View report page

27
" Book of Common Prayer or at any other times without good cause." Now, upon
the wording of the canon I think and upon the reasons upon which the provisions
of the canon may be supported I think that this objection is a valid one, for if a lay
court is allowed to be held in a Church or the Churchyard, the control of the Church
or Churchyard for the time being is necessarily taken from the ordinary and placed in
that of the judge or presiding officer of the Court, and serious inconvenience or
disturbance might arise by the holding of coroner's inquests in certain cases in a
Churchyard, more especially during divine service, without the ordinary or his
officers having any power to interfere or control the persons assembled there. The
Court has therefore come to the conclusion that it ought to reject that part of the
application for a licence to erect coroner's and living rooms over the mortuary, and it
has also come to the conclusion that the site of the proposed mortuary is inconvenient
and unnecessarily in too close proximity to the houses in Wood's Close and
particularly to those in Church Row; and as the Surveyor stated in his evidence
that it might be, with no great increase of expense and without detriment to the
rectory house, placed back, say fifty feet from the road on the other side, the Court
will be prepared to grant a faculty for the erection of a mortuaiy in some such
position with a post-mortem room, which is incident and a convenient accessory to a
mortuary.
In consequence of the Court having rejected a portion of the plan submitted to it
it no doubt will be convenient and desirable that the plan should be reconsidered,
and the course I propose to take is, to adjourn the further hearing of this case in
order that the plan may be submitted to the vestry, and I have no doubt that with
the assistance of their Medical Officer and their Surveyor they will be able to frame
such a plan, as would meet any practical objections that could be taken to it. I
inspected twice the Churchyard and the neighbourhood adjoining it, and it certainly
did occur to me that the distance of thirty-two feet between the houses in Churchrow
and the entrance to the mortuary (where bodies of persons who have died from
infectious complaints were to be taken) is objectionable; and as the surveyor himself
stated in his evidence, that by placing the mortuary a little further back no
inconvenience would arise to the rectory house, and no great increase of expense
would be occasioned, I think considering the circumstances of the case it would be
desirable for the Parish to erect the mortuary further from the road : and I should
also suggest that the plan should be so framed that if they think proper to erect it
there, that there should be means of increasing the size of the mortuary at a future
time when occasion may require.
The only remaining question which I had to consider is the question of costs.
The costs are in the discretion of the Court, and in the present case Air. Merceron
and Mr. Wilson have, I am bound to say, succeeded on some very important issues
which were raised by the application of the Rector and the Churchwardens, and
without meaning to throw any censure at all on the Rector and Churchwardens and
upon the Vestry, who I think have in this case done no more than they were bound
to do having due regard to the welfare of the Parish, I think that Mr. Merceron is
entitled to the costs which he has incurred on those issues in which he has been
successful; on the issue on which he has not been successful I do not think he is
entitled to any costs, therefore I shall make an order that the case stand over for
further hearing, and that Mr. Merceron have the just costs in the cause. It has for
some time been the practice of the court to name a sum for costs, but if there is any
difficulty it can always be referred to me in chambers.
Dr. Spinks.—I can say nothing at present; the solicitor must consult the vestry.
The Chancellor.— It is a matter of great importance, and it is the first time that
the question has ever been raised in an ecclesiastical Court.
Dr. Spinks.—For argument.
The Chancellor.—For argument. There have been several unopposed applications
made, but this is the first time it has ever been argued in Court.