TICES of BOKOUGH. and R. v. Jus in the memory of another of thefe deponents, whe was 86 years of age, there had been feveral other poor-houfes inhabited within the faid extraparochial place, but that fome of them were fallen down, and that others had been taken down by order of the dean and chapter, to prevent their being inhabited.— Against the rule it was fworn by the defendants, doctor Tarrant and doctor Browne, the dean, and one of the prebendaries of the cathedral church of Peterborough, that the precinct or clofe of the cathedral church of Peterborough, defcribed in the affidavit in fupport of the rule by the name of THE MINSTER, is extraparochial; and is not a town hip or vill, or was ever fo reputed: that there have been poor perfons many years refident within the faid precinct; that within their precincts the dean and chapter are by their ftatutes required to diftribute in charity the fum of 201. annually that it appears by a register book kepɛ for that purpofe, that till the year 1737, the aforefaid fum, and no more, had been annually to applied from the chapter fund; and that this fum, together with the facrament-money, had been fufficient for the fupport of the poor then belonging to or inhabiting the faid precinct : that it appears from the fame book, that in the year 1737, this fum proving infufficient, a farther fum was expended for their relief; and that fince that period, the expence of maintaining the poor belonging to the faid precinct has in fome years amounted to upwards of 8ol.; but that the dean and chapter have, although without any other appropriated fund, defrayed the whole expence: that this burthen has tended to the diminution of the revenue allotted for the ftipends of the feveral officers of the faid cathedral, the repairs of the fabric, and other contingent expences: that the land and buildings within the faid precinct, exclufive of the bishop's palace and other official houfes, belong partly to the bithop, and partly to the dean and chapter; and are all (except two houfes which are the property of private perfons) occupied by their refpective leffecs: that there never was any conftable or other civil officer appointed or chofen for the faid precinct or clofe, or any overfeer of the poor or churchwarden; nor have the inhabitants ever contributed to the relief of the poor within the precinct, or been called upon fo to do that, upon the application made to thefe deponents to appoint an overfeer of the poor for the precinct of the cathedral church of Peterborough, and to grant an order of removal, &c. as there appeared no trace or veftige of any fuch office in any of the writings or regifters belonging to the faid church, and TICES OF PETERBOROUCH. and as no fuch officer or churchwarden ever had to their R. v. Jusknowledge been appointed, they were of opinion, that they had not authority to make fuch appointment, and therefore declined to comply with the requifition made. MR. WALLACE argued in fupport of the rule, and MR. HowARTH against it-LORD MANSFIELD. This fpace' comprehends no more than the fite of the cathedral and the area round it; and confequently was in former times within fanctuary, and as fuch facred and inviolable as the church itself. In modern times, to be fure, there is no fuch thing as fanctuary; but thefe places have throughput all ages, without interruption, enjoyed thofe immunities; as Weflminster Abbey now does, and other places of the like nature. The antient inns of court, though not exactly upon this principle, have alfo at all times been privileged and a fimilar exemption was not queftioned in a late cafe, that of the King v. Gardner, (a), with (4) Tr. 14. Go respect to that part of the court and garden-ground of 2 1774. Catherine Hall in the univerfity of Canbridge which lay Port.Ch. 2. within the old and extraparochial part of that foundation. Would you fay that Christ Church in Oxford (b) (6) See 8. Mod. is a vill? I am not fatisfied from this affidavit, that this 40 place is a vill:, and the party applying (c) do not even call it (c) R. v. Inba (b) There feems at this time of day to be no very reasonable, even if there were any legal, ground to confider any of our antient colleges, or the clofes or fites of our cathedrals, as fuch places in which it would be proper for the juftices, under ftat. 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. to introduce parochial regulations. And yet, were not these Societies in general regn lated very differently from that of Peterborough, it feems to be rather questionable, whether the exemptions they at prefent enjoy could be long fupported. In the univerfitics there is no other defcription of perfons whatsoever admitted into the colleges, but the fervants or neceffary officers of the matriculated members, and their families; none but those who are poor, or derive a profit or fubfiftence from the body into which they are admitted the very reverse of which is the cafe of this precinct; where they who are admitted are wealthy, and contribute largely to the fupport of the body that receives them; to whom they are not at all neceffary, es bear the fmallet relation.-Wh le : Cowp. 79. 2.6. bitants of Denham,' S. C. 38. Bus. the space of old allotted to the con-, fo. TERBOROUGH. R. . Jus fo.-BULLER, Juftice. As the party applying does not TICES of PE- venture to affert that this place had ever any civil officer, or was ever even reputed to be a vill (the last of which, where the facts of the cafe do not within fome clear principle of law fhew the place to be of that denomination, the Court has holden to be indifpenfably necessary for the purpose of founding an application for a mandamus), this cafe falls within that (a) which has been cited, and the rule must be pronounced accordingly.-WILLES and ASHHURST, Juftices, concurring, rule discharged, In- with costs. (a) Rex v. Gardner, Cowp. 79. See Rex habitants of Ey ford, Hilary, 25. Geo. 3. referred to by Mr. Caldecot, 244. Where the fef. place to be vill, 47. Rex v. Inhabitants of Renton Abbey, Hil. 28. Geo. 3. fions adjudge a 2. Term Rep. 207. Two juftices removed by an order the king's bench Elizabeth Malpafs, and John and Charles her children, is precluded from the parish of Ecclefball to the township of the from going into monaftery of Ronton Abbey, both in the county of Stafford. The feffions, on appeal, confirmed that order, and See ante, pl. 17. ftated the following cafe-Elizabeth Malpafs and her the question. children had gained a fettlement within the monaftery of Ronton Abbey. Ronton Abbey is an extraparochial place, containing four or five hundred acres of land, three hundred and fifty of arable and pafture, and fifty of wood, upon which there are now three houfes; one a very large farm-houfe, occupied by Mrs. Stubbs; the other two fmall houses; one with about an acre of land to it, the other with about four or five rood to it; one of them occupied by Thomas Milies, a hired fervant of Mrs. Stubbs, and his family, the other by Jonathan Keeling, a day-labourer, and his wife; Milles's houfe being diftant about a quarter of a mile from Mrs. Stubbs's house, and the other about the fame diftance. Many years ago there was a fourth houfe on another part of the faid abbey fands, which is now down. The extraparochial lands are called Abbey Lands. There are other lands in the adjoining parishes of Ronton and Seighford, called Monaftery Lands, part of the faid refpective parishes, and contributing refpectively to the relief of the poor thereof. The feveral paupers within Ronton Abbey who have received alms, have received the fame from the occupiers Burr. S. C. 57. of lands therein. Four credible witneffes, who had lived for many years near Ronton Abbey, declared, that they never heard it called a township or vill, nor ever heard any thing about it one way or the other. In 1729 an order of removal was made, which order of removal, taken from the clerk of the peace's file, was in the words and figures following, to wit: "The order was directed to "the ABBEY. the churchwardens and overfeers of the poor of the R.. RONTON parish of Seighford, and to the overfeers of the poor of the liberty of Ronten Monaftery, an extraparochial place within the county of Stafford, removing fome paupers from Seighford to Renton Abbey): There was an appeal against the order, which appeared, from the clerk of the peace's books, to have been quafhed generally. In 1773, by another order of removal, Mary Evans was removed from the parish of Ecclefball to the liberty of Ronton Monaftery. With this laft mentioned order Thomas Bowers, who was then overfeer of Ecclefhall, took the pauper to Ronton Abbey, and offered to deliver her to Mrs. Stubbs, then refident there, who at first refused to receive her, but without affigning any reafon for fuch refufal. Bowers then went to a magiftrate and procured another order, and then returned and delivered one copy of the order and the pauper to Mrs. Stubbs, telling her if fhe did not receive her the would be liable to a penalty. of five pounds. Mrs. Stubbs received her, and there was no appeal against this last mentioned order of removal, nor did the pauper ever come back into the parish of Ecclefhall. In the year 1779 there was another order of removal, by which William Keeling, Elizabeth his wife, and their four children, were removed from Gnofall to Ronton Abbey. William Starting, the overfeer of the parith of Gnofull, went to Edward Stubbs, the fon of Mrs. Stubbs, then refiding with his mother the above-mentioned Alice Stubbs, with the pauper and this laft-mentioned order the faid Edward Stubbs faid, "We have no overfeer "refiding here, but we have appointed Thomas Addison our "overfeer, and directed him to Addifon's houfe," who then refided at Eccleshall, about a mile diftant from the abbey, but rented fome of the abbey lands. Starting then went and delivered the paupers to the faid Thomas Addifon, who was then overfeer of Ronton Abbey. Notice of appeal was given by Addison to the parish of Gnofall againft this laft-mentioned order. The appeal was afterwards heard; and it appeared in evidence that Ronton Abbey did not, at the hearing of the faid appeal, fet up the defence of their not being liable to maintain their own poor; but the appeal was quafhed upon the merits. Conftables and furveyors of the highways had been frequently appointed for the monaftery lands, but they never had any jurifdiction over the abbey lands; and it did not appear that any conftable of furveyor had ever been appointed for the abbey lands. Mary Keeling, aged eighty-nine years, and her husband, lived within the abbey fixty years ago, and he rented a tenement there fufficient to gain a fettlement. The faid Mary Keeling, D after ABBEY. The feffions cannot state R. v. RONTON after the death of her husband, being diftreffed, upors" application to Mrs. Stubbs has been for feveral years relieved by a piece of land which the let for twenty-eight thillings a-year fo long as the lived in the abbey, and by a quarterly payment of fifty-two fhillings a-year fince the went into the parish of Penkridge; it appeared alfo that fome of her family had been occafionally relieved by the above mentioned Thomas Addifon. The feffions adjudged this place to be a vill by reputation, and. confirmed the order of removal, fubject to the opinion of the court of king's bench. --THE COURT were of opinion, that as the feffions had adjudged, as a fact, that this was a vill by reputation, they were precluded from going into that queflion. On which the counfel on both fides faid, it was intended to be argued as if the feffions had adjudged it to be a vill by reputation, on the evidence ftated in the cafe. But the Court obferved, that the feffions were not to ftate cafes for the purpofe of taking the opinion of this Court on facts; and that in this cafe they had diftinctly adjudged this place to be a vill. Therefore without argument the rule for quafhing the order of feffions was difcharged. cafes for the mere purpofe of taking the opinion of the Court. The 13. & 14. e. 2. c. 12. extends to all counties generally. VIII. Of the appointment of feparate overfeers. 48. In Skillington v. Norton, Trin. 27. Car. 2. 2. Lev. 142. the ftatute of 13. & 14. Car. 2. C 12. vas held not to extend to any other counties than thofe exprefly named. But in the cafe of Dolting v. («) Foby, 98. Stokeland (a), on the removal of a pauper to Stokeland, in the county of Somerfet, it was infifted, on an appeal to the feffions, that he ought to have been removed to Brokenham Lodge, an extraparochial place, within the laft claufe of the ftatute; and on a cafe referved PARKER, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the whole Court. There has been a question, Whether this act be general, or only extends to thofe counties that are named by the act? and we all take it to be general; the words are exprefly fo," and many "other counties in England and Wales." Now if it was to extend to only thofe that are named in the act, it would not extend to one county in Wales, for none of the counties named are in Wales; fo that the claufe must be taken generally. Now, if this is a general claufe, the next thing to be confidered is, Whether this does extind to extraparochial places, or only to townthips and vis within a parish? Indeed, the act was firft intended only to extend to townships and vills within paries, but what |