[Bell Historians] Great Malvern
andrew.higson at dz0g0jpy41hi-2c5UtwmRV_sIlUmiWxuaW37OeVwiO5fUb_VWHpzQVbF1qHUmZol24Bi3o2XJhpxFqvXWPukteag3aSw.yahoo.invalid
Tue Mar 10 10:24:36 GMT 2009
Bugger of a big mantelpiece!
Taylors Eayre and Smith Ltd
Telephone: 01509 212241 Fax: 01509 263305 Registered in England No.
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dickon Love
Sent: 10 March 2009 10:21
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern
> As a cardinal issue is involved, and the decisions are at a high
> and the precedence set is critical,
This is a difficult one. The precedence isn't critical as this judgement
is not binding on any other judgements, but it will be persuasive. Of
course, if it is taken to the Court of Arches who rule in favour of the
Chancellor then it will be binding across the country.
I haven't spent much time reading the judgement, but Richard Grimmett's
questions are pertinent.
(who is now glad that his 17th century 10 bell frame is now consigned to
the scrap heap, and his mantlepiece!)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bell-historians