The Express.
London, England, 1850-03-06 00:00:00

the dockyard alet‘st daily, to eater lees end to make the
seer'.'! •ristigrmer.ts for the outdo. The Pioneer, at -v.,
still r. mao.• in dock. the shipwrights bring busy in strength-
rams h.r titubm, 65.1 the engineers In tasking the smut•
aces • t hi r safety. to far es it r: stir on engines and boilers,
daub!, ore The Int. epid, at. v., feet ely the Vete Trade,
has ow. 'reed from the Meditertanean, but is caret .
daily. Both vessels will he Stud with Mr. Sylvestae•
weenies apparatus, and every improvement that askew or
experience call ruagest, to mosiove the mediae and Wiry of
the oth..r. Nate, will be adopted. The Resolute and
Anemic, eosin is dock. the Ca* at Mr. Wieenalr, the
other at Mi. Green's lank, at Blackwell, where the work
of strerrhening sad Neils!' them proerimes rapidly. The
Jasper s:.-T Tuna to end fro between Woolwich and Black-
coreeliag the rippers who aro employed in fitting the
TllOll.. B of the sailing mem,. are to have mews of 90
Mee. tit whom 30 will be attached to each steamer, which
wit! SO a trader.
Bowe ;from last night's Gruate.)—Nutlet is
her. ,r.vtn to the commodore. ottani, sad ship's company
of hi r eji eye ship Aeuron, George Mantel, Esq., captain.
that they will be paid their respective ptoportioaa weep
from tl.e rupture of the Brazilian brigantine Maria Thertza,
on the oth Septratler, 1847, as the Vud instant, at the above
all shame not then claimed will be reealled
rninTuesday awl Friday, paromat to act of parliament
IrJxiare, 211 10a. 91d.; let c'em, 901. Si. yu; ; 3rd,
Ili 6(.1.; 4th, 4/. 10e. Sid.; sth, 4/. la. 3d. ; 6th,
V.:. 1 .1.; 21. Se. lid.; Stb, 11. 16e. lid.; 911 i,
I: ; 10th, 11.1 a. 014.; lltb, lax 61411.; 12th, 9s. 044.
1 Sib, 944.—Joix CIIIPPIXDALL Mint, 10, Jolia•suest,
Adalphs.

Eau intelligence.

EQCITY COURTS.-YwrERPAY.
Suss TO TbriNCoasirouoa or L•ous!.

••••—•—
MBA= r. DEFFILL.—A BrIT wares MU Beth IN Ex-
tensor • liconazis YlAia.
The sr •uwents is this ease have occupied the court for
this. nays. and gas ore yet conchae/1. The eluding, an
way Issirthy and esuplosted, owing to the salt 'savior/ bug
he ninnies ells@ a watery, but the only convent now
ands. bee to the Tights of owtain persons under the will el
a peatlnaaa, dated is 1693.

ARCHES COURT.—YIESMWAT.
throe, Ilia Mascara..* [car.
UM:SAL TO BURT.
Tux orrics or TUB JUDO■ ?'mam'a IT Coors' r.
DODD.

The nutmeats it this sue— innn brought on is-day.
Dr. Busted appured foe Mr. Cooper, and stand that the
charge easiest tM Rev. Mr. Dodd was founded on the 6Sth
Canon, which forbid up minister from refusing to bury a
corpse brought to the place of interment, after sufficient
notice gives, soles. the deceased party had b.en excommu-
nicated, as being guilty of some heavy a.me, and it was not
known whether he had repented, or unless he was unbaptised,
or had committed suicide. The refusal to bury under
other circumstances than those stated would involve
suspension for three months by the bishop of the diocese.
The learned civilian stated that there was no question
raised here as to the character or cause of death of the de.
ceased, but simply, as it would appear, whether the notice
given was sufficient. Only one case of the kind woe known
to thm—vis . Fitsmarsh against Chapman, the corpse hay-
ina been taken to the churchyard for burial without the
minister beiag apprised that he would be wanted. In that
case there was clearly uo notice whatever, and the decision
of the court was in accordance with that view, but the
question now was quite different. The deceased„ William
Stater, was found drowned early on the 27th December,
1848. Next day an inquest was held, and • verdict re-
turned that the deceased had been found drowned, but
without any evidence to show how he came into the water.
The coroner then granted his order for the interment, and
it was conveyed by • friend of the deceased to Mr. Dold,
who retailed to bury the corpse without • copy of the verdict
and the depositions of the wheels's. This the deputy
coroner declined to give, u being contrary to the act of
parliament: and when on the nest day Win. Ready,
the coostable, again presented the order to the Bev. Mr.
Dodd, that gentleman said he should still refuse it in such
shape, as he could aotconscientionsly bury the body or allow
It to es taken Into the church. Mr. Dodd then sent for the
daughter-in-law of the deceased, and asked her where she
intended to have her father-in-law buried ; she replied at
St. Peter's Church, and on Sunday at two o'clock, upon
which the rev. gentleman replied it could not be done, be-
cause the deceased died in a state of intoxication, and very
such pressed her to have the body buried in the dissenting'
cemetery, where they were not so particular, saying that
he could not use the burial service over this individual, and
calliaa her attention to the terms of that service, but that
web terms need not be used at the cemetery. The son of
the deceased atter cards called thrice on Mr. Dodd, who still
leased to bury the corpse, and advised him to take it to the
essetery ; and upon the last interview the deceived's son
agreed to do so upon the ministrant's paying the additional
sepses,. Oa the rest morn eg (Suinelley), however, the
game party Galled upon Mr. Dodd with the information that
he could cot get • grave deg in the cemetery on that day,
and therefore should expect the burial of the deceased to be
proceeded with at two o'clock in St. Peter's Churchyard.
The same afternoon his wife, and subsequently three other
parties, applied to the Rev. Mr. Dodd on the same
subject, but without success. The learned advocate sub-
mitted this must be taken se sufficient notice; the matter
had been mooted some days before to Mr. Dodd, and only
delayed by his negotiation with the son of the deceased.
The notice was • coatinnons one, and ran from the time
the cc filtrate of burial WAS first issued by the coroner. It
could not be held es • justification of the rehrial to bury
• parishioner that the deceased had met his death in •
state of intoxication. A precisely similar case had beat
brought helm, the Bishop of Exeter, that of Mr. Todd,
reported in " Stephen's Collection of Ecclesiastical Sta-
tutes," p. 2011. In giving judgment on that case, his
lordship entered into the grounds upon whith the whole
matter proceeded, and justified the readier of the burial
envies. stating that in his estimation the intoxication of •
party would not be • matter of justification. He (Dr.
Bayfordy thought it impossible to add anything to this,
which was the opinion of a prelate of great learning and
Isiah position in our church. With these remarks, he
would leave the matter in the hands of the court.
Dr. Haggard followed on the same side.
Dr. Addant, on the part of the Rev. Mr. Dodd, said the
only queries f the court to determine wee, whether the
present proceedinn were founded oa the 69th Canon, and
whether Mr. Dodd had been brought within the penalties
of that canon. All other questions bad no bearing upon the
matter. The proceedings appeared to him (Dr. Addams)
to be null and void on so assay grounds that the difficulty
was where to begin. In the case of Titaaarsh against Chap-
man. the offence was for refusing to bury the body of a child
who had not been canonically baptised. The proof in that
we was ample and sufficient, except in one point; there
was • technical deficiency in the evidence, no strict legal
proof being given of Mr. Chapman having had coneretent
warning. Mr. Chapman was consequently dismissed with
• eoeu, and such the learned advocate submitted must be
the malt of the present case with respect to Mr. Dodd. If
ft had not been for the officious intecereace of third persona
this suit would never have been instituted. Re contended
Mr. Cooper was the party who set the whole matter afloat,
while Mr. Stator, the son of the detested, had nothir g to do
with its institution, it having been got up on the sole rt.
@possibility, in point of expect*, of Mr. Cooper, who
was ea attorney at Cambridge, and was acting as
attorney in the case. The learned advocate contended
the court h -.d no jurisdiction ; that the articles did not im-
pute any offence upon which a conviction could possibly
ensue ; that in order to make this offence an offence within
the statute, there must be • convenient warning that the
body would be brought to the churchyard; which warning
had sot been strictly pleaded, and, la conclusion, that there
was no proof of Mr. Dodds biriag the vicar of the parish of
St. Peter's. That gentleman, in fist, being the perpetual
curate. Upon the question of jurisdiction, the learned advo-
cate vatended the pnfinsent held by Mr. Dodd being
under the patronage of the bishop ; by the 21th section of
the Church Discipline Act the archbishop should have had
the opportunity of exercising his authority by issuing • com-
mission to report up= the thugs against the rev. gentleman
previously to the matter being sent to this court by letters of
request from the bishop. It that report should have proved
Wavourable, Mr. Dodd might have submitted, and untrue
been at once pronounced without the matter coming at all
beton the court—by such sentence the rev. gentleman might
have been admonished for • day, but by bringing the matter
Into this court Mr. Dodd was precluded fromsu ; as,
were he to do SO, the court would be bound under 68th
to sentence him to 3 months' suspension. He (De. Addams)
principally umuntained that the articles in the case imputed
no offence whatever to Mr. Dodd, upon which, by possibility,
any sentence could be pronounced. By the canon the
warning WWI to be " notice of the intention to bring the
body to the burial ground at a certain time," which notice
had never been given. It should also have bun pleaded
that the person had been baptised, that he was not excom-
municated or telo dose, to render it possible to obtain •
convection. In civil law in order to bring • defendant
within the praviaiacs of tie game act, it wite
aver in the plus, that he had net been dulnyecqt=etdo,
although It was not necessary to prove such diequaldication.
The lesions advocate refined to the cases of t. King against
Janis" (1 Rest, p. 649), and "Black against Beckham,"
gm non-residence, ander the Church Discipline Act, and
sabmi,ted that they must have recount to negative evidence
to convict the party in such a case as that now before the
court. and Mr. Dodd ought therefore to us allowed his costs,
and diemised the suit.
Dr. It. Phillimore, who also appeared fir the Rev. Mr.
Dodd, cited the ease of Watson arsine' Thor "(1
Phillimorej, and also the Registration Act, 6 & 7 of William
IT.„ betides following up the general arguments.
The Learned Judge considered the ease to be of sufficient
Importance to require that ha should take tame to consider
his judgment.

(201:14T OF BANKRUPTCY.—YESTERDAY.
8•70•• Ms. 0,31M1140,1t1t
CASE OF • BUILUEIt.
ThS was the certificate vast* in the case of John Hill,
builder, of Holloway. He owed to unsecured creditors
8,8081., besides 8,4611. to creditors holding security; the
arse are likely to be very small, only 3101. having been
realised.
Mr. Lawrence supported.
Mr. Stevens opposed for the &signets, on the grounds of
extra,/ E reckless trading.
TM pt being examined, deposed that he row
messed in 1835 with about 1001. in mosey, and
materiels worth 1.001. Ile dealt with Mr. Gibbose, the
tends nallmee, frees July to December, 1848; he had
goods smomathig to. 12.51., bat had paid nothing. They
won VIII! need * the building of houses mortgaged to
Mr. IssMr. Height a bone fox 141. some time