HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0218 and id is 1 raw text is: BLUCK V. RACKHAM [1846]
[305] ON APPEAL FROM THE ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY.
THE REVEREND JOHN BLUCK,-Appellant; MATTHEW RACKHAM,--
Respondent * [May 12 and 13, 1846].
The proceeding under the Statute (1 and 2 Vict., 106, sec. 32), against a beneficed
clergyman for penalties, for non-residence on his benefice, without licence
or exemption, is in the nature of a civil, and not a criminal, proceeding [5
Moo. P.C. 314].
In condemning the Defendant for non-residence, in the penalty of one-third of the
annual value of his benefice, the Court below did not decree a specific sum,
but referred the matter to the Registrar of the Court to ascertain the same.
Held on Appeal that such course was regular [5 Moo. P.C. 315].
It is not necessary for the promoter of such a suit, to allege or prove that the
Defendant had not a licence, or was not resident on another benefice: those
facts being within the Defendant's own knowledge are capable of being
alleged and proved by him in defence [5 Moo. P.C. 314].
This was an Appeal from the Arches Court of Canterbury, in a proceeding
originally instituted in the Episcopal Consistorial Court of Norwich, by the Re-
spondent, authorized for that purpose by the Bishop of the diocese, against the
Appellant, the Rector of the parish of Walsoken, in the county of Norfolk and
diocese of Norwich. In the citation, which was issued on the 12th of September
1843, the Appellant cited him to appear and to show cause why he should not be
pronounced to have forfeited one-third of the annual value of his said benefice,
by reason of his having been absent therefrom, for a period exceeding the space
of three months, and not exceeding the space of six months, of and in the year
ending the 31st day of December 1842, without any such licence or exemption as
is [306] allowed by the Statute 1 and 2 Vict., c. 106, and without having been
resident at some other benefice of which he was possessed; and why the payment of
such forfeiture, together with the reasonable expense incurred in recovering the
same, should not be enforced by monition and sequestration under the provisions of
the above Statute.
The citation was served on the Appellant, who, not appearing in due form, was
pronounced in contempt, and a significavit issued; he however afterwards put in
tin appearance. An allegation was then brought in on behalf of the promoter,
which was admitted, and to which a negative issue was given by the Appellant's
proctor. A Decree for the Appellant's answers thereto having been taken out, and
the answers not given in, the Respondent's proctor prayed that his allegation might
be taken, pro confesso. The Appellant's proctor objected to give in the answers
on oath of his party, and under protest alleged that inasmuch as the proceeding
was a criminal one against the Appellant, he ought not by law to be called upon to
give in his answers on oath; and he further alleged that the whole proceedings were
null and void, and prayed that his party might be dismissed with costs. The
protest as to nullity of proceedings was rejected, but the answers were waived. The
Appellant's proctor still dissented and protested, but the protest was not followed
up to the end of the cause. Witnesses were examined by the Respondent upon the
allegation, but no plea was put in by the Appellant, nor were interrogatories ex-
hibited on his behalf to the witnesses.
On the 1st of July 1844, the Judge of the Episcopal Consistory Court of Norwich,
by his sentence, pro-[307-nounced the allegation to have been proved, and the
Appellant to have forfeited one-third part of the annual value of his benefice at
Walsoken, and condemned the Appellant in the payment thereof, such amount to
be ascertained in the usual and accustomed manner by the Registrar of the Court.
From this sentence, the Appellant appealed to the Arches Court of Canterbury,
which Court affirmed the sentence of the Judge of the Consistory Court of Norwich
Present: Lord Langdale, the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, the Right Hon.
Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh.
508
V MOORE, 305](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0218&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)