The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-13 00:00:00

Tit Clow v. 11l *stop or Lima.

The Attersey-Oenieral mooed that • writ issue to the
Archbishop of Camarbury, requiem him to inquire late
sad certify to the mart ea the matter on which the
mond, third, sad fourth lime wire Pitied is • quire imps-
dit mediae I. this coo. The writ moved foe was not este to
show wee, for the bishop having abandoned his demurrer
te the replitations is the ease, and joined item, the writ
meld Mae as a antler of mans. The gams 14aildt was
as masa ',HOUMA agebast the Bithop iiEssise fee. ffealike
to Mauls the Rev. Mr. Gorham. TM limp had
that he had a:missed Mr. Gorham, sad had tenalitlleat:
eatertala °Oakum whisk were unsound sad eatery to the
Moieties faith and the doctrines of the Tatted Church of
Beglasid and lrelaad, as mitalned in the Bock of
C4llllllllO Preyer sad the thirty -nine amides. Mr.
Gorham held opinloas at variance with the church
is this, that he held that spiritual revaluation
was set imparted is and by the sacrament of baptism. To
that plea several replications had teen pleaded, the issues
Meld out which were to be tried when, when, and in such
manner as the mart should dinar. Same of them were to
No tried by Ow ecurt. The mead replication was to the
effect that, at the commememest of the suit and at the time
of the presentation, Mr. Gorham was a fit person to be insti-
tuted ; without this that Mr. Gorham held unsound doc-
trines in modo et forma, Ac , and preyed that
the sum should be inquired of when and when the
mart should datermise. The sum question was raised
but is different shapes by two other nticottorions. The writ
new applied for would enjoin the Arch to call &re fo
him such permits as he might think , the purpose
of inquiring into the ironiesreised enthe pleadiags as to
the soundness of Mr. Gorham's doctriam and to mike
knows the nosh to this court, by a day named in the writ.
A bearing upon applicatios, the Attornery•General here
cited several cases. Is Spigot's on.. ma Weems was
pleaded, sad it was said that the missal was traversable,
and If traversed, and the party refused was alive,
the issue raised should be determined by the
metropolitan, otherwise by a common jury. The
mama of the latter cams was, that in case of the pre
sentees death, no persoaal ezamination of hie doctrines by
the archbishop mild be had. Other authorities were cited
to the same effect, all the eases bearing os the subject befog
collected in the The King v. the Archbishop of Canter
bury," 16 Bast, in which Lord Ellenborough had hammed
a ease sack as had sow occurred. Is one of the asses the
quads& was salted how, if 12 permits were esspanaelled to
try the literary quali•eatioas of ad, puma, how they
would set about it, which wag a illustration of the law
now about to be revived.

Mr. Justice Coleridp.—Suppom the clerk made different
answers before the archbishop from those given by him to
the bishop.
The Atterney-Cieneral obwrved that be could not tell bow
it would be in that case It might be a qu. ation whether.
as is an act of bankruptcy, the last could be referred back to
the first. Them vibe were sot of daily occurrence. Ordinarily
the party issued the writ himself, but it was thought batter
to eolna to the court In the peent instance.
Lord Campbell.—You say it is bks issuirg a venire facies.
From the authorities cited, it seems to me that the cant is
bound to award the writ.
Writ accordingly awarded.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YESTERDAY.
BIITI.OII IN BANCO.
BOHHAII P. THI BISHOP UP EXITI/1.

The Attorney-General,;7b7;ittrojr;TtriZeourt this
Illerniag. called their lordship's attention to the act of
Tie,
for iest which empowered them to hold anises alter Term,
for the purpose of disposing of busineu " then pending," es
he wee melons that no opportunity should be afforded for
disputing their jurisdiction to dispose of the rule granted In
this ease, yesterday.
Mr. Bares Platt—Are you applying to amend the rule,
Mr. Attorney ?
The Attorney-General—l only wish that the court should
know what they are about, and that their jurisdiction to de-
cide the rale during the ensuing vacation sittings should not
hereafter be disputed.
Mr. Bares Platt—To be regular, you ought to appear in
same character. _ _

The Attorney-General—l am counsel for Mr. Gorham.
The Lard Chief Buon then stated the reasons assigned by
the Court for granting the rule, and expressed his opinion
that it was removable peremptorily to-day, it wu a motion
" pending " dating the term, and could be disposed of at 'he
vacation sittings.
Mr. Baron Platt intimated his decided opinion that the
learned muneel was irregular la the count be was then pus,
suing.
The Attorney-General said if there was any irregula-
rity, it was on the put of the court, in deputing
from the usual course. The only thing that could be done,
wee to nuke the rule returnable in the ordinary way, and
enlarge it. _ . _

Mr. Baron Platt—When the time arrives fur showing
cause, you can point out the irregularity you now sumps..
The Lord' hief Baran said, for his own part he should
feel obliged If the apprehended difficulty wee pointed out.
If be had understood it rightly, it was that the set restricted
their jurisdiction at the vacation sittings to matters pending
at the time when notice of those sinless was given He had
no doubt that this was a matter pending within the mean-
ine of the set, and that the court were empowered to dispose
of it at the sit' ings after term.
The Attorney.° I knew the strictness with which he
would be met, and he wished that no occasion should be
given hereafter for the die:melon of a technical question of
this sort. Be was only desirous of getting rid of the diffi-
culty sad removing the possibility of having the question
hereafter raiied.

The Land Chief Baron—We will not bear it argued now.
The court eneined yesterday the course they intended to
pane, sad they would adhere to it. If t►e party who had
applied for the rule we discontent wit► the tribunal, an ap-
plication might be made tea diseharge it.
The Attorney-Greed said the course pursued in this case
was a deviation from the ordinary practice, and perhaps the
safest COLS! would Se to enlarge the rule until next tore.
Mr. Martin, Q C. (of counsel for the Bishop of Ezeter)—
Is it your wish that the matter should stand over till next
term ?
The Attorney.General—Certainlyy. no•.
The Lord Chief Baron—The only difilculty is as to the
construction of UN word " then " in the act of parliament ;
whether it refers to matters pending at the time of giving
nonce of the sittings after term, or to thee which may be
pending when the sittings come on. I think we are entitled
to assemble at the vacation sittings, and tc hear and decide
say matter pending during the term, and "then" until,-
posed of. This rule we granted yesterday, returnable to
day and undi.posed of, it would, therefore, be a matter
"reading" and within the jurisdiction of the court at the
ensuing sittings.
The Attorne3-General, es minis curi=e, suggested that
the quietism he bad referred to might be ultimately raised
upon the record, and he wished to prevent a Winn of the
decision of the court upon any technics' grounds.
' Mr. Baron Platt—l thought you said just now you were
anions Gorham. (Laughter.)
The Attornej•Genernl.—l have assumed another charac-
ter, bowing to your lordship's solemn decision that my ap-
pearlier for Mr. Gorham was irregular.
The subject was then dropped until the course of the day
when

Sir Fitzroy Kelly, QC. (who was not present during the
above discussion), addr rued the court, and said h. was most
desirius that the case should be determined at the sittings
after Term, sad that it should not be postponed unfit
Michaelmas Terra. Ile had looked into the Act of Parlia-
ment, and bad not the slightest doubt the court wire per-
fectly regale, in the caurse they praposid
.to take, and that
they were empowered to dispose of the cue at the after sit-
tings. He was quite ready his right rev. client should enter
into any arrangement, such as a consent or a rule of court,
binding him to take no advantage of toe technical objection
suggested.
The Lord Chief Baron (interrupting the I.arned counsel)
said there was no occasion whatever for any such arrangement.
There was no differer es, so far as the pow us of the court were
coacerned„ between this and any other ease. For several years
since the act referred to had passed the courts were in the
habit of disposing at the vacation sittings of all matters
"then " pending. There wan no occasion to enlarge this
rule. It was qui.e sufficient that it was granted yesterday
and returnable to-day, before the term was over, to make it
a ease " pending," and arable the court to dispose of it
after term.

Bir F Kelly said he was quite satisfied, and proceeded to
direct tit:lr lordrhipa' attention to the fact that, although the
rule was moved on four affidavits, including that of the
right rev. prcLte himself, and all were handed to the cflicer
of the court, the rule was drawn up on two of them only.
He hoped the mart would direct the error to be corretred,
and also that it should be served on the Rev. Mr. Gorham,
the Archhisbnp of Canterbury, or his solicitor, the judge of
the Arches Court, or his secretary, th%Attorney-General,
sial all parties concerned.
The Attoney.Oeaeral protested against any alterations in
the rule, and said he should give no acoommodation what-
ever 'or amending i•.
The Lord CI ief Baron said the form of the rule was
handed is and Lo alteration, except as to the affidavits, could
be made in it, otherwise than by consent. The court would
give no di:et:ion as to service of the rule on the Attorney-
General.
81r F. Kelly had no intention to ask for permission to
serve the rule upon the Attorney.Grneral, for it should be
served upon him whether he consented or not. It was only
desired that it should be drawn up in the usual form, and
that it should state the names of the persons upon whom it
should be served. That statement was ague], and having
been omitted in the rule as it stood, it was thought advis-
able it should be inserted.
The Lord Chief Baron apprehended if cause was shown
by any one of the parsons interested, it would be sufficient.
The Attorney-Urneral hoped no alteration whatever would
be made in the rule.
tile F. Pollock, C.B.—Except as to the affidavits which
mere handed in at the time.
The Attorney-Guava]—O►, weil take no objection on
that point.

B.i Y. Kidly—'Tw not likely, after the court has intimated
that the rule must be emended ia that respect.
The subject then dropped.
This being the last day of Trieity Term, the court wag
oecopiod to a late hour with motions of no goners! intermt.
Kau PuSi •T WOI2IIIIIRILIL—B27OILE 11.1 B•11/11 PAULI AND •

Miouuseas COMMIS JuaT.

GVILLOVX V. W IMER.—BRZACII OP CONTRACT.
This wee an action to recover compensation for a breach of
agreement; and, also, to recover wares for work actually
performed under the agreement. The defendant placed
sertrel_pleas on the record, the principal one being, that the
plaintiff was Inc mpetent to perform the work he had coa-
t-64'rd to do. Mr. Miller and Mr. It. Mills, wars for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Phina for the defendant.
This was one of a series of actions Draught against the
same defendant during the present term sittings. The de-
fendant, Mr. Wertheimer, a native of Germany, is an or.