atkins case the attorney general versus parker price and doughty Michaelmas  term see etherington v Wilson Ch d follow shaw v Thompson Ch d discuss in re  saint Stephen Coleman street in re saint mary the virgin aldermanbury Ch d S c  Ves where there be only a general allegation as to the right of election to a  curacy and not examine into or prove the court will not make any decree but  dismiss the information with cost Lord chancellor there be several part of  relief pray by this information first to set aside the election of Mr doughty  to the curacy of Clerkenwell and second to establish the right of election in  order to this several question have be make at the bar the first be as to the  election of Mr doughty and the assembly in order to it and a piece of  unfairness be object in not countermand the notice of election give in  February the second question be as to the right of election the three question  be if Mr doughty be elect accord to that right as to the first I think the  notice in February be a fair and legal one and as to the countermand that it  be only on the Sunday the very day before the election I be of opinion they do  right to refuse it and therefore this may be lie out of the case which bring  it to the merit out of which all the rest must arise first in who the right of  election be and what be the qualification of the elector and this tend to the  general point of establish the right by a decree of this court and also to the  question in re rd to Mr doughty and as to the first it will depend upon the  word of the deed of trust execute by Mr drake in and also upon the usage in  this parish explanatory of the deed and put a general construction upon it it  appear to have be a rectory impropriate of the monastery of Clerkenwell and  that there be a perpetual curacy arise out of it of four pound a year to the  curate whether this be a ancient pension or create by king Henry the eight  after the dissolution of monastery which be very frequent do do not appear it  be give by Mr drake for the use of the parishioner and inhabitant for ever and  nothing be say of the curacy but to be sure be consequent to the trust of the  rectory impropriate as in one case the monastery be perpetual rector and the  grantor in the other after the dissolution when this be grant to the parish  they have the nomination because they have the beneficial interest and the  trustee must present pursuant to their nomination atkins just as if it have be  a grant of a advowson of a presentative live the parish will have the right of  nomination to the trustee and they must have present such person so nominate  parishioner be a very large word take in not only inhabitant of the parish but  person who be occupier of land that pay the several rate and duty though they  be not resiant nor do contribute to the ornament of the church inhabitant be  still a large word take in housekeeper though not rate to the poor take in  also person who be not housekeeper as for instance such who have gain a  settlement and by that mean become inhabitant some sort of limitation be allow  by both side to have be put by usage on the liberality of this grant and in  the construction of ancient grant and deed there be atkins er p no better way  of construe they than by usage and contemporary exhibition be the best way to  go by it have be insist by the relator that it be confine to inhabitant pay  scot and lot oh church and poor and by the defendant that it extend to all  kind of restriction at all I can say the limitation of the relator will ha e  en a unreasonable one and I be of that opinion in the case before I of the  attorney general versus Davy after Trinity term Tr atk it arise in Devonshire  and there I think the inhabitant ought to be restrain to person pay scot and  lot that be a grant under a charter of the crown in Edward the six time but if  there be a evidence of housekeeper constant vote in this parish it ought to  prevail atkins consider too the time of the grant the independent  congregational scheme prevail then and therefore it must be suppose the donor  have a intention to make the right of election as liberal as possible and all  housekeeper who be not rate it be prove also at the election that all the four  candidate sign a paper in which be the follow agreement that the poll shall  begin that day and all house keeper shall poll it be very extraordinary they  shall agree if they do not think it to be right it be express swear that this  paper be read public to the assembly and universal agree to in the vestry  before the poll begin can there be a strong evidence of what be the right in  the parish than such a unanimous acquiescence previous to the election in all  these case evidence of ancient person be constant admit as proper evidence  because this must depend a good deal upon tradition then how be it possible  for I to decree it to be only in housekeeper pay scot and lot it will be put a  arbitrary construction of the court which I be not empower to do Mr attorney  general say select vestry in this parish and only housekeeper pay church and  poor have a right to be present and vote there but in the interrogatory no  question be ask what be the right of election and be not at all to be govern  by what be the right of vestry in this parish for a person may grant in such a  manner to a parish as not to be affect at all by the vestry the select vestry  have be set aside here for year and lie open ever since but suppose there be a  select vestry at the time of the grant de facto yet it be not in any respect  to be govern by it but upon the foot and word of the trust next as to the  election of Mr doughty if accord to the right there be no doubt of it but  suppose it be not accord to the right of election Mr doughty on the poll have  a majority of and on the scrutiny they have go into no proof as to the merit  of the election or how the majority stand upon the right of theelection and  therefore if it have be in the housekeeper pave church and poor can not set  aside the election as they have not go into the proof upon the merit nor turn  Mr doughty out as he be in possession atkins next as to establish it for the  future in such limit housekeeper there be no ground for that there be no  general allegation what be the right of election but be only incidental in Mr  doughty particular election nor be there so much as a interrogatory frame for  this purpose therefore I can make a decree to establish the right of election  which have not be examine to nor allege nor prove but if can go so far as to  make some sort of decree ought I to direct a issue to settle a right which may  not come in question again in year for Mr doughty may continue curate so long  this will be absurd the while information be dismiss with cost in Michaelmas  term Lord chancellor mention the cause of pot versus reynell and give  direction to the register to frame a general order which may for the future  prevent application to the court to withdraw the plaintiff replication in  order to set down the cause on bill and answer only and by that mean get the  bill dismiss with cost accord to the course of the court whereas otherwise he  must have pay the defendant his full cost but his lordship will not make any  order that shall affect this particular cause at the hear as well as rate have  vote in former election atkins er p