of the King by the service of 2 Knights’ fees and a half, having by the same, Mary, his wife, Thomas Pelham, Bart., his son and heir, then 27 years old.
There are now standing two churches, viz., St. Clement and All Hallows [qy. All Saints]. There were formerly St. Leonards, St. Margaret’s, St. Nicholas [qy. St. Michael’s], St. Peters, St. Andrews-sub-Castro, i.e., in all, seven churches. The five last named were destroyed when the French burnt the town. After its rebuilding it was divided into two parishes as it now remains. It has had charters from Edward the Confessor, William I., William II., Rich’d I., Henry III., Edward I., and Chas. II, by the style of Mayor, Jurats and Commonalty. There are similar accounts of Rye and Winchelsea. Bodleian Library. E. M."
Thus did the late Rev. E. Marshall render considerable service to Hastings by his “Notes and Queries” and by his antiquarian contributions to the local press; and how fitting it is that his son Mr. E. H. Marshall, a scholarly M.A. of Oxford, should be the librarian at the Brassey Institute, being as it were “to the manner born” for such an important post.
Burton versus Robertson.
A local case was heard in the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, on the 7th of May, of which the following is a summary:- The plaintiff was the creditors’ assignee of a bankrupt contractor, named Phillip Barnes, who, in 1849, took a lease for 99 years of some land at Hastings, from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, on which land he was to erect houses and to construct roads. The defendant, Mr. P. F. Robertson, became Barnes’s surety to the Commissioners for the execution of the work. In January, 1850, an agreement was entered into between Barnes and Robertson, that the latter should complete the work, and instead of interest for any money which he might advance for that purpose, he was to be paid double the amount of his advances. Mr. Robertson, accordingly, proceeded with the work and made several advances of money. The plaintiff as the representative of Barnes’s creditors, instituted this suit to set aside the agreement and to discover what was properly due from Barnes to Mr. Robertson. The bill was demurred to on the ground that it failed to show that the agreement was usurious; for, although Mr. Robertson was to receive double the amount of his advances, yet he was not merely to lend the money, but also to construct the works. Sir H. Cairns and Mr Turner supported the demurrer. Mr. Rolt and Mr. Southgate appeared on the other side. His Honour allowed the demurrer, but gave the plaintiff liberty to amend, and reserved the question of costs.
