The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(TRIG DAT.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.--(Before the Lord Chief Justice and
Justices Blackburn, Shea, and Lush.)
rtes QUEEN V. olrint.
Mr. Willis showed cause against a rule u
certain justice. of Bedfordshire, and the Rev....O'Neil to
to show muse why a mandamus should not issue direct-
ing the justices to heir and determine a charge of assault
preferred by Samuel Oliver, churchwarden, of Luton,
against the vicar, the Rev. James O'Neil. It appeared
that on the 13th May last there was a collection in Luton
Church at the morning and evening services for the par.
=of repaying the vicar the expenses be had
put to in providing chairs for the accommodie
tion of the poor. After the morning service and
the collection of the money the churchwarden took a per.
don of the money with which to reimburse himself in re.
wet to certain sums be had paid to certain servants for
the care of the church. Mr. Oliver dating his intention to
take more from the evening collection, the curate seeing
him approach the vestry after the collection, closedithe
door. The vicar opened the door, and informed
Mr. Oliver he was not wanted there after his con-
duct in the morning, and told him to go away.
The churchwarden, however, pushed his way ia,
sad for the vicar's resistance he charged him before
the magistrates with an smolt. The magistrates heard
the evidence in support of the charge, and then it was
objected on behalf of the vicar that the acts complained of
were done in the bona fide exercise of the right of the vicar
to the exclusive possession of the vestry, and upon
that the magistrates, after considering the point, dis-
missed the complaint on the ground that the vicar was
bona fide acting in the assertion of right That finding
the learned counsel contended amounted to a decision
in the case.

Mr. Justice Blackburn said it waa not an adjudication,
but there was no assault in excess. It did not go be.
yolid that.

Mr. Willis contended that the vicar had the possession
of the church to the exclusion of all others even to the
rector, In whom was the freehold, or anybody else in a
common law court.

Mr. Justice Blackburn—lt might be that the church.
warden by virtue of his office has a right to enter the
vestry.
The Lord Chief Justice—Being there by virtue of his
offioe, has he not a right to be there?
Mr. Willis said the churchwarden could not used any
right to be there under the circumstances. The collection
was for a specific and particular purpose, and not for mat-
ters under the control of the churehwardens. The expense
of the chairs was incurred by the vicar. The learned
counsel referred to a number of authorities in support of
the exclusive right, and amongst others to the case of Hill
v. Matthews, in 3rd Haggard.
The Lord Chief Justice said the learned counsel should
read on, " These are miserable disputes, much to be
lamented;" and further, Sir John Nicoll says, "But I much
fear that the present suit will be far from tending to pro-
mote union" both applicable in this case.
Mr. Harrington appeared in support of the rule.
It appeared that a large sum of money was due to one
Munday, a verger, who bad been appointed by one of the
churchwardens, but which appointment the vicar declined
to recognise. Mr. Oliver told the vicar when he took the
money that he wanted it for Munday, and that be would
account for it.

The Lord Chief Justice said the money in question
was not raised for parochial purposes over which the
churchwarden had control, but to defray certain expenses
which the vicar bad incurred upon his own personal respon-
sibility. The money was voluntarily given by the parish-
ioners for a specific purpose, and the churchwarden had
nothing to do with it. It was to be regretted that the
magistrates did not decide the case on its merits ; and, as
the writ of mandamus was discretionary on the Court,
they did not consider it was • case in which it should be
issued. They, therefore, left the churchwarden to hie
civil remedies, if any. The rule would therefore be die
charged, with costs.
Rule discharged accordingly.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
PINNIT r. FINNEY.

Dr. Spanks Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the petitioner, Mr.
Searjeant Rallantine and Mr. Searle for the respondent.
This case, a wife's petition for a judicial separation on
the ground of cruelty, was resumed this morning, when
Major Finney's examination was continued. He denied
point by point the main allegations of his wife's evidence,
and in particular he said he bad never threatened to
go to the Argyll Rooms, pick up • woman there, and
commit adultery with her in order to allow the peti•
tioner to institute • suit for a divorce. Had not
been to the Argyll Rooms for a dozen years. Never sug-
gested to her that she might herself commit adultery with
the same object. Her whole story about the Argyll
Rooms was absolutely false. Had never threatened to
expose her letters. Had carried a revolver while the
garotte robberies were rife but had never threatened the
petitioner with it. Had once asked her for a glass of
wine after he had taken medicine. She gave it him but it
smelt strongly of bitter almonds. Refused to drink it.
and on her pressing him he threw it on the floor. Her
conduct up to luncheon time was always that of • gentle-
woman, but she used to take five or six glasses of wine a
day besides ale and bottled stout. The effect was that
without getting absolutely drunk she would beconio
flushed, excited, and sngry.
Croes-examina—Wu now 42 years of age. His second
wife was in advanced years, but witness did not know she
was 89 at her death, as stated in the burial certificate
produced. (Laughter.) Had married her in 18-13. Wile for-
merly in the let Regiment of Foot. Was dismissed the
service in 1832, but was allowed the price of his commis-
sion. Was of warm temper, and had once been before
the magistrates for an assault, but was then the
injured party. The persons who assaulted wit-
ness were the paymaster and another gentleman. They
came to witness's garden, and left hint weltering in his
blood. Then they went to the magistrates and took out a
summons against witness. Suffered for three weeks from
concussion of the brain, but on his recovery witness took
out a cross summons. It was dismissed, and witness fined
2A., because he had struck the first blow; but he had not
struck till he saw • stick uplifted over his head.
[The case was proceeding when we went to prowl

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Hoiroyd.)
IN la GROWS ',TALL.

The bankrupt was a merchant of Leadenhall-street
trading in partnership with C. F. Still, and also trading at
Hong Kong under the firm of Lyall, Stan, and Maclean.
This was the sitting for examination and discharge. The
bankrupt's own liabilities are only 2,400/., which have been
defrayed out of his private estate, and a surplus carried to
the joint estate. The liabilities of the firm of Lyall and
Still amount to 76,409/., against which they claim from the
firm of Lyall, Still, and Maclean of Hong Kong, 75,86 Y.
Of the latter firm the are stated at 173,3144 f. ;
assets, 30,:i441.
It appearing that an inquiry was in progress at the
instance of the assignees, an adjournment was ordered.
Mr. Bagley and Mr. Lawrence appeared in the case.
IN HZ THOMAS BAIVIN.

The bankrupt was a boot and shoe maker, of Deptford.
Debts 6701.

Mr. Brough d on the ground that the bankrupt
bad contracted debts without probable means of payment.
At the beginning of ISCZ he was in a deficiency of 500/.,
but bad gone on trading and contracting further debts
until March last.

After hearing Mr. R. Griffiths for the bankrupt,
His Honour suspended the order forma months; but, in
consideration of the bankrupt having been twelve years in
business without failure, granted protection.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Winslow.)
IY UE T. J. JOSLS.
. . -.

The bankrupt, described as a dealer in silk, of North.
buildings, Finsbury, came before the court for examination
and discharge, on accounts showing debts of 10,5414., with
assets and property held as security of about 3,100/.
Mr. Wood appeared for the assignees ; and Mr. Dubois
for the bankrupt.
The bankrupt was examined as to his receipt of a divi.
dead from the English Joint Stock Bank, of which he was
a =editor, but it appeared that it had been received some
time before the bankruptcy. Additional account,' being
signed by the assignees, an adjournment for ten weeks
was ordered.