Publisher's Synopsis
Excerpt from Report of the Case of Gosling V. Veley: In the House of Lords
The next case was Robert' 3 case (3rd Charla I.) (q). The inhabitants of Greenwich had sentence given against them in the spiritual court to pay a church-rate made by the churchwardens. They appealed to the Arches, and the sentence was confirmed. They then applied to the Court of King's Bench for a prohibition, and it was granted. The report stated, that the Court agreed that the tax cannot be made by the churchwardens, but by the greater number of the parishioners it may. This is one of the cases referred to by Sir Simon Deggc in the passage above referred to; it is obvious that, so far from supporting his view, it is directly to the contrary. It is also the first of several cases reported in the common law reports in which the Ecclesiastical Courts in the reigns of the Stuarts seem systematically to have decreed for payment of church-rates made by the churchwardens alone. The courts of common law, however, with the exception of the dictum in Tlmrqfiekl v. Jones, uniformly denied their legality; and after the case of Pierce v. Promo, in 7th William III., the spiritual courts appear to have abandoned the doctrine, until the deci sion in Gaudem v. Selby, in 1799, which, however, according to Dr. Lurkington, has not been acted upon since.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
