[269] Reg. v. Millis (1844) 10 Cl. & F. 534; 8 Jur. 917; Culling v. Culling (1896) P. 116.
[270] Com. Dig. tit. Cemetery (B); Gilbert v. Buzzard (1821) 2 Hag. Cons. 333; R. v. Coleridge (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 806; R. v. Stewart (1840) 12 A. & E. 773, 777.
[271] Cripps, 759.
[272] Canon 68; Ex pte. Blackmore (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 122; R. v. Coleridge, ubi sup.
[273] Ex pte. Blackmore (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 122; Fryer v. Johnson (1755) 2 Wils. 28.
[274] (1867) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 133, ss. 9-11; (1868) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 47.
[275] The churchyard is not merely the property of a single departed generation, but is also the common property of the living and of generations yet unborn, and is subject only to temporary appropriations. An exclusive title to a portion of it is sometimes given by faculty to some family or individual possessing a good claim to be favoured by such a distinction. But even a bricked grave, in the absence of a faculty, is an aggression upon the common interests of the parishioners, and carries the pretensions of the dead to an extent which violates the rights of the living. Per Sir W. Scott (afterwards Lord Stowell), Gilbert v. Buzzard (1821) 2 Hag. Cons. 333, at p. 353.
[276] Bardin v. Calcott (1789) 1 Hag. Cons. 14, 17; Littlewood v. Williams (1815) 6 Taun. 277; Sm. Churchw. 73.
[277] Re Sargent (1890) 15 P. D. 168.
[278] (1808) 48 Geo. 3, c. 75; (1886) 49 & 50 Vict. c. 20; Sm. Churchw. 73.