506

for fowls; one penny for every garden; and fourpence for a hen, called a loak hen, in lieu of the tithes of eggs and young poultry.-The following moduses, viz. for every number of lambs within the year, under five, nothing; five lambs, the value of one halfpenny a lamb; six lambs, and up to fourteen, inclusive, a lamb in kind, or its value; fifteen lambs, a lamb in kind, or its value, and the value of half a lamb more; sixteen lambs up to twenty-four inclusive, two lambs in kind or their value, and so on the like modus as to fleeces: the same as to geese; were considered bad, nothing being paid under five. Norton v. Hammond, 1 Y. & J. 94.

A modus of 1d. for every milch cow, if under seven, kept and fed on the lands, in lieu of the tithe of milk and calves of such cows; 2s. 4d., if the milch cows and calves shall amount to seven, and not seventeen; and the like sum of 2s. 4d. for every ten milch cows after the first seven, in lieu of the tithe of the milk and calves of such cows,-considered good.

A modus of 2d. for every house and garden, in lieu of garden stuff, considered good; but held to cover only gardens annexed to houses for the use of the houses, and not to market-gardens, or the like.

A custom to pay the seventh lamb, pig, fleece, or gosling, if there be seven, instead of a tenth only of the value of the lambs, pigs, fleeces, or goslings, in lieu of the tithes of such lambs, &c., and if there be seventeen, then a lamb, pig, fleece, or gosling, and so an additional lamb, &c. for every successive ten, held a void custom. Pritchett v. Honeyborne, 1 Y. & J. 155.

The Court will not disturb a verdict establishing a modus, when the cause comes before them for further directions on the postea; hence a modus of 2d. a cover, for every cover of clover, and so in proportion; and another modus of 2d. yearly for every day's math of hay, and so in proportion, have been holden good. Davies v. Moseley, M'Clel. 143, s. c. 13 Price, 423.

Cases of moduses found differing from those laid in the answer, and directed to be tried by the issue ordered, but received and acted upon by the Court, disapproved, and the reasons stated. Williamson v. Thompson, 11 Price, 745.

Bill by the impropriate rector of A for predial tithes of land, allotted under an inclosure act. The defence was, that the land allotted was awarded in lieu of a right of common in A, appurtenant to a tenement in the parish of B; and that the tenement in B was protected from all tithes by a farm modus of 20s. payable to the rector of B, and therefore that the modus for the tenement protected the allotment. The Court, however, decreed an account. Bishop of Carlisle v. Blain, 1 Y. & J. 123.

The defendants to a bill by a rector for tithes of hay, set up a modus of two-pence for each load of hay of the weight of one ton, payable at Easter by the several occupiers, in lieu of tithes of hay grown from Easter in the year preceding inclusive; and they by their answer further stated, that the amount of modus payable to the rector under such custom had been usually ascertained by a person on behalf of the rector inspecting the ricks of hay made within the parish in each year, and forming an estimate of the number of loads of one ton weight contained in each rick, upon which estimate the whole of the annual modus payable to the rector was calculated,

but that this mode of estimating the weight formed no part of the custom; it also appeared, that, in a suit instituted in the Exchequer by the same rector against some occupier for the tithe of hay in the same parish, an issue had been directed, and, the jury having found, that two-pence for every load of hay of the weight of one ton had been immemorially paid to the rector at Easter in each year, by the several occupiers of lands, in lieu of the tithes of hay, the rector's bill had been dismissed with costs: Held, that the alleged modus was bad in law, and that an account ought to be directed against the defendants, without directing an issue as to the validity of the modus.

Quare-Whether the Court ought to direct an issue to try the validity of a modus, where the modus is stated, in the answer, in such a form that it would not be good in law, if proved exactly as it is alleged, but the Court has reason to believe, that, on a trial, those circumstances, which would be requisite to give it validity may probably be established in evidence. Goodenough v. Powell, 2 Russ. 219.

By 7 & 8 Wm. 3, c. 6, a summary remedy is given before two justices for the recovery of small tithes, under the value of 40s. [increased to 10. by 53 Geo. 3, c. 127, s. 4]; by s. 7, which gives an appeal to the sessions, the certiorari is taken away, "unless the title of the tithes should be in question;" and by s. 8, if any person complained against for subtracting tithes, should insist before two justices upon any prescription, composition, or modus decimandi, agreement, or title, in order to free himself from the tithes claimed, and deliver the same in writing to the justices, subscribed by him, and should give the party complaining security, to the satisfaction of the justices, to pay all costs and damages which, upon a trial at law, to be had for that purpose in any superior court, should be given against him, in case the prescription, &c. should not upon such trial be allowed; in such case the justices should forbear to give any judgment of the matter, and the party complaining should be at liberty to prosecute him for the subtraction in any court in which he might have sued before the act. Quare, whether by this act the justices have jurisdiction to try a modus decimandi. Where, however, after summons and appearance, two justices made an order under this statute upon a defendant to pay the value of certain small tithes, and upon the trial of an appeal against the order, the defendant then, for the first time, offered evidence of a modus decimandi, which was rejected: Held, that the sessions did right, and that if the defendant meant to avail himself of a modus as a ground of defence, he was bound to submit his evidence to the two justices in the first instance. Rex v. Ambrose Jeffrey, 2 D. & R. 860.

(G) COMPOSITION.

A composition may be made by a privileged as well as by a religious order; hence the lessee, under the Crown's grantee of lands which had belonged to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, and his under-tenants, may defend themselves against a demand of tithes, just as they might have done if their lands had belonged to an order not privileged. Donnison v. Elsley, 1 M'Clel. & Y. 1.

By letters patent, 19 Jac. 1, a rectory, with the appurtenances, was granted to the Dean and Chapter of York, and their successors, for the support and maintenance of a grammar-school. In 1712, an arrangement was entered into between the Dean and Chapter, and their lessee of the rectory, and the lord of the manor of a district within the rectory, to take a perpetual composition in lieu of the tithes of that district, and such arrangement was carried into effect by deeds of covenant, executed by the Dean and Chapter and their lessee, and the lord of the manor, and the latter granted a perpetual rentcharge to the amount of the composition out of his estates. This composition or rent continued to be received by the lessees of the Dean and Chapter for upwards of a century, when the Dean and Chapter (the rectory being then in their own hands) refused any longer to receive it, and filed their bill for tithes. The Court held, that the deed of covenant of 1712 was void under the disabling statute, and that the covenant was not binding on the Dean and Chapter, and that they were entitled to the tithes. Dean and Chapter of St. Peter, York, v. Middleborough, 2 Y. & J. 195.

A tenant who enters into a parol composition for tithes creates merely a personal contract, which ceases with the occupation. The composition paid by the former occupier is prima facie evidence of value. Paynton v. Kirkby, 2 Chit. 405.

Composition for tithe from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, is not determined by the tenancy of the land expiring at Lady-day, but there must be notice: therefore, where tenant continued to hold part of the farm for her away-going crop, till Michaelmas following the end of her term-Held, that tender of composition to Lady-day, and setting out of tithe upon the part thus occupied was no answer to an action for a year's composition. Notice to determine such composition must be similar to notice to determine a yearly tenancy, viz. six months. Hulme v. Pardoe, 1 M'Clel. 393, s. c. 1 C. & P. 93.

Where an inclosure act substituting a money payment in lieu of tithes, to be calculated with reference to the value of the tithes, contained these words, that the payment to the vicar was to be "free and clear of all rates, taxes and deductions whatever:" It was holden, that the vicar was exempt from poor rates, in respect of the money so directed to be paid to him. Chatfield v. Ruston, 3 B. & C. 863, s. c. 5 D. & R.575.

Commissioners under an inclosure act were to allot by their award to the rector of the parish so much of the lands to be inclosed in the township of S, and of the titheable parts of the township of W, as should, quantity, quality, and situation considered, contain, or be equal in value to, two fifteenth parts of the titheable places thereof, in lieu of tithes arising within the same lands; after the enrolment of the award of the commissioners, all tithes arising within the lands inclosed were to cease; but there was a saving to all persons (other than the persons to whom any compensation should be made by virtue of the act, in respect of the interest for which such compensation should be made,) of all such interest as they had in respect of the said lands before the passing of that act; an award, by which the commissioners allotted to the rector, in lieu of the tithes of S and A, lands more in quantity than two fifteenths

507

of the lands inclosed in S and A, but less than two fifteenths of the lands inclosed in S, A, and W, without any allotment expressed to be in lieu of the tithes of W, is not a bar to the rector's claim of the tithes in W. Cooper v. Thorpe, 2 Russ. 78.

To ascertain the tenability of a money payment in respect of an ancient composition in lieu of tithes, the Court directed an issue. Markham v. Smyth, 11 Price, 126.

(H) ACTIONS AT LAW.

A party cannot proceed at law and in equity at the same time for the treble value of tithes. Taunton v. Glyde, 10 Price, 129.

But filing a bill in equity for tithes does not preclude the defendant from bringing an action of trespass for not taking them away. Therefore the Court will not grant an injunction to restrain the proceedings at law. Bradley v. Bensted, 13 Price, 221, s. c. M'Clel. 80.

Tithe had for years been set out in shocks. The gatherer, after notice, and inquiring how many shocks there were, did not take it away. The farmer declared in case, for not carrying it away, and alleged that it was lawfully and in due manner set out. The Court held, that there was evidence to go to the jury, that the parties had agreed that the tithe should be set out in shocks, and that such an agreement supported the allegation. They also held, that the question, whether corn has been on the ground a reasonable time to enable the party to examine it, was a question for the jury. Facey v. Hurdom, 2 Law J. K.B. 225, s. c. 3 B. & C. 213, 8. c. 5 D. & R. 68.

In an action for not carrying away tithe, it was averred in the declaration (by mistake), that the land was that year sown with grass; the defence was, that the tithe was set out in an inconvenient manner for being carried away; but the jury found that it was set out according to the custom of the country: Held, that the uncertainty as to the declaration, and as to the setting out the tithe, was sufficient ground for granting a new trial. But the plaintiff was allowed to amend on payment of costs, Hooper v. Mantle, M'Clel. 388.

(I) SUITS IN EQUITY.

In suits for tithes, the jurisdiction of a court of equity is limited to discovery and account. The title to tithes, as of other real property, is a question of a legal right, upon which the court of equity has no jurisdiction; and if the title is disputed and doubtful, the Court has no right to make a decree. Norbury v. Meade, 2 Bligh, 245.

If the occupier shews a colour of title to the tithes not rendered, a court of equity will not interfere, but leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law. Cherry v. Legh, 1 Bligh, N.S. 306.

A lay impropriator, who is in possession of a rectory, and in perception of the tithes subject to charges by way of mortgage, and for raising portions, (inasmuch as such mortgagees, &c. having permitted the possession, cannot claim the by-gone rents,) has a title sufficient to sustain a suit against occupiers for an account of tithes. Glegg v. Legh, 1 Bligh, N.S. 302.

It is not sufficient ground for an application to a court of equity, to restrain a plaintiff in a suit by

508

bill in that court for tithes, from proceeding in actions brought by him against parishioners, not parties to that suit, for not setting out their tithes, that the court of equity has decreed an issue to try the validity of (parochial) moduses laid in the answers as covering the articles, in respect of the tithes of which the action atlaw had been commenced; nor although the parties applying have entered into a bond to pay all costs of suits and actions relating to such tithes, to connect them with the suit in equity, as to entitle them to the interference of the Court. Taylor v. Cook, 9 Price, 207.

If a disinterested party be made a defendant to a suit for tithes, he is entitled to have the bill dismissed with costs; though, if he intermeddles, the bill will be dismissed without costs. Markham v. Smyth, 11 Price, 126.

Where a bill for an account of tithes, after stating that the plaintiff claimed as lessee of an impropriate rector, alleged that the owner demised the tithes to the plaintiff, without stating that the demise was by deed: Held demurrable; but the Court recommended the plaintiff to submit to an amendment, by making the rector party plaintiff, and other corresponding alterations, which he was allowed to do on payment of costs. Jackson v. Benson, 13 Price, 131.

In a suit by an impropriate rector for tithes, where the defence is, that the tithe in question is vicarial, and the vicar, who is a defendant, dies during the suit, it is not necessary to make the new vicar a party, if the plaintiff will waive the account subsequent to his induction. The tithe of tare-seed held to be a small tithe. Daws v. Benn, 1 Jac. 95. Where a rector and vicar joined in a suit for tithes, respectively due to them, it was held multifarious. Exeter College v. Rowland, 6 Mad. 94.

A person entitled to a parcel or portion of tithes, was made a defendant in a suit by a person also claiming to be entitled to the tithes against occupiers; he joined with the occupiers in one answer, and insisted on his right to the tithes : The Court retained the plaintiff's bill for a year, with liberty to bring an action; if not, the bill to be dismissed without costs. An action was brought against the occupiers, and a verdict given for the plaintiff. The Court, on further hearing, decreed an account of the tithes, and ordered the payment of costs by the occupiers, and the other defendant.

When an impropriator, or owner, is made a party to a suit for tithes, and does not demur to the bill, or insist by his answer that he ought not to be made a party, but joins with the occupiers in an answer, and suggests their defence, though the Court cannot decree an account against him, yet it will visit him with costs. Wing v. Murrell, 1 M'Clel. & Y. 620.

(K) PLEADINGS.

A plaintiff in equity must state his title in his bill, and, unless it is admitted by the defendant, must prove it. Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh, 245.

The same precision of pleading is not required in an answer insisting upon an exemption, as in a bill. An allegation, in an answer, that a monastery held the lands discharged from tithes, is sufficient to raise the question of discharge by immemorial prescription; and that too, though the lands were not particularly described. Williams v. Goodchild,

3 Law J. Chanc. 53.

It is incorrect to plead, that by a custom used and approved of in P, and nineteen other parishes, no tithe of a particular kind was due or payable to the rector of P. Page v. Wilson, 2 J. & W. 521.

In pleading that particular lands are not liable to tithes; describing them accurately, and shewing their situation and boundaries, are indispensable requisites. Markham v. Smyth, 11 Price, 126.

A bill being filed against an occupier for tithes of certain lands called Cook's Green, the defendant, by his answer, states, that the lands in his occupation, together with a certain other close, in the occupation of A, containing nine acres, and separated from the former by a lane which had been recently laid to the defendant's grounds, were called and well known by the ancient name of Cook's Green; and he then insists that the lands called Cook's Green are covered by a modus: Held, that the lands comprised in the farm or district, alleged to be covered by the modus, were described with sufficient certainty. Williams v. Walton, 1 Russ. 605.

Where a non decimando was set up for lands, as part of the possessions of a monastery, which was dissolved by or came into the hands of King Hen. 8, and the answer alleged, that such lands were, at the dissolution, in the hands or occupation of the abbot, discharged of all tithes, without stating in what manner they were discharged, whether by bull, order, or prescription,-the Court, upon the effect of the whole answer, considered it might understand it to mean prescription. Pritchett v. Honeyborne, 1 Y. & J. 135.

In pleading a modus for certain land, it must be alleged in the answer that the defendant occupies the same. Stuart v. Grenall, 9 Price, 106.

A defendant cannot plead a payment as a modus, and afterwards insist upon the same payment as a composition, requiring six months to determine it. Wolley v. Brownhill, M'Clel. 317, s. c. 13 Price, 500.

Bill by an impropriate rector, against occupiers, for an account of tithes; and against a portionist, requiring a discovery from the latter, of the deeds under which he claimed to be entitled to the portion of tithes, to which the bill admitted him to be entitled; alleging, that the deeds would shew not only the title of the portionist to the tithes claimed by him, but also the title of the plaintiff to the tithes demanded by him of the occupiers. Demurrer by the portionist to the discovery allowed. Compton v. Earl Grey, 1 Y. & J. 154.

Where a bill did not pray an account for tithes against the occupiers, but an account of the money received for tithes, by a person claiming under an adverse title, it was holden not to lie. The Bishop of St. Asaph v. Williams, 1 Jac. 349.

Where a bill claimed the tithe of potatoes, turnips, and cabbages, generally; and the answer set up a garden modus, and the plaintiff did not go for tithe of gardens: The Court dismissed the bill in that respect, with costs. Wolley v. Brownhill, M'Clel. 317, s. c. 13 Price, 500.

It is not a demurrable objection to a bill for an account of tithes, that the plaintiff having stated, as the foundation of his claim, a decree made in pursuance of an act of parliament, also charges two other distinct sources from which he derives his right, and on which he rests his title; the bases of those two latter being, first, an agreement anterior

to the decree, charged to have been confirmed by an act of parliament passed ten years before the former act; and, secondly, custom founded on commercial usage,-there being nothing uncertain. Owen v. Nodin, M'Clel. 238, s. c. 13 Price, 478.

To part of a bill praying an account of the great tithes arising out of certain lands called the Old Inclosures in the occupation of the defendants, a plea setting forth an inclosure act, and an award of commissioners under it, wherein they had allotted certain parts of the inclosed land in lieu of the right to tithes in kind in various persons, and in lieu of and as a compensation for all tithes due to the plaintiff, (after having noticed a dispute between a claimant of the tithes of certain old inclosures as against the plaintiff, which they had declined to determine,) and averring that the lands in the occupation of the defendants were not part of the old inclosures so in dispute, overruled, and ordered to stand for an answer, with liberty to plaintiff to except,-not being a short answer to the demand, bringing the question between the parties to a single point precisely meeting the allegations in the bill. Wing v. Murrells, 11 Price, 723.

Covenant for not setting out certain tithes plea, that by an inclosure act, the plaintiff received an allotment in lieu thereof, not stating that the commissioners under the act had made their award as directed thereby Held, although the jury had found for the defendant upon that issue, that the plea was untenable, as it did not shew that the forms of the act had been complied with: judgment non obstante veredicto was therefore entered for the plaintiff. Ellis v. Armison, 3 D. & R. 27.

(L) EVIDENCE.

All owners of lands in the same parish are incompetent witnesses on issues to try moduses; and the depositions of interested witnesses, who are dead, cannot be read, although their being so interested does not appear upon the face of the written document. Jones v. Carrington, 1 C. & P. 329. [Park]

The lessee of a vicar is a competent witness on an issue to try a modus between a vicar and occupiers, if he release the vicar. Robinson v. Williamson, 9 Price, 136.

To establish a bill to enforce a contribution between tithe-owners, the evidence must be express, and not doubtful. Stone v. Yea, 1 Jac. 426.

A person suing, as lay impropriator, for the tithes of a parish in which there has been, within the living memory, a parish church and a burial ground, in order to establish his title, must shew that there has been an impropriation, and when it was made; because, if it was not prior to the 15 Ric. 2, c. 6, it is further necessary, according to that statute, that an endowment of a vicarage should be shewn ; and if the plaintiff does not allege and prove either that the appropriation was before the 15 Ric. 2, or that a vicar has been endowed, prima facie the appropriation is invalid. Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh, 245.

According to ancient practice in suits by lay impropriators, the production of the original grant, and a regular deduction of the tithe by the necessary documents, were required. That practice was altered in consideration of the frequent loss of instruments of title. But it is still necessary to produce the original grant, and to prove a possession correspond

509

ing with the title. Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh, 224. Upon a lease of tithes, by the lay impropriator, if the tithes of particular lands are excepted, it might admit of the construction that the lessor is entitled to that which he accepts. But if a former owner of the tithes upon a lease has made a parol declaration, that he is not entitled to the tithes of those lands, that declaration is in itself important evidence, and gives a construction to the exception in the lease. Norbury v. Meade, 3 Bligh, 224, 257.

In a suit for tithes by an impropriate rector against occupiers, where the plaintiff by the answer is put to the proof of his title, it is sufficient-1. As to personal ownership, to prove that he is the beneficial owner of the tithes subject to terms vesting the legal estate in trustees, and creating charges on the rectory, but which charges being annual are satisfied up to the date of the suit. 2. As to general title, it is sufficient to prove a recent perception of tithes, with occasional payment of composition, and leases of the tithes taken by the occupiers. Glegg v. Legh, 1 Bligh, N.S. 302.

Upon a bill filed by a lay impropriator, who is in possession of a rectory, and in perception of the tithes, subject to charges by way of mortgage, and for raising portions against an occupier, who had taken a lease from the rector of the tithes of corn and grain, but expressly without prejudice to any question as to the tithe of hay, and who, by his answer, set up but did not prove a modus as to the small tithes: Held, that proof of the perception of some tithes by alay impropriator, without evidence of a grant from the Crown, gives a title to other tithes, of the perception of which there is no actual proof. Glegg v. Legh, 1 Bligh, N.S. 302.

The Court will presume a subsequent endowment in support of an appropriation by a rector, which has been acted on for a very great length of time,though an insufficient endowment has been actually produced in evidence, appearing on the face of it to be inadequate to that required to be made by the terms of the condition of the original licence,where it is not shewn, by proof of some deficiency in any particular respect. Wolley v. Brownhill, M'Clel. 317, s. c. 13 Price, 500.

When no endowment is produced, the presumption in favour of the vicar is narrowed to the perception or usage; and where a tithe has never been taken by a vicar, he cannot claim it, even if it be generally a small one. Daws v. Benn, 1 Law J. K.B. 205, s. c. 1 B. & C. 751, s. c. 3 D. & R. 122.

Receipt of a vicar for a particular species of tithe, is evidence to shew that he is endowed with that species of tithe. Apperley v. Gill, 1 C. & P. 316. [Park]

Where, in a suit for the vicarial tithes of a particular district within a parish, the defendants (the lessee of the Crown's grantee of the land, and his tenant,) pleaded, that the district had formerly been parcel of the possessions of the hospital of St. John of Jerusalem; the statutes 32 Hen. 8, c. 24, and 31 Hen. 8, c. 31; that the district had come to the Crown discharged, and had ever since been enjoyed by its grantees, their lessee and tenants, absolutely and wholly acquitted: and proved that the district had been in the possession of the order in the 22 Edw. 3, 1357, and usage of non-payment, prior to a decree for an account of tithes of the same lands eight years before,

as far back as living memory went, and tendered much evidence of reputation to the same point; but the plaintiff produced an inquisition of the profits of the vicarage, taken in 1314, certifying that the vicar ought to receive the tithes of wool and lambs of the whole parish, and all other tithes to the church in anywise belonging, excepting the tithes of corn and hay; and that all vicars had, ever since the ordination of the vicarage, received all other tithes peaceably, and did so at the then present time: Held, that this instrument afforded evidence that the small tithes had been, de facto, paid to the vicar at the time when it was made; and that the usage proved, had grown up from some unexplained cause after the time of memory, and that it, therefore, overturned the defendant's prima facie case; and an account of the tithes demanded by the bill was decreed. Donnison v. Elsley, 1 M'Clel. & Y. 1. Under a bill claiming small tithes, evidence of other tithes being due to the vicar, over and above those specifically demanded by the bill, is admissible. Manby v. Lodge, 9 Price, 231.

An incumbent of one parish is capable of tithes in another, as a portionist or in nature of a portionist, but it is incumbent on him, as claiming against a common right, to prove his title strictly, either by producing an actual grant or evidence of usage, affording by presumption legal evidence of a grant.

Evidence of usage to receive certain mixed tithes by an incumbent in another parish, as a portionist, or in the nature of a portionist, is not, of itself, evidence of a right to receive the tithes of all description, which the lands may produce under any circumstances. Bishop of Carlisle v. Blain, 1 Y. & J. 123.

In an action by the contractor against the lessee, on the 2 & 3 Edw. 6, for not setting out tithes, it is sufficient for the former to prove that he received payment for tithes in the preceding year. Ganson v. Wells, 8 Taunt. 542.

On a vicar's bill for tithe of agistment, no endowment being extant, the plaintiff produced a series of terriers, commencing from the year 1685, describing the several rights of the rector and vicar, and enumerating, among the rights of the former, a sum of 11. 17s. 9d. in lieu of tithe-hay and among the rights of the vicar, "tithe-calf, and all small and petty tithes." On the part of the defendants, a number of terriers were also produced, commencing from 1749, conflicting with those produced by the vicar in some respects, but all containing the 1/. 17s. 9d. as payable to the rector in lieu of tithehay, but with the addition, "and grassing": the defendant also produced accounts of the rector's agents, containing entries of the payment as for tithe of hay and grassing, and gave evidence of the general reputation, that the sum was payable for both. There was no evidence of perception of the tithe of agistment by either rector or vicar. The Court declined to decree for the vicar, but offered him an issue.

In a suit by the vicar, where the endowment is lost, and it appears from the evidence, that the rector has not received any small tithes, but that the vicar has received all the small tithes which have been rendered, the Court infers, in favour of the vicar, that the endowment conferred upon him, by a general expression, all small tithes whatsoever,

carrying, not only such small tithes as were then actually received, but such as were at that time neglected, or came afterwards into existence by the improvements in husbandry. But where the vicar never has received or been entitled to receive the whole of the small tithes, then it cannot be so readily presumed that the endowment contained a gift to bim in those general terms. Willis v. Farrer, 2 Y. & J. 217.

Ancient documents in the possession of the lessee of an ecclesiastical corporation aggregate, to whom the rectory belonged, purporting to be accounts furnished by some of their members, employed to collect the tithes, and appearing to be approved and settled, are admissible in evidence in a suit instituted by the lessee of tithes.

A book, purporting to contain an account of tithes collected by A B, although in his handwriting, cannot be received in evidence, without proof that he was collector of tithes at that time. Short v. Lee, 2 J. & W. 464.

Extracts from documents cannot in general be received; since the original ought to be produced, so that the Court may judge, by inspection, of the admissibility even of the document itself. Woolley v. Brownhill, 13 Price, 500, s. c. M'Clel. 321.

Between strangers the Court will not order depositions in a tithe cause in the Exchequer to be read in a tithe suit in this court (Chancery), though the interests of the parties be the same. Goodenough v. Alway, 2 S. & S. 481.

Office copies of depositions by living persons in a tithe suit in the Exchequer, may be read in a similar suit in this court against another defendant who makes the same defence, on production of office copies of the bill and answer in the former suit, without any order of this Court for that purpose. Williams v. Broadhead, 5 Law J. Chanc. 112, s. c. 1 Sim. 151.

It seems that the answers to interrogatories of ono of several defendants on the same record, who may by possibility be liable in the result to pay any proportion of the costs of the cause, cannot be admitted in evidence on behalf of either of the other defendants. Woolley v. Brownhill, M'Clel. 324, s. c. 13 Price, 500.

Where the defendants, occupiers of land, in respect of which, a suit had been instituted against them for tithes, set up a defence of title to the tithes in their landlord, and produced in evidence, on the hearing of the cause, certain deeds belonging to their landlord the Court made an order, on an application by petition, that the defendants should produce such deeds on the trial of an issue granted, or that they should upon the trial admit the fact, which it was alleged the deeds would establish, although the deeds belonged to their landlord, who was not a party to the suit. Pulley v. Hilton, 10 Price, 118.

Although a vicar, plaintiff in a suit for tithes, is not bound to produce and leave in the hands of his clerk in court bis book, containing entries by him and his predecessors; yet the Court will compel him to produce the entries in such book relating to the money payments in question, for the inspection of the defendant at the office of the plaintiff's solicitor; and will order in such case the publication in the original cause to be enlarged, so as to give the defendant an opportunity of applying the sub,