PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss DUPLOCK
PETTY SESSIONS, TUESDAY.—Present: Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), Sir W. Knighton, J. H. Waddington, G. Forbes, and J. Martineau Esqrs.
— William Harrison v. Henry Hedger.—This was a summons for non-payment of wages. The case was partly heard last Bench day, and adjourned to enable defendant to bring forward his daughter, who was present when the agreement was entered into. Plaintiff’s version of the agreement was that he was to have 5l. up to Michaelmas and 7s. a week, and that, in addition to this, he was to board in the house during the harvest month. Defendant stated that the agreement was for 5l. and 7s. a week, except during the harvest month, and then he was to have his board in the house instead of the 7s. a week. The summons was for the 28s, thus accruing during the harvest month. Defendant’s account of the agreement was corroborated by his daughter, and the magistrates dismissed the summons.
— James Belton was charged, on the information of Samuel Carpenter, with trespassing in search of game on land in the occupation of Mr. Jas. Christmas, in the parish of Bramshott. Samuel Carpenter deposed: On the 15th October last, about three or four o’clock in the afternoon, I was in a field called the Sixteen Acres, in the occupation of Mr. J. Christmas. I saw Jas. Belton standing in the high road with a gun. He fired a double shot over into the Sixteen Acres. He then went in at the gateway, and about 35 yards into the field, where he picked up a cock pheasant and then returned through the gateway and went off along the road. I went after him, and overtook him about 120 yards on the road, he had a double barrelled gun. I said he had got where he had no business, he said he had business on the high road, I told him I just wanted to look at the pheasant he had killed; he said I should not. I put my hand in his pocket and found a pheasant, I then left him. Defendant denied having gone into the field and said that he met Carpenter in the road, who asked him to show him his licence, which he did; he never went into the field at all. Convicted, and a former conviction having been accorded against him, he was adjudged to pay a fine of 40s. and costs 5s. 6d. with the alternative of three weeks’ imprisonment. The money was paid.
— The Rev. J. M. Sumner v. the Overseers of Buriton, Petersfield, and Sheet. This was an appeal against the poor’s rate. Mr. Charles Sumner, Barrister, (Chancellor of the Diocese), appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Albery (of Midhurst), for the Overseers of the several parishes. Mr. Charles Sumner in opening the case suggested that the three should be taken together, as they were precisely similar, and the same principle must govern the whole. Mr. Albery raised a preliminary objection to the appeal being heard at all in the cases of the Parishes of Buriton and Sheet on the ground that it came too late; the rate in these cases having been made on the first of April, and two sessions for hearing appeals having been held since that time, viz. on the 4th of May and the 10th of August; whereas it had been ruled that an appeal must be made ‟at the next practicable sessions after the rate had been made.” This objection being deemed valid by the Bench, the case of Petersfield alone was proceeded with. The notice of appeal having been produced and read, and the rate duly proved, Mr. Charles Sumner rose and opened his case, contending that Buriton-cum-Petersfield constituted together but one benefice, in proof of which he cited the fact that the Incumbent was instituted to the whole living by one deed of collation—which he put in evidence. He also referred to Bacon’s Lyme Regis, to show that Buriton paid tenths to Queen Anne’s Bounty, but that Petersfield did not, from which he contended that they formed but one benefice. He then cited 1 and 2 Vict. c. 106, s. 78, to show that where the Incumbent is unable to perform all the duties of a benefice, the Bishop may require the appointment of a Stipendiary Curate to assist in those duties. Such Stipendiary Curate was employed for the Petersfield parish, with the tithings of Sheet, Lower Nursted, & Lower Weston. The learned gent. then referred to the case of Regina v. Goodchild, which was decided in the Court of Queen's Bench last February, when it was held by Mr. Justice Coleridge that where an Incumbent gave himself heartily to his work, and was unable to perform all the duties of his benefice, the stipend paid to a Curate, for the performance of duties which such Incumbent was unable to perform himself, ought to be deducted in the assessment of the rent charge. On these grounds he contended that the appellant was entitled to a reduction in his assessment equivalent to the stipend which he pays annually to the Curate of Petersfield, viz., 130l. He called the Rev. John Maunoir Sumner who deposed: I am the appellant in this case; am Rector of Buriton-cum-Petersfield. I produce the deed of collation, also receipts for tenths which I have paid to the Governors of Queen Anne’s Bounty. I have never paid any separate tenths for Petersfield. I reside at Buriton. I have appointed a Curate for Petersfield, at 130l. per annum, besides fees and Easter Offerings. The churches of Buriton and Petersfield are more than two miles apart. I have two full services every Sunday at Buriton, and there are three full services at Petersfield.—Cross-examined by Mr. Albery: There are three separate rent charges for Buriton, Petersfield, and Sheet; the senior curate has the spiritual care of Petersfield, Sheet, Lower Weston, and Lower Nursted, excepting that the Assistant Curate takes the charge of Sheet. There are separate Registers for Buriton & Petersfield. The Registers of Lower Nursted and Lower Weston are included in Petersfield, the registers are kept in the vestry-room in charge of the curate, the senior curate is not removable at the will of the rector, no curate has been appointed by the bishop.—Mr. Albery rose and addressed the bench at considerable length, contending that Buriton and Petersfield were for all purposes two separate benefices; that the rector held one and the curate the other; that the rector, being non-resident, the curate was his substitute, and not merely his assistant; and with regard to the case of the Queen v. Goodchild, on which so much reliance was placed on the other side, he did not think it applied, inasmuch as in that case there was clearly but one benefice, whereas here there were two. Again, even assuming that an allowance were made, it would be next to impossible to apportion the reduction fairly between the three parishes—The magistrates retired to consider their decision, and on returning into court the Chairman announced that they were of opinion that Buriton-cum-Petersfield formed but one benefice, and this decision was mainly based on the fact that there was but one collation. Then looking to the case of Regina v. Goodchild, and having regard to Mr. Justice Coleridge’s decision in that case, the magistrates had decided that the appellant was entitled to a reduction for the stipend paid to a curate, and therefore the appeal was allowed. Then came the difficulty of apportioning the reduction, and on this point the magistrates had decided that the proportion to be reduced for the parish of Petersfield (which was the only case before them), should be equivalent to the proportion of the rent charge of that parish to those of Buriton and Sheet, and the adjudication of this point was postponed to that day fortnight.