Consistory Court, Carlisle - Cumberland and Westmorland Newspaper Transcriptions

Consistory Court, Carlisle

      CONSISTORY COURT, CARLISLE
                    ~~~~~~*~~~~~

The Worshipful the Chancellor of the Diocese held his usual Court in the
Consistory Court of the Cathedral yesterday (Thursday) morning, G. G.
MOUNSEY, Esq, attending as Registrar of the Diocese.

The proctors present were S. SAUL, Esq. and H. DOBINSON, Esq. There were
likewise present, Mr. Canon GIPPS, the Rev. Mr. TIREMAN, the Rev. Mr.
STEGGALL, Mr. John MOUNSEY, and Mr. WALDIE.

Several causes were called by the Registrar, but no proceedings ensued
thereupon.

            CALTHROP    v.    SINGLETON

This is a suit, promoted by the Rev. Robert Gordon CALTHROP, Clerk, Master
of Arts, Perpetual Curate of the parish of Drigg, within the diocese of
Carlisle, against Isaac SINGLETON, of the said parish of Drigg, farmer,
under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, passed in the 6th and 7th year
of the reign of KING EDWARD VI, whereby it is enacted

"That if any person whatsoever shall at any time after the first day of May,
in the year of Our Lord 1552, by words only, quarrel, chide, or brawl, in
any church or churchyard, that then it shall be lawful unto the ordinary of
the place where the same offence shall be done and proved by two lawful
witnesses, to suspend any person so offending (that is to say) if he be a
layman 'ab ingressiae Ecclesiae', and if he be a Clerk, from the
ministration of his office, for so long a time as the said ordinary shall be
his discretion think meet and convenient, according to the fault."

The promoter charges the defendent that on the 5th of April last, at a
public vestry of the inhabitants, holden in the vestry-room, situate in the
churchyard of the said parish of Drigg, and adjoining and communicating with
the parish church, called for the purpose of examining the churchwardens'
accounts, and also of appointing churchwardens for the ensuing year, he, the
defendant, did violently and loudly quarrel, chide, and brawl, with the
promoter, who then occupied the chair at the said vestry meeting, using the
following expressions: - "You are a liar -- you know you are.    I can
prove you to be a liar."

The CHANCELLOR now delivered his judgment. After stating the circumstances
of the case, and reciting the evidence, which has already been given at
length in this paper, the judge proceeded with his decision. This, said the
Chancellor, is the whole of the evidence to which I need refer. I have
passed over a great deal which has been delivered, as irrelevant, and the
citing of which would be of no advantage to either of the parties. I have
now, in the first instance to determine whether the defendant did commit the
offence charged upon him; that is, the offence of quarrelling, chiding, or
brawling in the church or church-yard of the parish of Drigg. It has been
proved that the vestry-room within which the offence is alleged to have been
committed is within the meaning of the statute, it forming a part of the
church, and the only access to it being through the chancel. It has been
proved though, as was to have been expected (the several witnesses did not
depose exactly alike on the whole of the expressions used) that the
defendant did call the promoter a liar, did quarrel, did chide, did brawl.
It is clear that such offensive language was spoken by the defendant as no
man ought to use in any place whatever, and more especially in any portion
of a building set apart for the service of God.

No plea can be received that the defendant had had cause of offence from Mr.
CALTHROP at a previous time. If Mr. CALTHROP had occasioned the quarrel by
any irratating observation at this vestry applying personally to the
defendant, while it could not justify it might be admitted in palliation on
the ground of surprise; but it is shown plainly enough by the several
witnesses that Mr. CALTHROP gave no provocation, nor does it appear that he
used an angry word on the offensive expressions of the defendant. One of
the witnesses produced for the defence says that "Mr. CALTHROP and Mr.
PATTENSON both talked very fast" ; and another, John BAILIFF, that "Mr.
CALTHROP was talking very loud, which they all were." I am glad that I can
exonerate Mr. CALTHROP from any charge of unseemly behaviour at this
meeting. The evidence fixes none upon him although under great provocation.
The defendant himself began the quarrel as between him and Mr. CALTHROP, and
consequently a sentence must issue against him. If Mr. CALTHROP had failed
in his duty in the points to which the defendant adverted there was a proper
authority for him to apply to; instead of which he endeavoured, and, as it
appears, successfully, to disturb a meeting which had been summoned for
other purposes, regardless of the place in which it was holden.

It is alleged by the defendant that Mr. CALTHROP accepted on the 9th of
April, an apology, and so condoned the offence; and the evidence proves the
allegation. Now, if the matter at issue were only personal between Mr.
CALTHROP and the defendant, the former would be barred from any proceeding
whatever, and I should have been bound on that showing to put an end to the
suit. It is, however, a public offence; the promoter is not the only, or
the principal, party against whom it has been committed; there is a higher
concern in it than his personal feeling; and thus it is that of which this
court must take cognizance, however brought before it, and to which
condonation cannot be pleaded;    "The object of the statute not being to
protect the individual, but the sacredness of the place." -- (Sir John
Nichol AUSTIN v. DUGGER. -- Phillimore.) It happens that Mr. CALTHROP,
the party personally agrieved - of whom, and to whom the offensive words
were applied - has made himself the promoter; but that circumstance does
not take away the public character of the offence.

Certainly it was at the discretion of him, or any of the parishioners, to
make the complaint; but the churchwardens, to whom the peace of the church
is entrusted, would have been the more fitting, and, I may say, the more
safe promoters. Of this I shall have occasion to say something presently;
my only view at this point is to let it be seen that whatever right of
personal complaint the defendant may have against Mr. CALTHROP; in his
accepting and afterwards renouncing an apology, it cannot be brought in
justification: I can know of no condonation in that respect of a public
offence.

The Chancellor continues...........

The confession, the contrition, or the reparation which may have been
exhibited by any offending party may be considered in the awarding of a
penalty, but they cannot get rid of a fact. It seems, from all I gather out
of the evidence, that for some time previous to this vestry meeting,
misunderstandings and contentions had been very prevalent in the parish. I
am not called upon to say, and I have, indeed, no means of judging, who are
the blameable parties in that unfortunate and discreditable state of things;
but it is quite manifest that if the parish were otherwise well ordered,
such a scene could not have taken place as is proved to have taken place in
the vestry room on Easter Monday last.

The meeting was one of uproar and confusion; so much so that the
churchwardens would not remain in the room. I can scarcely imagine anything
more disgraceful with relation to the circumstances; and I cannot pass too
strong a censure upon it. As I have said already there were other means for
trying the reality, and obtaining the redress of any alleged grievances;
and it is inexcusable that persons should bring forward complaints where
they can be neither remedied nor inquired into. The general temper of the
meeting must have had its effect on the defendant, who would feel encouraged
in his attack on Mr. CALTHROP by the disturbance around him. I must convey
an admonition, and express a hope, that all parties, reflecting calmly, and
seriously, and honestly, on the condition in which the parish has been
placed, and the very undesirable figure in which it appears before the
public, will set themselves to bring about a different and a better state of
things. I do not, I repeat, say who may have been to blame originally; but
I may say that it will be the most proper and the wisest way for all to
pursue that each should ask himself, whether 'he' is faultless in the case;
and that each should, by future abstinence from offience, and by future
forbearance, assist to the restoration and in the maintenance of the peace
of the parish.

The sentence which my duty will oblige me to pass on the defendant, and the
delivery of which I shall reserve until I shall have considered the question
of costs, will, I do trust, have some influence in preventing a repetition
of such conduct as has been exhibited, by inducing him to look carefully
into what has occurred, and make him understand, that, however he may have a
grievance, imaginary or real, he is not to set law and decency at defiance
for the gratification of his irriated feelings.

I am now to consider the question of Costs. While, generally, a penal
sentence will carry costs with it, or it is usual to award them against a
convicted defendant, the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts have always
recognised exceptions; at some time, leaving each party to pay his own;
and, at others either naming a specific sum to be paid by the defendant,
'nomine expensarum' ; or directing a specific sum to be deducted, in the
first instance, from the promoter's costs, and the remainder to be charged
on the defendant. Thus, the Consistory Court of London condemned a
defendant to be suspended for one fortnight 'ab ingressu Ecclesiae', and in
thirty-five pounds 'nomine expensarum'.

The same Court condemned two defendants, in two several suits, promoted by
the same individuals, at the same time, and arising from the same
circumstance, to be "suspended from entering the Church for the space of one
week, and in the costs save and except thirty pounds." (WILLIAMS v. HALL.
WILLIAMS v. FARLAR.   Curteis, 1, 611-13) That the Court may, though giving
sentence against a defendant, refuse costs to the promoter altogether, is
sufficiently evidenced. This is a very wholesome discretion in the hands of
the Judge; it enables him to look to the conduct of both parties in a suit;
and it gives the means at once of marking the conduct of a promoter when it
sees cause of disapproval, and of mitigating the severity of a sentence
where mitigation may be consistent with justice. What am I to do in the
case before me ?

A sentence must go against the defendant; but, is there anything in the
circumstances which would make the infliction of the full costs too heavy a
penalty in the view I must take of them ? Or, is there anything in the
conduct of the promoter, or has he in any way put himself into a position
which should decide me to incline to that exercise of my discretion, which
consists in a total or a partial abatement of the costs ?

The defendant has committed a grave offence, calling for what shall shew the
sense entertained of it by the Court, and which ought to induce him to such
thoughts and feelings as may make his future conduct some reparation for the
past; and, if this suit had been promoted by the parties, whose more
especial duty it was to bring him before this Court, the churchwardens, or
some circumstances had not happened which I am about to notice, I should
have felt no scruple, and have had no hesitation, in fixing the whole of
them upon him.

But, I must look further, and satisfy myself, whether the promoter stands
'Rectus in Curia'; if he do, there can be no doubt with me that he is
entitled to his costs; if he do not, my discretion must be exercised, on a
careful review of the circumstances which may be regarded as affecting that
part of the question.

The Chancellor continues......

In the first place, Mr. CALTHROP appears as the Promoter of the Suit, by
reason of a personal offence. Following the rule of the learned judges who
have presided in others of our Ecclesiastical Courts, I have no intention in
any case, where the necessity is not imposed upon me, of inquiring into the
motives of prosecution; where it has not been made palpably to appear
otherwise, I must assume the dictate to be that of a sense of justice;
still, there may be circumstances, which may be far from placing the
Promoter of a Suit in the the high position in which a Public Prosecutor
ought to stand. It is so here, I regret to say, the promoter is not a
disinterested party. He had received the offence, an offence calling for a
public prosecution; and he has reduced it to much of a private character.
He was undoubtedly entitled to protection and redress, and they lay
obviously before him: He should have called on the churchwardens to
prosecute, and they, in the event of conviction, would have obtained their
costs;   if they had refused to prosecute, Mr. CALTHROP might, without any
imputation, have made himself the Promoter, and would have received the
amplest redress, standing in the place of those who ought to have appeared
in Court. An individual, and more especially the Clergyman, should not be
the prosecuting party, except as I have stated.

This is one point, weighing with me; but, it would hardly have sufficed of
itself for the virtual refusal of the costs; it would have compelled me to
a strict inquiry, but it might have brought me to the conclusion of granting
them. I can now only take it in conjunction with other facts. I am not
going into any grievances, which the defendant may have asserted; they are
not and cannot be before me; but I look, as I must, to some subsequent
conduct. It is very possible for a Promoter to be right in the original and
substantive matter, and to put himself in error afterwards.

The offence was committed on Monday, the fifth of April; on the following
Friday, which was the ninth of the same month, something was said by the
defendant to the promoter, on the intervention of another party, which was
received as an apology, and answered by a condonation. Mr. BURROW'S
deposition, corroborated by others, is to that purport. He states that Mr.
CALTHROP went to the Vestry on Friday, and said, "He," meaning the
defendant, "has been calling me a liar several times, and propagating
stories in the parish; I wish to have an apology." An apology was his own
suggestion - his own requirement; and, it is to be supposed, that, if he
obtained it, the matter would have ended. Mr. BURROW continues - "I said I
should wish him to make an apology, and let us live in peace and quietness
hereafter." "He", meaning the defendant, "hesitated. I then said, Merely
say it before me as a magistrate. After some hesitation, he said, Well, if
Mr. CALTHROP will let it alone, I'll never throw it up at him again. I
said, Isaac, I am very glad. Mr. CALTHROP said, All shall be forgotten and
forgiven." It was not to have been expected that a suit would have been
commenced by Mr. CALTHROP after this.

I do not intend that the offence, as a public act, was condoned; Mr.
CALTHROP could not condone it as such, however he might have changed his own
position concerning it; he could not negative the duty of the
churchwardens; and if the churchwardens had proceeded against the
defendant, even after Mr. CALTHROP'S condonation of him, there would have
been no difficulty on the question of costs; but, although the Court is
bound to receive and judge on Mr. CALTHROP'S complaint, as matter affecting
public circumstance, it will not look upon him in the same light in which it
would have looked upon the churchwardens, who would have stood forth as
acting from a sense of public duty alone. Mr. CALTHROP accepted the
apology, and promised that all should be "forgotten and forgiven"; and,
yet, I find him, on the same evening, accompanied by his servant, going to
the defendant's house, and demanding another apology. It is no answer to
me, to say that the former one was insufficient, and such as it was
unbecoming a gentleman to receive; he did receive it; and it was of his
own motion that the apology, or what was called an apology, and with which
he professed himself contented at the time, had been sought; whatever was
the apology, there was the condonation, and 'that' is the true point.

He took his servant with him, either as a witness, or as an assistant. He
sent his servant alone the next day on the same errand. Surely, another
course of procedure than that of sending a servant might have been resorted
to. He might, for such a purpose, have requested the interference of some
one of better standing - of someone who would have had weight or influence.
Such a course must naturally lead to something very different from the
creation of a better feeling in the defendant. This, also, puts Mr.
CALTHROP in a lower point than he might have stood in.

Again, I find that the citation was served on the defendant on the tenth of
May; and, in what circumstance ? It was served by one of the
churchwardens, accompanied by Mr. CALTHROP himself. The defendant was sick
in bed: they went into his bedroom; and the citation was served upon him
as he lay there. I listened to this part of the evidence with the most
painful surprise. Mr. CALTHROP'S presence on such an occasion was wrong;
it was wrong, as a plaintiff; it was wrong, as a clergyman, and as the
clergyman of the parish; it was wrong in the fact of the defendant being
"sick in bed."

If, instead of the service of the citation at that moment, a kind inquiry,
or a kind expression had been used, a softer answer might have been produced
that the alternative of an immediate citation would gain.,   That the
churchwarden "did not like to go alone," was no reason that the last person
who ought to have gone should have gone with him: some one else might have
been found, whose accompanying of the churchwardens could not have been
reflected upon. On all these considerations, I can give him no more than
nominal costs. He ought not to have put the defendant to the expenses of
the suit. I have gone at some length into this part of the subject, as well
with a view of preventing the difficulties that have arisen from the course
the promoter has adopted, in any future proceeding of a similar kind, and
which must ever place a promoter in a wrong position, as to justify myself
in the conclusion at which I have arrived. It has had an anxious attention
from me; and I have carefully examined the authorities bearing upon it.

I will now express my earnest wish so to conclude this case, that each
party, the promoter and the defendant, may draw reason for looking back on
what has passed with regret, and that each may strive to the utmost of his
power to restore the peace of the parish.

The defendant has, I desire him to understand again and again, committed
such an offence as I must seriously admonish him of, and which I must so
stamp as to prevent it recurring, if possible, in himself or others.

If Mr. CALTHROP had followed a different line in seeking redress, or if the
churchwardens had promoted the suit, the defendant would have been burthened
with the whole costs of it; as it is, the expenses necessarily falling on
him will operate as a severe penalty; neither let him think lightly of a
temporary suspension, short as the term of it may be, from entering the
Church.

This is no small matter to a Chirstian man to be told that his conduct has
sent him, even for a week or a day, from public communion and public worship
with his fellow Christians. It is no small matter to be proclaimed an
offender against the law.

The Chancellor continues..........

May the sentence I must deliver bring him to a sounder judgment, a better
mind, and a more Christian spirit ! And let the whole body of the
parishioners learn that the law is strong enough to vindicate itself, and
that it will not suffer such proceedings as have obtained the cognizance of
this Court to pass with impunity.

I sentence the defendant, Isaac SINGLETON, to be suspended from entering the
Church during the space of seven days, commencing on Saturday next, the 20th
inst. I admonish him not so to offend for the future. I direct the
sentence of suspension and admonition to be duly published in the parish
church of Drigg, on Sunday next, the 21st instant; and I condemn him in the
sum of five pounds, 'nomine expensarum'.

Mr. SAUL - I should wish to say a word or two as to the service of the
citation upon which you have been pleased to make some observations. When
the citation was sent - some time before that Mr. CALTHROP understood that
the defendant was ill, and he, therefore, would not allow it to be served
until just before the last day before the Court was to be held. Even then
he would not allow it to be served until he had himself called upon the
defendant and seen that he was in a state to receive it. The man no doubt
was ill, but the citation was issued in ignorance of that fact, it having
been issued from Carlisle; but when Mr. CALTHROP received it he would not
allow it to be served because he knew the man was ill.

The CHANCELLOR - He was sick in bed at the time it was actually served.

Mr. SAUL - But he had been much worse, and Mr. CALTHROP would not permit it
to be served until the last moment.

The CHANCELLOR - It would have been wiser to have delayed the service of the
citation under the circumstances, even if he had taken out another
afterwards. I can only take the evidence that is actually before me.

Mr. SAUL - I could scarcely have called Mr. CALTHROP as a witness; if I had
he would have explained that and also the matter about the apology.

The REGISTRAR read the decision of the Court, as entered upon the Records.

~~~~~~~~~~       ~~~~~~~       ~~~~~~~~~

DISTURBANCE IN A PEW.

                             WAUGH   v.   John ROWLAND

When this case (which is promoted by Mr. Waugh for violent conduct on the
part of defendant in the pew of the former in Cockermouth Church) was
called, no one appeared on either side. It was ordered to stand over.

The CHANCELLOR - Are they likely to reconcile the matter ?

Mr. SAUL - I am afraid not, sir.

The CHANCELLOR - I shall be glad to hear no more from Cockermouth in this
way.

Mr. SAUL presumed the parties were from home

Subsequently, the CHANCELLOR asked Mr. SAUL if four weeks would suffice for
the service of a citation in this case.

Mr. SAUL said that it would.

The REGISTRAR remarked that there was nothing on the books except the
Cockermouth case; adding that the parties did not seem very anxious about
proceeding with it.

Mr. SAUL - I dare say that they would be very glad to setle the matter out
of Court. At lease I can answer for my client; (the promoter); but I
cannot say what course will be pursued.

THE PARISH CHURCH OF WYCHAM

A faculty was granted to the Rev. Geo. WILKINSON, the Rector of Wycham, and
to the Patrons, Churchwardens, &c., giving them power to alter and improve
the fabric of the parish Church, such alterations and improvements to be
effected by voluntary subscriptions, and without making any rate upon the
parish.

Mr. John MOUNSEY read the monition issued.

The CHANCELLOR - You will secure the expenses.

The REGISTRAR - The funds are all subscribed; they are already in hand.

The CHANCELLOR - The Bishop should see the plans. His opinion should be had
of them.

The REGISTRAR - They have already been submitted and approved.

The Court was then adjourned to Thursday, the 6th of January next.

====================================