The Express.
London, England, 1849-08-11 00:00:00

Ea) intelligence.

POLICE.—YESTEP'DAT.
WOOLWICH.
AvTIMPTID WIRD= lUSEO SUlClDll.—Edward Hernsey,
who is employed as captain of one of the schooners hired by
the Board of Ordeance, was charged with cutting and
wounding his wife, Martha Harney, with intent to kill her,
and also with attempting to commit suicide.
Both the prisoner Mid his wife appeared to be suffering
exceedingly from the injuries they sustained, their throws
being covered with plaister. The wife was 51 faint from the
loos of blood that she WWI accommodated with a chair, and
was unable for some time to epeak. When she bad been
sworn, she reluctantly stated tbst she wu the wife of the
priur.er, and that the e ecurrence took place on Sunday last,
bat at what hoar or place, or what occurred, she could not
say, as she was very much in liquor at the time, and had no
recollection of what happened.
Police constable John Stevens deposed that on Sun-
day lost he was on duty in the Woolwich road between
Coombe Farm-lane aad the union-house. About five
minutes after six o'clock in the evening, a young man
came running up out of the marshes, and informed wit-
ness that a man had cut his wife's throat and his own.
Witness sccompani•d the young man into the marshes,
and they found the prhooer amothat mime rushes, lying
down on he left aide, h his hat off, and the knife'
now produced (a small clap knife) at his side. On
lifting him up, witneu perceived a wound in his thr tat. He '
was insensible, and did not speak fur ten minutes, end then
he requested witness to let him sit down. Witness procured
assistance, and conveyed him to the union, where he was
Immediately attended by Dr. Sturton. The woman he
heard was able to walk home.
Mr. A•Becket said that both the prisoner and his wife
were evidently is a very indifferent state of health ; and as
there were other witnesses, he should remand the case for a
week.—The prisoner was aceordiegly remanded.

EQUITY COURTS.
Rani ihmsZnaNcsucts Wzowas.
WHISTON, CLERK, tr. TIM DRAW AND CHAPTIIR 07
110CHISTILIt.—CATHIDRAL SCHOOLS.
This ease was argued lest ,Telk upen t uouUn for an in-
junction restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff
from the office of headmaster of the Cathedral Grammar
Scheel. The case was fully reported during the argument
in the columns of the Express.
The Vice-Chancellor forwarded to the solicitors of the
parties the following written judgment :--
" At the close of theargument in this ease I recognised the
undoubted jurisdiction of this court in all cases of tart in
the sense in which that word is used in this court in the or&
nary case of trustee and meta que trust. The first question
to be determined in this ass is whether the relative positions
of the defendant* and of the plaintiff are those of trustee
and mein qua trust. That this is the first
.question to
be determined is manifest from the reeeoning of the
court in all the cases beginning with ' Phil:ips v. Bury
(2 Term Reports), and Green v. Rutherforth (1 Yes.
sen.) down to and including ' The Attorney-General
v. Msgdslen College, Oxford' (10 Beavan, 402). The
answer which I feel compelled to give after exsusinirg, I
believe, every case that was cited in the argument bearing
upon it, is, that this is not a case of trust in the sense above ,
explained, but that the Master, upon the true construction
of the statutes, ought to be considered only as an officer to
the cathedral church, appointed for the purpose of perform-
ing one of the duties imposed upon the cathedral church by
the statutes of the founder. I cannot in this case, for the
purposes of the question I have to determine, distinguish the
pposition of the Master in this case from the position of the
Mester in the Attorney-General e. Magdalen College, Ox-
ford,' or from the other cues in the books in which similar
ques.ions have arisen between collegiate bodies and 'persons
holding offices appointed by the founder, but which persons
have not been members of the collegiate body. I cannot upon
the construction of the statutes in this ease say that the Mu-
ter is not one of the ministry spoken of in the statutes. But if
the contrary of this could be maintained, I cannot discover a
round for holdieg that the master is a cestui que trust of
the cathedral church only because he receives a stipend
payable out of the c-mmon funds of the defendants which
would not equally oblige me to hold that every officer men-
tioned in the statutes to whom a livery and a stipend are
given is also acestui que trust. The case of the' Attorney-
General v. Magdalen College, Oxford,' is a direct authority
in point, and I em satisfied with following that authority.
Excluding, then, the case of trust, and assuming also,
what certainly I am not disposed to question (though I give
no opinion upon the point), that the removal of Mr. Whisten
from the mastership without hearing him in his defence was
a wrong, the question is in whom is the jurisdiction to re-
dress that wrong. If there be a visitor whose powers are rot
so circumscribed as to exclude the jurisdiction, I apprehend
it is clear that the jurisdiction must be in that visitor, and
that his decision upon the point is final. This is BO broadly
stated in all the cars since' Phillips v. Bury,' that it cannot
be necessary I should refer to authorities in support of it.
The ease of ' the King v. the Bishop of Chester,' (1 W.
111, 22,) shows that the rule applied es well to cathedral as to
other bodies. The jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's
Bench may be called in by mandamus to compel the visitor
to act, and theurisdiction of that court, and in some cases
of the Court o(Chancery also, may be called in by. prohibi-
tion to restrain the visitor from exceeding his jun-diction,
and where there is no visitor, or the power of the visitor is
extinct or suspended (Manchester College use, 1 Bernardi,-
ton 521, or is not pleaded in proceedings for a mandamus
(Bentley's cue, Fortescue) the Court of Qut en's Bet ch may
be Pze proper court to redress the wrong. Attention to
these distinctions will reconcile with the law, as I have
stated it, much that was pressed upon me in argument by
the plaintiff 's counsel. In this case lam called upon to
decide that the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction by bill,
as a matter of course, to try the matter in dispute between
the plaintiff and the defendants. In making the inquiry
whether this proposition is well founded, I need not
determine whether the Bishop of Rochester is in this
case the visitor, or whether, if ha be the vititor,
has such an interest in the matter in dispute ss to occasion
pro Ade rice a suspension of his visitrorial powers, or whe-
th, r the right of visitation is In the crown, to be exercised
by tho Lord Chancellor upon petition, or whether the
plaintiff could, by an application far a prohibition, have
protected himself against the continuance of the wrong of
which he complains (as in the ease of the Dean of York, 2
Q. B. 1), or, lastly, whether the Court of Queen's Bench
could by mandamus order the plaintiff to be restore-el to his
office. The only question I have to determine is whether the
Court of Chancery, in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiee
Lion by bill, In a case in which no trust exists, can try the
plaintiffs right to the office of schoolmaster from which
the defendants have exercised the power of excluding him.
1 am of ovinion that the question must be answered in the
negative. Excluding the case of trust, 1 cannot find a single
authority which supierts the proposition. I could on many
accounts have wished for the opportunity of explaining
more in detail the grounds on which the mown c pinion has
been formed; but having come to the conclusion I have
stated. I have thought it best to give the par les the earliest
possible opportunity of having my judgment reviewed, if it
should be thought erroneous. One oche r point remains to be
mentioned—lt was said for the plaintiff, that the coon at
all events would preterite things in stain quo until the right
should be determined by the proper tribunal. That this was
not the °eject of the bill u s originally framed is merited.
The otject of tee bill, at the time the argument cdsimenced,
was to obtain the judgment sad decree of this court upon
the main question, camel'', the plaintiff's right to the eft,*
of schnolmesti r, notwithstanding the acts complained of
The bill as emended by consent during the argument has
made it a bill for the execution of the trust, and cot a bill for
the protection of property pendente lice, which is a bill of a
special character; but waiving all objection upon the ground
of form, I cannot recognise the general proposition that in
every ease of a dispute arising shout a tight of office or other
legal right, the Court of Chancery con be called upon as a
matter of course to prevent the claimant from being dis-
placed until the right shall have been tried; and no ape cial
caso for the interference of the court has been made before
me. There are numerous cases even of irreparable mischief
where the court has refused to interfere between adverse
claimants, where no ultimate relief could be had in this
court. I regret, therefore, being under the necessity of re-
fusing this motion, with costs.

SECONDARIES' COURT.—YESTERDAY.
Br/ use Ma. SECONDARY
EVEN v. CARTEIL—CHIN. CON. Sty A "MAN IN
Posezeatoto."
This was an action to recover damages for criminal eon.
venation with plaintiff's wife.
Defendant having suffered ju.'grnent to go by default,
this was an inquiry to RUM dan.agee, which were laid at
1,0001.
Mr. Parry, on the part of the plaintiff, said that the de-
fendant, by not pleading, admitted all the facts alleged in
the declaration, and under such circumstances it was gene
rally unnecessary to prove the adultery, hut in this case, Mr.
Bunn, the plaintiff, instructed him to do so in order that
the facts might appear on the notes. The object of the
plaintiff was not to obtain a verdict for the sake of the
money, but in order to take proceedings in the House
of Lords to o'..tain a divorce. The learned cauntel
then stated that plaintiff is • retired licensed vic-
tualler, at present residing at Hurst-terrect, Horton.
What defendant was now. cr where he re-
sided, he could not say, but, in 1845, when the
offence took place, he was a man in possession in a tavern in
Bucklersbury, under • levy by the sheriff'. Plaintiff was
married in 1835, but it was soon discovered that Mrs. Bunn
was addicted to habits of intemperance, and a temporary se
paration took place, but they again lived together till 1812,
1 when a deed of separation took place, in which plaintiff
undertcok to make her an allowance so long as the con-
ducted herself with propriety. It would be proved that in
June 1846, when the defendant was in possession at the
tavern, Mrs. Bunn was also there, and the connexion b -
tween her and defendant there tcok place, sodas he believed
frequently when she was in a state of intoxication. It was
necessary to observe, that although the plaintiff had good
reason to suspect his wife, yet he had no mesas of obtaibing
legal proof till five or six months ago. The learned counsel
then called
Thomas Eggbear, a picture-frame maker in Chapel-street,
Clerkenwell, who proved he knew defendant, who was in
poessession at the Albion. On one occasion he went al, stain
to speak to defendant, and on opening the door he saw the
defendant and Mrs. Bann together. (The evidence here
was quite conclusive.) Defendant followed him, and told
him not to tell Andrews or White. White was a sheriff's
officer, and put defendant in posse-sin°. Defendant used to
boast of his connexion with Mrs. Bunn.
The Secondaty thought this evidence was sufficient.
Mr. Parry said his client was anxious for the cue to be
gone into, es it might be important hereafter.
Mr. W. H. White was called. Was a sheriff's officer,
and put defendant in possession. Defendant was in poss-
ession under a bill of sale put in by Mr. Oiddye, a
clerk to Messrs. Helmsley and Preston. He had
seen familiarities pass between defendant and plaintiff's
wife. Witness cautioned him, and said that it would get
him (witness) into discredit, and ha wished be had not put
him in possession. Defendant said, "Never mind, it's all
right." Witness had frequently seen Mrs. Bunn intoxicated,
and had carried her up stain. Defendant had also said he
had taken her up stairs when in that state, and made an ob-
servation to the effect that an improper intercourse had
taken place between them on the occasion.
A hirer—Was she conscious at the times yon have seen
the familiarities?-1 should say she was.
Juror—Did defendant know she was a married woman ?
' I can't thy; she went by the name of Mrs. Bunn.
Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor, of High-street, Harrow-on-the
Hill, also gave corroborative testimony.
aSherif
d datfialijailiilf soaauna'r:rtle ;had
ideape
not ere
Dia
ttekkannabovea
dd summed sotb e
eh that
Several witnesses were then called, who said plaintiff wits
lean.
The
widow,
neoduwidlnestilt
utd
improper,
that,naa
y perhaps,
marriedwasoy wastc•
tiering the situation he had been in ; the facts were clearly
proved, and the question of damages was one entirely for
the jury, who, cm the one land, must take care not to give
mosesire damages; and, od the other, notwithstanding the

es c
circumstances of defendant, they ought not to Kit:tenor, email
The State of the Weather at each of the f9ll • 849'
METEOROLOGICAL
cue
ytirday
ritaorEniorri:mgß:S
damage*, eo that if the ease went More the. suottrit
andt
would be thought that the jury had cons,dered
W it trivtal. SATURDAY, AUODST 11 1
Nine o'clock The jury, alter a short consultation, gave a verdict for 501.

Name et Place.

DK/OMM

81110111011
Burro!.

CIEWI
DAILLINGION

axe

Qusuuw ..

......
literamos

LLICAIII ........ .......

~.:.

lauoirrost

Maiecvsna......
Ma'mum

o _-

Lama
Sur

.....

SWINDON ........

TANwowni

Court* of
Wind.

TVNIBJUDOMI

B.W.

F.N.

N.E.
8.
Q.W.
N.E.
Q.W.
W.Q.W.

tkreila d

Gentle BM=
Gentle Brame
Calm

dentie Breeze
Calm

Gentle Breeze
Nnt

aim

Oentle Breese
Cairo

stit. a viuu,,—.

N.N.W.

PutlWy
Partially amdi
Partially Mid,
Partially 011/14
Plirtligly Cloudy
Partially Pogo,
Overcoat
Partially Coady
Partially lattly
Pallidly Cloudy
Partially Clow,
Nuttily and!
Cloudier
eloodkai
Overshot
Overeat
I °meat
Overcoat
Overcoat
Own*
PartWly am,
Omuta
Rata
°mart
FWD
thwart
IPartially Maly
Pantally Malay
•

Gentle Breeze
Cantle Breen
Gentle Breen
Calm

B.W.
B.W.

W.
S.W.
S.W.
S.E.
B.W.
B.W.
N.
S.W.

IGentle Breeze"
Gen.le Breeze
Gentle Breeze I
Gentle Breeze
Gentle Breeze
Gentle Breeze'
Gentle Brame
Gentle Breeze
Gentle Breeze
Calm

Gentle Breeze
Gentle Freeze
Gentle Breeze