The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
APPEALS.

(Present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranwortb, and
Lord Colonaay.)
_ THE BISHOP OP EXETER V. BAH/MALL

It will be remembered that at the last hearing of this
case four of the common law judges attended to assist
their lordships with their opinions.
Mr. Baron Martin and Mr. Justice Blackburn attended
to-day, and expressed their opinion that the plea put in
by the bishop was bad in substance. In the case of a re-
fusal to induct a clergyman? the bishop must be prepared
to state distinctly ands pecifically on what grounds he
did so. Suspicion would not suffice, and the plea
must not merely assert unfitness. The other two judges,
Mr. Baron Pigott and Mr. Justice Willes, although absent,
fully concurred in this view.

In 1858 the Rev. Mr. Reid, formerly of St. John's Col-
lege, Cambridge, was presented by Mr. Marshall, the re-
spondent, to the rectory of Tregony, with the vicarage of
Cuby, in Cornwall, and the diocese of Exeter, having pre-
viously been rector of Claughton, in the diocese
of Manchester. He brought to the Bishop of
Exeter, the appellant, a testimonial signed by three
beneficed clergyman in the diocese of Manchester, and
countersigned by the bishop of that diocese, who added
these words : " The subscribers are beneficed clergymen in
the dioceae of Manchester. Mr. Reid was long non-resi-
dent in ray diocese, but I know no reason why he should
be legally hindered from being allowed to take other duty."
The Bishop of Exeter, not considering this testimonial suffi-
cient, refused to institute Mr. Reid, and after the lapse of
six months oollated anotherclergynian to theliving. Itseemed
that charges of simony had been made against Mr. Reid,
but that he had denied their truth. Mr. Marshall having
proceeded against the bishop in the Court of Common
Pleas, that court decided upon demurrer in favour of Mr.
Marshall. Subsequently the Court of Exchequer Chamber
affirmed that judgment on the ground that under the
canons of the church the bishop had no right to require •
testimonial from the bishop of the diocese in which Mr.
Raid had formerly held a living. The Bishop of Exeter
appealed from that decision, but at the last hearing it was
contended the plea put in by the bishop was no defence to
the action.

The Lord Chancellor, after hearing the above opinions,
said he was sure their lordships would feel that their beat
thanks were due to the learned judges for the care and
attention they had bestowed upon this important case,
and for the valuable assistance thus rendered. All he had
to do now was to order that those opinions should be
printed.

nHEDDEN AND ANOTHER T. THE ATTORNET-OILNEILAL ET AL.

This was an appeal from the Court for Divorce and
Matrimonial Causes against a judgment pronounced in
January, 11472, rejecting an application made by the now
appellants for a new trial and re-hearing of a suit insti-
tuted by them under the " Legitimacy Declaration Act,
1858" (21 and 22 Vic., c. 9:3), in which a judgment had
been pronounced in November, 1860, adverse to
their claim& The question related to the insufficiency
of evidence of the lawful marriage of William Shedden
and Ann Wilson in 1790, the parents of the ►ts
Wm. Patrick Ralston Shedden and Jean Ralston Snedden.
The point immediately before their lordships this morning
was with regard to au incidental case connected with the
alleged mutilation of certain documents of importance
since their production as evidence in the court below.
Sir It. P. Collier addressed their lordships to-day on
behalf of Miss Shedden. He had not concluded when our
report left.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Conuniuioner Goulburn.)
IN RE PROSsER.

The bankrupt, Evan Prosser, wee a builder carrying on
business at Devon's-road, Bromley. This was a sitting for
examination and discharge. The debts, which are prin-
cipally secured, amount to G,3411., and at present there M
nothing available for the creditors, but there is a prospect
of a small sum being ultimately realised.
Mr. Brough, for the assignees, did not oppose. Mr.
Wood supported the bankrupt.
His Honour, after remarking upon the facility with
which credit was given to builders, who frequently failed
for very large amounts without surrendering any assets
whatever, said that in the present case as there was no
opposition, the order of discharge would lse granted.