« PreviousContinue »
In omnibus quidem, maxime tamen in Jure, æquitas spectanda sit.
Dig. Lib. 1. tit. xvij. 89.
Law Booksellers and Publishers,
AND A. MILLIKEN, DUBLIN.
In offering this Treatise to the notice of the Profession, the Author feels himself called upon to say a few words in explanation. He is far from imagining himself very competent to discharge the task he has attempted. Yet, when he considers that up to the present day there has appeared not a single work on this not unimportant subject, he ventures to hope that even this compilation may be found of service. It was the want under which he personally laboured of the means of informing himself upon the present state of the law relating to the Roman Catholic body in Britain and its colonies, that first led the Author to undertake, for his own benefit, those inquiries, the results of which he now presumes to lay before the public. In doing so, he is quite conscious of the many imperfections which are very likely to abound in a work of the first impression. But if he shall have succeeded in facilitating the further researches of more able and learned inquirers than himself, and of clearing their path of some of those embarrassments which he has found upon his own, the Author's success will have been quite equal to his expectations.
As far as the Author is aware, he has endeavoured never to make use of the industry of other compilers without acknowledgment. For the concluding Chapter upon Colonies, he is especially responsible. The silence of Mr. Justice Story, Mr. Burge, and other learned commentators, upon this interesting point in the conflicts of imperial with local laws, has been frequently lamented by those to whom some information would have been particularly desirable.
Where so much doubt exists as to the present applicability of certain ancient statutes and supposed legal maxims, the Author feels every confidence in craving, as he does, the indulgence of his readers for the views he has occasionally expressed. He more especially refers to the Chapters on Charities.
It has been a rule with him to confine his work, as much as possible, to the laws peculiarly, and eo nomine, affecting the Roman Catholics. Circumstances have occasionally created exceptions to this rule. To some laws nonconformists of every denomination are equally subject. In other instances, and particularly in that of the law of Charities, it was difficult to adhere to the rule without incurring the hazard of not being sufficiently understood. Perhaps he has acted wisely in deserving the censure of prolixity, rather than the selfreproach of the poet :
NAMES OF CASES.
Grosse v. Reed
PAGE Adams and Lambert's Case. 118 Doe v. Aldridge Archbishop of Canterbury's
- 0, Gatacre . Case
-- v. Hawthorn .
130 Attorney General o. Cock : 138 -- v. Jones . . - 0. The Fish
-- v. Mackaeg . 106, 142 mongers' Company . 127
127 | Dubarre o. Livetti . . 76 - v. Gaunt 152 0. Griffith 42, 109 Edwards o. The Bishop of 0. Hickman 132 Exeter . 0. Lepine. 158
157 v. Matthews 132 Evans's Case . 74, 127, 184
v. Mayor of London . . . 160
Farrington's Case . . 36 -0. Pearson 120, Foote v. Hayne . . 76 132, 133, 148, 152 v. Power 135, 152
Garnet's Case . . .81-4 -0. Rigby . 151 Gilham's Case .
- v. Stephens 161 Grieves v. Case . 128, 132, 137 -0. Stewart 168, Griffith v. Reed
64 183 Grosse o. Gayer . . . 72 - o. Todd 125, 165
Harrison o. Evans . . 127 Bradshaw v. Tasker 114, 132–3 | Hartley v. Herring . . 144 Breeks v. Woolfrey , 121, 146 | Hearne v. Stowell . : 145 Broad v. Pitt
Hine v. Reynolds.
77 Morpeth . . . . 118 Calvin's Case .
. 168 Leslie v. Birnie . 148, 152 Campbell v. Hall . . ib. Lloyd v. Passingham Campian's Case
. 109 Cary v. Abbot 110, 116, 121, 124, Mansfield's Case
133 Martin v. Paxton . Chadwick v. Smith. . 141 Mayor of Lyons v. East India Cockburn v. Raphael, 151, 159, 163, Company , 162, 175-6, 183
176-7 Mildmay's Case . . 73 Collyer v. Burnett . . 157 Milligan v. Mitchell . 149, 154 Corbyn o. French . . 129 Minet o. Vulliamy . . 157 Cottington v. Fletcher
Mitford o. Reynolds . . 164 Craigdallie v. Aikman . . 148
Newham o. Raithby .. 97 Daniel's Case , 166, 175 Davis v. Jenkins
Oxford's (University of) Case 15 Dawes v. The Baron de Feuchères . . . 85 Porter v. Clerke
. 147 De Garcin v. Lawson . 165, 175 Provost of Edinburgh v. Aubery 157