The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-16 00:00:00

778 the several classes of the Legion of Honour, conferred upon them by his Majesty the Emperor of the French, and who have not already received such insignia, are requested to apply for the same to Henry Elliot, Esq., War Department, Pall-mall, between the hours of twelve and four o'clock daily, commencing on Monday next, the 11th inst. The insignia for such non-commissioned officers and men as have been nominated to the Fifth Class of the Order, and who are now serving with their respective corps, will be delivered to the officers commanding those corps, or to such officers as they may depute to receive them, with a view to their distribution. ebituarl Sin JOHN MILLET DOYLE, K.C.8., expired almost suddenly on Saturday morning last at his residence, Lower-ward, Windsor Castle, in the 72nd year of his age. Sir John had seen much service during a brilliant military career of nearly half a century. He entered the army as cornet, in 1794, served in the Egyptian campaign of 1801, including the actions of the Bth, 13th, and 21st of March, the captures of Grand Cairo and Alexandria, together with the other operations of that campaign. He served afterwards in the Peninsula from February, 1809, to the end of that war, in 1814, either in command of a regiment of Portuguese or a brigade, and was present at all tie great actions. Her Majesty the Queen of Eng. land and his Royal Highness Prince Albert have honoured Sir John since his residence at Windsor as a Military Knight with many marks of their gracious condescension and kindness, and by the special re quest of her Majesty Sir John was recently appointed a Sergeant-at-Arms. LIEUT.- GENERAL WILLIAM ALEXANDER GORDON, C. 8., Colcnel of the 54th, and Lieut.-General P. HAY, both Peninsular veterans, have also died this week. 'SOY an Voila. ARCHDEACON DENISON'S CASE. THE decision of the court in the case of Archdeacon Denison was pronounced on Tuesday. The Guild hall at Bath was crowned on the occasion. Arch deacon Denison, accompanied by Mr. Henley, M.P., and the Rev. Mr. Ditcher, with their respective counsel and proctors, arrived early. Archdeacon Law, and Bishop Carr, rector of Bath, and the Rev. C. 0. Mayne, vicar of Midsomer-Norton, two of the commissioners who sat at Clevedon in January, 1855, when it was found that there were prim&-facie grounds for further proceedings, and out of which the present inquiry originated, were also present. There were also several Roman Catholic divines in the body of the hall. At half past one his Grace the Primate, accompanied by Dr. Lushington and the other assessors, entered the court and proceeded to the committee-room, and in a few minutes afterwards took their seats upon the bench, when Dr. Lushing ton read the declaration of the archbishop. It commenced by stating how the proceedings ori ginated under the Clergy Discipline Act of Victoria, and pointed out that the question was not one of admissible doctrine, as in the Gorham case, but whether the doctrine proposed was contrary or not to the Thirty-nine Articles, and declared that it was to be tried by the 13th Statute of Elizabeth, which said : That if any person ecclesiastical, or who shall have ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles, and being convented before the bishop of the diocese, or the ordinary, still persists therein, or not revoke his error, or after such revocation eftsoons affirms such untrue doctrine, such maintaining, or affirming and per sisting, and such eftsoons affirming, shall be just cause to deprive such person of his ecclesiastical promotions, and it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese, or the ordinary, to deprive such person so persisting or lawfully rnvicted of such eftsoons affirming, and upon such sen tence of deprivation pronounced, he shall be indeed de• prived. Dr. Lusbington then delivered judgment as follows. His Grace being of opinion that the 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, and 14th Articles filed in the proceedings, and the charges therein made, were established, decided : Whereas it is pleaded in the said 9th Article that the said a. chleacon, in a sermon preached by him in the Cathedral of Wells, on the 7th of August, 1853, did advi sedly maintain and affirm doctrines contrary and repugnant to the 2.5 th. 2Hth, 29th, and 35th Articles of the Church of England; and amongst other things did therein advisedly maintain that " the body and blood of Christ being present after an immaterial and spiritual manner in the conse crated brea 1 and wine, are given to all and received by all that come to the Lord's table, and that to all who come to the Lord's table—to those who eat and drink worthily, and to those who eat and drink unworthily—the body and blood of Christ are given ; and by all who come to the Lord's table—by those who eat and drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink unworthily—the body and blood of Christ are received;" his Grace, with the assistance and unani mous concurrence of his assessors, has determined that the doctrines contained in the said passages are directly con- THE PRESS. trary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th Articles men tioned in the statute, and that the construction of the said Articles by the archdeacon—viz., that the body and blood of Christ becomes so joined to and present in the conse crated elements by the act of consecration that the unworthy receivers receive in the elements the body and blood of Christ—is not the true and admissible construction of the said Articles. The true and legal exposition of the said articles was— That the body and blood of Christ are taken and received by the worthy receivers only, who, in taking and receiving the same by faith, do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, whilst the wicked and unworthy, by eating the bread and drinking the wine without faith, do not in any wise eat, take, or receive the body and blood of Christ, being void of faith, whereby only the body and blood of Christ can be either taken or received. Similar charges in the 14th and 18th Articles filed his Grace also considered proved as contrary to the legal exposition of the 28th and 29th Articles of our Faith. Dr. Lushington then conclu4ed His Grace desires me further to state that he will allow time to the ven. archdeacon to revoke his errors, until Wednesday, the Ist of October next. If no such revocation as required by the statute shall be made and delivered into the registry of Bath and Wells by that time, he will, in obedience to the said statute, pronounce sentence in this court, which will be adjourned to Tuesday, the 21st of October, at half-past one o'clock. Dr. PHILLIMORE : May I inquire whether, under the circumstances of the case, it is competent for my client to enter an appeal ? Dr. Lys HINGTON : It is not competent for the archdeacon to enter any interlocutory appeal. Dr. Prirwmortz : if I understand rightly, there has been no sentence given in this case? Dr. LUSHINGTON : There has been no sentence given, or any decree made. Dr. PHILLIMORE : Then it is not competent to enter an appeal? Dr. LUSHTNOTON : No. The course pursued is this : Judgment has been given intimating that the archdeacon is in error, and, if no revocation is made by the Ist of Oc tober, sentence will be given on the 21st. The court was then formally adjourned until Tuesday, the 21st October. THE OFFICE OF CURSITOR BARON is abolished by an act of the late session, and any duty of the office may be performed by the Couri; of Exchequer, or any Baron of the Coif, or any officer of the court, as the court or the Lord Chief Baron shall from time to time direct. THE ACTION OF MATHER V. LORD MAIDSTONE was tried on Saturday, at Guildford, before the Chief Baron and a special jury. This action was to recover the sum of 1,0001. upon a bill of exchange drawn by the Hon. Francis Lawley, and accepted by Lord Maidstone. A good many pleas were put upon the record as an answer to the action, but the material defence relied upon was that the defendant had given the acceptance in question in lieu of a bill for the same amount which he had accepted for the accommo dation of the Hon. Mr. Villiers, but that, instead of receiving the genuine bill on renewal, a bill bearing a forg .d acceptance was handed to him. At the conclusion of the evidence on both sides, the jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant, expres-ing their opinion that there bad been a fraudulent conspiracy against the noble lord by some persons or other, but they were unprepared to say by whom. THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL as to whether borough justices have power to grant the annual alehouse licenses, has been published this week. The case is that of Middlesbrough : HEADS OF CASE. The case states that this is a " town corporate," having a separate commission of the peace (not containing any non-irtromittant clause), but no separate court of quarter sessions. That the justices of the borough have hitherto granted alehouse licenses, have appointed a " high con stable " conomine, and that they have issued their precept to him, and he has given the usual notices prior to the performance of corresponding acts by the county justices. The case further states that there is an existing high con stable of the division in which the borough is situated. OPINION. I am of opinion that the borough justices have not the exclusive power of granting alehouse licenses within the borough. If they have the power at all, they have it con currently or conjointly with the county justices, and the doctrine laid down in R. v. Sainsbury," 4, T. R., applies. But I doubt whether the borough justices have any juris diction at all. The inclination of my opinion is that they have not. But the question should be tried and receive judicial determination. The borough of Middlesbrotigh not having been constituted into a separate jurisdiction, I doubt whether the justices have any authority to appoint a high constable. If they have, Mr. Gibson is, of course, high constable. If they have not, and have jurisdiction in granting licenses, the chief constable of the borough would be competent to do what would otherwise devolve in a high constable to do in that behalf. The high constable of the division could not, in my opinion, be compelled to •bey the precept of the borough justices. Temple, Aug. O. A. E. COCKBURN. A CURIOUS ACTION FOR COMPENSATION FOR PER SONAL INJURY Was tried before Mr. Baron Bramwell, at Liverpool, on Tuesday. The case lay between a SATURDAY, tailor named Scott and the Corporation of Man cheater, and the details were as follows :—Some alterations being made in the gas-pipes of one of the streets of Manchester in November last, the pipta were taken up and "broken" on the spot in the or dinary way, by chisel and hammer. On the occasion in question, when the defendants' men were thus en gaged, the plaintiff was walking down the stret t, and on passing the spot where the workmen w€re breaking the gas-pipes a splinter of iron flew off and struck him in the eye, causing him intense agony, and the result was that he lost one eye and was in much danger of losing the other. He had formerly made 001. or 701. a year as a working tailor, but was now incapacitated from following that occupation. For the plaintiff it was contended that it was the defendants' duty so to have done the work as to pre vent the possibility of splinters flying, and that it was customary in such cases to put up a board or canvas as a screen. The defendants pleaded that they acted under the provisions of the Local Improvement Act, and employed persons of com petent skill to perform the work, and interfered in no other way. They called witnesses to show that the work had been done in the proper and ordinary manner. Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4001. MR. JAMES SADIEIR'S arrest warrant and bill of indictment found against him have just been pub lished, in addition to previous papers. The paper commences with a copy of the information of William Kelly and that of Austin Ferrall. A copy of the bench warrant of the Lords Justices of Assize of the Leicester Circuit follows, authorising and order ing the apprehension of the body of James Sadleir, as accused of conspiracy (with the late John Sadleir, the suicide) to cheat and defraud the English share holders and depositors of large sums of their money by false pretences. Then comes a copy of the in dictment, which contains eight count', and on which a true bill has been found by the grand jury. AN INTERESTING POINT OF THE COMMERCIAL LAW IN AUSTRALIA has been laid down by a judgment of the Insolvency Court of New South Wales. An ap plication was made to the Chief Commissioner in the insolvent estate of (1. C. Tuting and Co., to allow the sum of 6,175!. 3s. 4d. to be ranked against the said estate as a debt alleged to be due by them to the firm of Copestake, Moore, and Co., of London, for goods sold and delivered. It was contended by the counsel for Messrs. Copestoke, Moors, and Co., that the insolvents by their subsequent conduct and dealings clearly adopted the original contract, and were, therefore, liable for payment of the original debt. The learned commissioner, in an elaborate judgment, reviewed the evidence, and concluded as follows : Looking at all the circumstances of this case, and seeing that the authorities referred to establish the principle " that in order to convert a separate into a joint debt there must be the deliberate and mutual assent of three parties," and being unable to discover that assent here, I am of opinion that I ought not to allow this claim to be ranked as a debt against the estate of Tuting and Co., and [ therefore reject it accordingly. SIR GEORGE GREY'S reply to a memorial in favour of the late prisoner Murdoch, has been pub lished this week. The Home Secretary declines to interfere, and says— It would be very hazardous to admit that, when per sonal injury dangerous to life is inflicted, in order to carry out a purpose illegal and dangerous in itself, the absence of an intention to commit murder " as the primary object," is sufficient to exempt the criminal from the penalty of the crime. THE SHAM SEWER PLATE AUCTIONS, SO common about London, occasionally succeed in catching a "griffin" of the feminine sex. On Monday a hand some, welt dressed lady entered Marlborough-street Police-court, and begged advice from Mr. Bingham. She said that last week she went into a shop in the City where an auction was being held, and, believ ing the sales to be bona fide, she was induced to make purchases of plated dish covers and other ex pensive articles to the amount of 601. She paid a deposit of 10/. and left her address where the pur chases were to be sent and the balance paid. The next day the articles came, with a bill making the purchases amount to 1001., and this was effected by putting down 101. where the article was knocked down to her for 71., and so on. She was satisfied of the additions that had been made to the prices be cause she had put down the figures at the time, and her servant was with her, who could also speak to the same fact. She remonstrated against this im position, and she was told the matter could easily be rectified ; but as she found the mode of proceeding was to be by taking away goods so as to reduce the amount to 601., she refused to have any further dealings with the auction people, and preferred to come to this court to know if there were any means by which she could get back her 10/. deposit. In reply to Mr. I3ingbam the lady admitted she bad only just come from Australia, and had 2,000/. a ye of her own to spend. Mr. Bingham then advised her to consult her solicitor.