Durham Michaelmas Session...
(From Thie Dusrham L'ounb,Z 4dwrt!qiqp. 0. 1 lR _ *.. .7. ... ~ L -, "wuu wan y e uappeuafl;, Eau tue Rlev. Win. N'?esield respondent, and was an appeal against a ma- gistrate's order for the pa,yment of Easter-olTerings. ZZr. CooKsomtopened thecagse and addregsed the Bench atconsi- derable length. lie said he coul easaily ree why Peter Wa&~en had -resirted the claim: he was a sort of kniglit-errant-.a crusader against Eastsr.ofFerings, and travelled all over the country to raise an -opzosition to the payment of them. Hiscxertionswerenotsolely conined to the parish of Chester-le-street but hewas, in fact,4a iti- nerant, who went from place to placc, assemrbling multitudes of peo- ple, and persuasding them that Esster-oftThrings were an undue and an unlsawful exaction. He (IMIr. Cookson) knew this from a circum- stance that had occurrd in a part of the countrv with which he is intimately connected, viz. North Durhbm; where the appellant hadpromulgatedtothe inhabitants, that he had got Nr. Broughamn's opinion on the subject. and which waa against the legality of all BEaster.olierings, He (Mr. Cookror) was, however, happv to say, that another person, who was iritereste(i on the opposite side of tile question, had actually got the opiniorl ofthat ereatlawycr on it, and he stated that Easter.offeringa were due and payable of common rnght ! The origin of Easter-ofterings. euld not be satisfactorily traced, but their being due ef comlmon right wa% of course sufficient. He would now come to the township of Chester-le-streeL. Alr. Nes- field claimed 1. 8d. fromn Peter Watson, for two years' Bister of- ferings. Mr. Nes6~..'d ig the incumbent of.Chester-le-street, and of course entitled to the payment now demanded of Peter WVatson. Theie offerings were paid to different individuals, and in different places in difterent *manners. They would know that the first sten of Henry VILE., when he began his Reformation, and dissolved all the monasteries, the funds of which, by this measure, came into his possession, was to granrt them to lay persons, and that, under certain grants frorn him, not only great tithes, but also small tithes, obla- ttons, and Easter-ofFerings, became the property of lay-i'propria. tors. Alr. Nesfield had been the incumbent of Chester-le-street for 30 years, and had always claimed and received those Easter-offerings by common right and comnion usage, of every house in that town- ship, with the exception of two, the Deanery and Garden-house, as it vas a maxim in law " Ecelesia Ecclesih decimas non ol;it"4The church does not pay tithes to thechurch.) The sum de danded on the art of Mr. Nes. eld was tenpence; now, if a libe- ral and affluent iLi ividual chose to say, " Your demand is terpence, there is a pound note," that would not alter the custom ; diat was a present, a gratification; but it would not- alter the practice. He should call before them a number of witnesses, to show the unifortnity of the custom: the first would be the parish clerk, who would tell them, from the earilest period of bis recollection, their ancient usage and custom.l He also had other witnese,s; and he could produce books also to show, that they had been uniformly collected for a longer period: but it would perhaps only involve the case in greater mystery than it need be. He then called their attention to an act, the 7th and 8th of Williami III., chap. fi., an act for the more effectual recovery of small tithes. If Mr. Watson's witnesses can contradict the legality of Easter-offer- ings, fox God's sake let us have aiiend put to them, at least in the township of Chester.le.Street. Mfr. W1lLXINSON then proceeded to call William Pybus who said he had been parish clerk of Chester-le-street 30 years. Hie be- came a resident in the parish on the 1st of January, 1781. On the Easter Mionday in that year he was called upon bv Mlatthias V'Waiker, the agent of the then Curate (the Rev. John f4elson) to pay the Easter-offerings. He demanded the sun of tenpence, and the wit- ness not understanding ihe meaning of it, requested an ex- planation. He was told sizpcnce was paid for an oftering hen-one penny for smoke or reek moncy, and Utiree-1halfpetnee each for him.. self and wife, as communicants above the age of 16 years; and which he was informed was due from every occupier of a house or tenement in the parish. Ten years after (in 1791), he was employed bv the Rev. William Nesfield to collect the E;asLer dues, and WV'alker's son went roatnd the parish with him to show him; they called at every house in Chester-le-Strect, with the exception of two-the deanery and the garden.house-which Walker told him they never calledat. During the whole ten years before he began to collect the Easter dues he regularly paid them. Ever since his appointment as col- lector, he had uniformly received the dues, with the exception of the two houses already mentioned, and a few other instances, where the poverty of the p'stiea prevented an application being made. Where a house is let into tenements, every familv pays the same. Witness knows Peter Watson. and either he or his wife, he cannot preciselv recollect whicb, paid him lOd. for Faster-offerings in the year 181d, which was the first time his name was entered in the books. Ile has been a resident in Chester-le-Street ever since. In 1819 lie re- fused to pay them. A book was then produced, whicih contained the names of those who paid Easter dues in 1711. Thomasin Robson, a caunul titly-looking old woman, aged 85 years, who had lived abouiL 70 years in Cliester-le-street; Gcorge trown, aged 79- Robert Kav, aged 77; and Robert WVardroppcr, who had all liveti in Chester-le-street for almost all their lives, de- posed to Easter dues having been uniformly collected thiere. MIr. Losit, on the part of the appellant, then proceeded to ad- dress the jury. It was the duty of his learned friend (Mr. Coolt- son) to have proved more satisfactorily than he had donc, iUr. Ner. field's claim to those 13aster-oMfrings: the only way in which he had attemptel to show it ras custom. Ilis claim does inot appear in any other form than by usage. His learned friend had stated that the practice was uniforn; but how had le prove(d it? In some places, he tol(d them, they were paid to the rectors; in others, to the vicars; and in others to the lay im- propriators. M1r. Cooksoa had called Afr. Pybus, the parish clerk, wholproduced an old book-to do what? Wrhy, to show that Eaatsrofferints'wero due. Why, who ever denied it? I :.dmit that they are due; but the question is, to whom are they due ? and he thoaglht some stroager proof of the legality of M3r. Nesfield's claim should be produced before the Court could allow it. JFe vould call no witnesses, but left his case in the hands of the Bench. The Bench conferred, and it was unanimously decided that the magistrate's con victiun be confirmed. The Rev. Win. Nesfield and Alr. Peter Watson were both in court; the former on the Bench, but he retired, as did all the other clerical magistrates, before the Court decided the question. __1%=1*yWW DURhrA M NTCHA4R&.S SESSIONS. EASTER-OPFE1lrKGS.