The Express.
London, England, 1866-12-07 00:00:00

:03f131ITTEE OF THE PRIVY
COIJNOIL.—Drc. 6.
(vile, Sir V. Williams, Sir L. Peel, Lord
Sir T. Kinder'ley, and Sir W. Earle.)
v. THY BISHOP OP NORWICH.
(vacate (Sir R. Phitlblimfor the ore, Q.C.) and Dr. ;
Proctor Skipwi, appellant
Q.C., and Dr. Tristram, instructed by
for the respondrut.
appeal from the Arches Court of Canter-
was instituted by the Lord Bishop of
the Rev. Thomna Berney, rector of
the county of Norfolk and
, the appellant, for having, on two
months of May and June, 1864, in
of Brawn Ash, by lewd and inconti-
nent conversation, solicited the chastity of Mrs. Ellen
Mary Cumming, the wife of the Rev. James John Cum-
ming, rector of East Carlton, in Norfolk, a parish adjoin-
ing that of Bacon Ash • and also for having, once at
Brecon Ash Hall, and afterwards at Brawn Ash Rectory,
been guilty of the same conduct to Miss Maria Elizabeth
Durant, the sister of Mrs. Cumming, "thereby causing
great scandal to the church." Prior to the institution of
this suit, the Lord Bishop of Norwich, of his own motion,
had issued a commission, directed to the chancellor of the
diocese and others, under the Church Discipline Act, for
the purpose of making inquiry us to the ground of the
alleged scandal. These commissioners assembled at Nor-
wich, where witnesses were examined in support of the
charge, and they were cross-examined by a solicitor who
on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Berney, and at the
=eeartlied commissioners declared that there were prima
facie grounds for further proceedings against him. The
case accordingly came before the Dean of Arches,
and this learned judge in giving judgment said that after
watching Mrs. Cumming and Miss Durrant very carefully,
he could not detect the slightest disposition in either of
them to exaggerate tte case they came to support, and he,
therefore, pronounced the articles to have been substan-
tially proved, and suspended the appellant for two years
ab officio et beneficio, and condemned him in costs. The
Rev. Mr. Berney now appealed against this decision, while
the respondent submitted that the judgment pronounced
by the Dean of Arches ought to be affirmed, and the
appeal dismissed, with costa.
The Queen's Advocate (Sir R. Phillimore) addressed the
committee at great length this morning, going through the
grader portion of the evidence which had been adduced in
the court below, contending that the allegations of these
two ladies against the Rev. Mr. Berney were most im-
probable, and he pointed out the fact that Mrs. Cumming
had received presents of vegetables and fruit from Mr.
Berney after the alleged occurrences, and that Miu Dur-
rant had continued to play the harmonium in Mr. Berney's
church after she alleged that that gentleman had solicited
her to commit adultery. There might have been consider-
able " fun and mirth between these parties, but that a
criminal contraction should be put upon Mr. Berney's
words and deeds was very harsh and hard. Neither of
the ladies had been able to give the particular dates updn
which these occurrences took place, end their testimony
was entirely unsupported by any other evidence. The
other side pat great reliance upon a letter which Mr.
Berney had written to the Rev. Mr. Cumming,. in reply
to a letter from the latter gentleman, as showing that
he (Mr. Berney) had been guilty of misconduct
towards the ladies. That letter was as follows:
" My dear felt so irritates' on receiving your letter
that I dared not trust myself to write. It Is generally
admitted that where two persons are ranch thrown toge-
ther, and daily meeting in mirth and fun, some little lati-
tude is allowable, though its extent be perhaps as various
as the seta of which society is composed. Nothing can be
further from my wish than to Five offence by exceeding
its proper limits, and I am anxious to offer a most sincere
apology for anything in which I may have offended. The
society of your relatives has ever been a source of real
happiness to me, and nothing can exceed my sorrow that
anything should have occurred to mar the harmony which
existed, and my heartfelt wish is that the apology thus
sincerely offered may be accepted. Let me beg of you to
convey. to your sister my gratitude for her kindness, espe-
cially in assisting at the harmonium.—Believe me, yours
ever, THOS. BERNEY." He (Sir Robert Phillimore)
contended that this letter really proved nothing
at all, and that it was perfectly consistent with
the appellants' innocence, inasmuch as they did not
know what were the contents of the letter to which Mr.
Berney's was a reply. An effort had been made to find that
letter, but it was believed to have been destroyed. Re-
viewing the whole of the evidence, he trusted that their
lordships would be of opinion that the evidence was totally
insufficient to uphold the decision of Dr. Lushington, an
that that decision must be reversed.
Dr. Twigs followed on the same side, quoting the well
known words of Lord Hale's as to attempts upon women's
chastity—" No charges are so easy to be made, and none so
difficult to disprove be the party never so innocent.
The case had not concluded when the court rose."

(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice Turner.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. EDMUND&
Mr. N. Higgins applied in this case that Mr. Ed-
munds, the defendant, might be allowed to deposit with
the clerk of records and writs a printed book containing
certain accounts and statements. The Attorney-General
had filed his information against Mr. Edmunds, requiring
him to set forth in minute detail his receipts and pay-
ments as clerk of patents for upwards of 31 years, and as
clerk to the commissioners of patents from the year 1852.
It appeared that Edmunds had employed an accountant
to prepare an account of his receipts and pay-
ments as clerk of patents' and that account had
been printed, and formed a bulky volume, by which, ac-
cording to Edmunds, it would appear that he did not owo
one farthing. He proposed to tile this piloted volume as part
of the schedule to his answer. The clerk of records and
writs, however, refused to :tilos, this to be done, as
contrary to the practice of the court, which required the
schedule to be written. Mr. Edmunds urged that it
would save him much expense if the volume were ad-
mitted, inasmuch as there were a great number of items,
and there was nothing in the rules of the court to prevent
him tiling a printed volume.
The Attorney-General (who happened to be in court)
said he had not yet been instructed in the matter, and it
was therefore entirely an erparte application, but in his
opinion it ought not to be acceded to.
Their Lordships thought the practice of the court
ought to be afflicted to. The) therefore could not accede
to the application. Mr: Edmunds, however, might deposit
the printed volume with the clerk of records and writs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Dec. 6.
After Term Nisi Prins sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
BALL ANII WIFE T. AXTEN.
This was an action for assault, &c. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Powell, Q.C. and Mr. H. James were counsel for
the plaintiff. The &fondant did not appear.
The plaintiff Ball is a farmer, renting about twenty acm
of land in the neighbourhood of Aniersham-park, and the
defendant was represented to be a tailor, but more ad-
dicted to field sporta than to the board and the shears. On
the 2nd of January last the plaintiff, who had been much
annoyed and his crops injured by sportsmen trespassing on
his land, heard the hounds in the immediate neighbour-
hood of his house and grounds. and went out to see what
was going on. tie then found the defendant and others
there. Plaintiff went up to a gentleman in a scarlet coat.
named Ow ney, seized the horse by the bridle, and insisted
upon knowing his name and address, when the defendant it
was said, unnecessarily interfered. A dog, his wife's
favourite, came out and commenced harking, when the
defendant assailed him in a very brutal manner, upon
which the wife, who appeared to think wore of her dog
than of her bus7vind or the crops, came to the rescue, and
when in the act of taking up the dog the defendant struck
her a violent blow on the back of the hand with a very
heavy hunting whip.
Too jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—damages 50/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—DEc. f.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Before Lord Chief
Justice liuvill and a Special Jury.)
BINDER V. T.INNER AI)N OTHERS.

The plaintiff in this case was an undertaker at Orsett,
in Essex, and he sued the executors of Mr. Newcomb, a
farmer, near Orsett, to recover 'St. 17s. 4d. for burying
that gentleman. The defendants paid into court 771., and
denied their liability to any greater extent.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Hell appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant Hayes for the defendants.
The plaintiff's case was, that the deceased had been the
principal farmer in the neighbourhood, and for 40 sears
rector's churchwarden. It was desired that the funeral
should be performed in good style; there were a hearse and
two mourning•coaches, and there were scarfs and gloves
for a great many persons, including eight of the labourers
upon the farm. The hearse and carriages were got from
London, and the fact that the deceased was a very large
man added to the expense.
Mr. Binder, the plaintiff, was called, but it was an-
nounced that there would be some difficulty in getting his
evidence, as he was very deaf.
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said they would not ask him as
to anything that they could get from other witnesses.
Mr. Serjeant Hayes suggested that the witness should
appear in the character of a mute for to-day. (Laughter.)
The witness spoke to the fairness of the charges which
he had made. He obtained the horses, carriages, scarfs,
gloves, kc., from Mr. Gersten, a furnisher, of Welbeck-
etreet, and as Oroett was twenty-five miles from London,
two days were occupied in going down and returning.
He had paid out of pocket 73/. 18s. 6d., and also about
4/. for travelling expenses ; and his profit was less
than 181.
Cross-examined—Oreett was twelve miles from Brent-
wood. He could have got hearse, coaches, and horses
there, but not of the quality wanted. Mr. Newcomb's
father was buried by means of things from London, and
the deceased said he would be buried in the same way.
It was wished that the funeral should be respectable.
Mr. Serjeant Hayes—And do you say that no respect-
able person could be buried by means of • hearse from
Brentwood ?
Witneae—Well, now, put the awe to yourself, tire
(Lead laughter.)

"?..• 4.
lifts) Enttittaturz
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
COUNOIL.—Drs. 6.
(Before Sir J. Colvile, Sir V. Williams, Sir L
Justice Cairns, Sir I'. Kindersley, and Sir
BERNEY V. THY BISHOP Or 60ftwiel
The Queen's Advocate (Sir IL Phillimore,
Twin, instructed by Proctor Skipwitii, for tbi
and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram, I
Proctor Brooks, for the respondost.
This was an appeal from the Arches Cot
bury. The suit was uutituted by the Lai
Norwich against the Rev. Thomas Rem
Brawn Mb in the county of Norio]
awe of Norwich, the appellant, for hay
occasions in the months of May and Jr
the rectory house of Brecon Ash, by lewd
rimatitv

i',
1...:
.1.11 ' .
I- I'i
. ‘ .11
i
i l,
. t!k I.
i I
,
~ .
' ...1. 1. .
-.,.'.
~. i
li.
11' ' .
. .
I II
\ i'l I. '
1