored to tbe files of the court, whence it had been dismi.sed for w,nt of prosecution. He made this motion on an affidavit of the plaintiff and his attorney, in which it was stated that the suit had becn procecuted until the answer of the defendant was obtained. A delay then took place owing to the plasittifFhaving ex. hausted his finds, and being without the means of taking any ftur- tlter proceedings. Thc attorney stated, moreover, that by somne mis. apprehension of the exact limit of the time aUowed by the Court to Proceed in a suit after the defendant's answer should be put in, it had ben inadvertently exceeded, and. that it was his intention, as well as his client's not t, have allowed 'he whole of the time to ex- pire. Botb of the deponents stated, th3t, upon ihe merits disclosedl by the bill and angwer, there was no doubt that the plaintiff' would be e:ntitled to recover of one or both the defendants to an amount which, in hisrcnuis,aiesq would be very considerable. - 'rhe VtCE-CHAN CcLT.OR asked. when the answer was filed. Air. NIuGHT answered, that it was in October, 1823. \r. WRAY, for the detendiants, opposed the motion. He con. V,,k ged that thestateinents in thc affidavits were not sucb As to entitle Xtie plaintiffto any extention of the time allowed by the rules of the Court. If the application were to be met upon the merits, he would be content to let its deciiion rest solely upon the contents of tlte an- swer, whici effectually barred the plaintiff's claim. The know- ledge of this f>sct, and not the want ot means to pursue the cause, was the real cause that the plaintiff hadl so long delayed his pro. The VrCERCMANCELrOR said, there was no pretence for thist mnotion. The Court in its most extensive indulgence allowed a period of nine months_sonmctimes a little longer-to plaintiffs, for the purpose of considering the answers which might be given tn their bill% of complaint, and of deciding whether they would con- tinue or withdraw their suit. In many instances this period of delay was so inconvenient to the enIs of iustice, that it might be said to be a disgrace to the practice of thie (%ourt. Nothing but its absolute necessity in sonie caes, and the reluctance which the Court alwavs felt to leave open the smallest possibility of a wrong being dotre, could justify its existence. Whenever applications were made to extend this already too lone period, the greatest caution and jealousy must be exercised to see that the pretence upon which such applica- tions were made. was founded upon the strictest justice and the exi- gence of the case. The facts now disclosed to the Court were esta- blished on no sitch foundation: the onie depot;ent saig he was with. Out means to prosecute his suit-a reason which the Court could not listen to, becauXse it rnight be opening the dcoor to a very dangerouR p#actice; and the other~ that he wassnot aware of the rules of the Ctourt. For the protection of the suitors, and for the credit of the Coturt, this application must be dismissed, and with costs. LA) VAPpoar. COURT OF CUANCRRY. FrtTnAv. Nnr Id - PRESBYTZRIAN SYNOD V. REV. A. FLETCREP.