The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-06-19 00:00:00

THE OFFICE OF TEE JUDGE 1'114.1)14.TE') ItT THE MHO?

r. THE It I.:V. J. fI..NWELI.

This rase WAS tear.l oii the ei:11 inst. 011 the eutnissi-
bility ei( the art ides exhibited against the rev. defend.
ant. Sir J. 1). Hireling, ao.I Dr. Tristram wire
then heard in suppirt of the articles, and Mr. Bowel:II
in opposition to their admission.
Dr. Lushington save judgment toulay. He mid that
several objections hod been strongly orged by Mr. Bon-
well to the admiaiibility of some of the articles, with
reference to the Clergy Discipline Act, and the commia•
sion which tAMIC,I by the orders of the Itislop, tool the
findingu of the Camitisaionent The leading objection
of Mr. Bonwell was that the articles contained certain
matter not to be ftaind in the report if the C
sioners preaented by them, and, referring to tire statute,
he contended that tit, articles so impugned ought not to
be admitted. The .d.jection was not that the articles
differed from the letters of request, but from the con-
tents 44 a document not before the Court, 11.. r in the
custody of the Court. Whatever might be the weight
use to that objection, lie hail great difficulty in taking
it into considcrition in the present stage of the cause,
though, possibly, it inigl.t Collie bef4ae the Court in •
subaespictit stAge in a more regular shalt. Ile war un-
witting to decide the question on teelinical grounds, sent
therefore would consider the objection as if the finding
of the Commissioners had been regularly proved before
the Court. The loon lation of the objection Was tlint
the articles went (Mr be)ond the finding of the Commis-
sioners, an I it was said that the I uur was re•tricted by
the Act of Parliament to the finding of the Commis-
sioners. 'There WSS no such enactment to be found in
the .Act of Parliament. The objection bad been taken
that the articles contained a charge of adultery within
the throes of London, whereas the Commissioners
reported that there was not sufficient grounds for fur-
ther proceedings. as the evidence would not warrant •
conviction. That finding was given in reference to the
evidence adduced in support of tire offence brought
befure the Commissioners. The learned Judge was of
opinion that by the expression prinvi facie gm rind for
instituting proceedings something further was intended
than the mere discharge of the duty of a grand jury, and
he especially tlirn.igl.t or, as evidence for the accused ia
to be reereived. The queetion before the Commissioner.*
WAS not, guilty or not guilty, upon the evidence before
them—not whether in ti e evidence there would be a
judgment of eon•iction ur acquittal, but whether upon
the evidence before them. nut considering it to be the
whole evidence which would be produced, (litre WAS
CtIOUSII to warrant a farther investigation with • rea-
sonable n.ipesit of conviction on such flirther trial.
The Commi,ionera found that there WKS SUffiCitllS twined
.facie ground for iiistitunng further I,ns-ceilings in
respect if Mr. non well being the father of the child ui
Miss Voratli. That issue he WAS 110111.1 In. try. IS was
a question for the Court and not for the Commissioners ;
for it would have been refine errs if Harm 1., put any
limit upon it. The learmel Judge reielled that objec-
tion awl also the objection* that the alleged offence was
committed out of the diocess, and Eliot it was neceraary
that each article might contain a distinct ecclesiastical
offence.
The articles were therefore admitted.
Mr. Itonwell asked leave to appeal, but the applies,
tion was refused.