The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1850.

would lie sew after jadgmeat se andeass. The whole
quaint turned upon two nets of parliament passed la the
reign of Usury VIII. Before the peeing of the two sets of
parliament is quetioa, appeals ham matters la eadesisadeal
courts, both myth, to the sovereign and the 'alien, were
made to the Pope of Home, sad that had been toe custom
for three centuries. The 24th of Henry VIII., esp. 12,
was pasted for the purpose of forbiddier spinals to the Pope
of Home, sad power was gives to appeal first from the deci-
des of the arebeisseas and his own, end thou to the bishop
of the Manse and Me court, end from the bishop of the
dhow to the court of the archbishop of the province, the
decades of whose wart wee to be Baal in eases
is which the grows was sot auserned. TM court
of appeal In matters relating to the crown wee by the 24th
of Homy VIII. the Upper Howl of Convoutins. The
first statute forbade appeals to the Papa at Rams Ia thaw
flaws of Buss, via., causes arionanna, of
and divorce, rights of tithes oblatiems, sad eventilliesemehm. T.
the following year come the 26th of Hwy VIII., esp. 19.
The provisions of the UAW SUMS was obefined to the
three dune of COMB; but by the 26th of Heavy VIII., sap.
19, it was extended to all kind of wren. He (Sir Flimsy
Kelly) conceived and submitted, and, in fact, it had bees
held from the time of Lord Coke, by all writers, that the
tatter statute of Hoary VIII. was to give the right of ap-
peal in all tried of cone affecting the subject to the wart of
the archbiahop of the province, and in warm dis fist
cro
wn V/ the Upper House of Coovocation. If he
satisfy their lordship on this point, thee the questions
which would arise in the awe would be, was this
a question Ia which the sovereign was inter-
ested ? sad If It was, did an appeal lay to
the Upper Hoses of Convocation, or was that right of
appeal takes away ? He would read to their lordships what
the Court of Quotes Bench, is their lodgment, had said
with reference to appeal to the Upper Home of Convocation.
They add " that the appeal is from the archdeacos to tke
bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop, and hit
decision is to be final." The Court of Queen's 'Bench bad
held that the appeal to the Upper House of Convocation was
repealed. The learned counsel here reverted to the 24th
of Henry VIII., cap. 12, and dad UM 2.d, 6,1 t,
6th, 7th, sad Bth sec kw. The effect of sections
cited was, that in all testamentary matters, causes
of matrimony and divorces, right* of tithes, obla-
tion., end °restless, the eppeal was from the court of
the arehdearan to the court of the bishop, and from
the court of the bishop to that of the archbishop ; bat that
in marten in which the sovereign was caucused the appeal
lay to the Upper House of Convocation. The learned
counsel that proceeded to advert to the pasties' of 25 Hoary
VIII., cep. 19. The former act forbade as appal to the
Pope of Home is three claws of MOP, namely—cases" tee-
tamentary of matrimony and divorce, right of tithe., Ws-
aces, and mentions ; lout the latter set forbade an appeal to
the Pops oa all matters. The important section was the
third section, which ensiled that " all manner of appeal*, of
what nature or condition soever they be, or what cause
or matter sayer they concern, shall be made and had by the
parties aggrieved, or having cease of appeal, after such man-
ner, form, and cardiac's% u is limited for appeals to be had
and prosecuted within this realm in causes of matrimony,
tithes, °Matisse, and mentions, by a statute thereof made
and established attune the beginning of the present parka-
mete." The learned eoutuel, alter referring to the other
sections of 25 Henry VIII., esp. 19, proceeded to say that
the question turned upon the third ; that, unless
there was something particular in the act of parliament
the scut would put that construction upon it, which wee a
plain and simple one, which we.. that an Main" touching
the crown the appeal lay to the Upper House of Convocation.
King Henry VIII.. besides generally wishing to get the
powers from the Pop of Rome was desirous of puppet's(
the convocation of the clergy, because they supported him
in struggles with the court of EMS in obtaining a diverse
from Queen Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Sane
Boleyn. For this reason it was intended by the 231 h a
Henry VIII., cap. 19, that in mitten connected with the
, king the appeal should lie to the Upper House of Comas-
, tion, because that court assisted of parties who were wan
the influence of the king himself. In moving for the
rule for a prohibition in the Court of Queen's Beech
he (Sir F. Kelly) had wa cited any authorities,
because he had net thought it ossuary, but be would now
draw their lordships' attention to several authorities on the
subject beginning with Coke's Institutes. (The learned
counsel then cited from Cokes 4th Institute, page 323).
The nut euthori'y he would call their lordships' "audios
to was Bacon's Abridgment, titled Eeelviastiest Courts, B.
" appal from an inferior to a superior c tart. If the matter
concerns the king the appeal must be to the Higher Court
of Convocation of the province."
Chief Justice Wilds—ls there any authority referred to
I then?

Sir F. Kelly said there was no authority cited, bat Copes
4th Institute was referred to. In " Comyes Digest." titled
Prerogative E Appeals, and iu what court appeals should be
made it said "It the king be concerned the appeal should
he made to the Upper House of Convocation." In the
3rd vol. of Blackstone's Commentaries, page 66, in which he
treats of courts and ecelseintical appeals, he says :—" Bat in
case the king himself be a party in any of these suits, the
appeal does not lie to him in Chancery, which would be
absurd; and by the notate 24th of Henry VIII. it lire to the
bishops of the realm is the upper house of Convocation."
Tee learned counsel then cited the following euthnritin,
"Day o. Savage" (Hubberd's Report,, page 87): " Moodie.
son's lectern" (vol. 1. pages 76 and 77); "Chitty on
Prerogatives " (page 60); and " Burn's Ecclesiastical
Law." In the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench
Lord Campbell had said that be (Sir F. Kelly) had
admitted that under the 24th of Henry VIII., and
before that monarch had separated from the church
of Rome the appeal cc uld not have been made to the Upper
House of Convocation, and Sir Thomas More, who was a
rigid Roman catholic, hnd so construed the an, and acted
upon it. He (Sir F. Kelly) was surprised that the learned
author of the " Lives of the Chancellors" could have made
nth a mistake, because so far from Sir Thomas More
being the chancellor at the time the 114th of Henry VIII.
was passed, the fact was, be had ceased to be chancellor in
May, 1532, and the 24th of Henry VIII. was not passed till
the seine* of 1533, which commenced in January and ended
in April. Sir Thomas More was succeeded by the pliant
Lord Audlsy, and he (Sir F. Kelly) could only account
for the error which had been fallen into by the difference
of the old and new style. The learned 60110114 pro-
ceeded to comment on • case in the Ist volume of Philli-
more, page 170, which had been referred to by the Court,
of Queen's Bench In their judgment, for the purpose of
showing, that where the crown was concern, d an appeal had
not been made to the Upper House of Convocation. He
contended that the case, which was respecting the goods of
an intestate bastard, was not a matter in which the aowa
was directly consented, as was the awe in the present in-
stance. It could net be said that the crown was not in-
terested in this matter, for Mr. Gorham sought, se the m-
antes of the crown, to be admitted to the benefice to which
the crown had presented him, and the crown, by letters
patent, bad ordered the Bishop of Easter to induct and
admit him to the living. And it could not be said
that the crown had not an lutenist in having its commands
obeyed. It could not be said that if one of their lordships
were to purchase the edvowsse of a living, and present it to
one of their sons on Its becoming vacant, they were not
interested in it. The crown bad brought an action against
the Bishop of Enter of gun impedit, and that proved that
the crown bad an Lauren in this matter. The learned
muse! concluded an address, which lasted for a considerable
time, by submitting that be was entitled to a rule nisi.
The Chief Justice said that as the question did not come
originally before the Court of Common Pleas, but had been
previously heard and decided by the Court of Queen's Bench,
it was due to that court to refer to the judgment which had
been given there. They would do so, and they say whether
or not • rule would be granted.
The Bishop of Exeter and several clergymen were In court
during the War of Sir F. Kelly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—YzernDAY.

Nil PSIVII AT

IMNITRE.—BRPORI MR. B♦ROB ALDERMAN ♦ao ♦
Matimasix Lovuose

HAANDWOIITIL V. SOLONONII.—ANIAULT AND FALSE
litranonmarr.

Thie yea an action to recover compensation in damages
for an aleault and false imprisonment. The defendant
pleaded, grit, not guilty ; mond, that the plaintiff had given
him a release ; and lastly. Mat he had paid 501 in full satis-
faction olio claim for tales imprisonment. To the latter
pleas the plaintiff replied that she was an infant. This ease
has already excited much public interest from the proceed-
ings taken at Guildhall Police Court in the month of
February last.
Mr. Martin, Mr. Edwin Junes. and Mr. Bramwell were
for the plaintiff ; and Ur. Montague Cumbers and Mr.
Phi= fey Wdefendant.

- Mr. Ilastin Mated the cm to the jury. He said the
plaiatiff, Pew Ibizaraweetift was a young girl, between 16
and 17 years algae, gad ammo Into this rout to mek cone.
pommies in illemeass far a lielseiraprisonament committed by
the defendant, WM Boleesene, a hurler in Little Britain.
The plaintiff is an orphan, and lived in Hampshize till
towards the end of lest • year, when she entered into
the semis of the degmdmt, where she continued
until the 11th of Febremy last, when she wee given
into custody of the pollee on a charge of steallog a
victoria*, and taken to the Guildhall polies station,
detained ail slot. awl was next day brought up before •
viagiawam, hp ffitane she was dieshar ; and at the same
time a ann at Me delandmat was at the bar on a
char. of ea rope, with violence, committed on
the puma of the The learned counsel then gave
lan elaborate Matemat of all the facts of the cam, which
will he Mind In the evidence subjoined, and remarked that
if he ensemilled in proving the Mats stated in his brief, he
eked d 411111110 OM of the grimes% acts of oppression ever
esneamitted Mir geiggr of law. The defendant, in his
pima, did net pregead to my that the plaintiff had been
guilty of the mina imputed to her, and he apprehended
that if he easeeedeff in proving the facts stated, that the
jury would be of opinion that this was one of those cams in
whisk it would be thought necessary to lay • heavy hand
on the elehndant as • puaishment, and to deter others from
ming the law se the means of committing the most oppres-
sive and tyrannical sets. The learned counsel then called
witness., whose testimony is ; familiar to the public,
MAD; been frequently reported at the polimoffice where
the Aim was made.
Mr. Chambers the addressed the jury for the defendant.
He baps by remarking that this action had not been
= Dilate Waned perms, Fanny Hermswortb, but by
worm, her " next friend," one of the
hostiles of whom it was proved by the polio' officer that
SIMI VIM oat of the way top them getting the money
hale her. He contended that there was foundation for the
aro of taking the victoria', which the girl herself did
net ffeny, for she admitted that she had taken it, but put it
bask again, were it was found. Under these giro:instances
the boa sande wee to have it investigated at the pollee.
.balsa. The plea that the plaintiff had received 601. in
hi saileirlies of any claim against the defendant for the
him ingdnemena was proved by the plaintiff's first

I withers, and ►e t►eaght that it was satisfaction enough
aftilLit the defendant, who had alrepdy suffered enough.
They were not to soil the sin, of the son on the father.
►le. Harm Alderson summed up the ease. With respect
to the first plea, it was clear trona the evidence that the de-
...adult gave tne plaintiff Into custody, the verdict must,
therefore, be for the plaintiff on the plea of not guilty. On
the second Flea, that the plaintiff had :domed the dehndant,
it had been admitted in the cities* of the trial that the
plaintiff wee en infant, consequently the verdict must be for
the plaintiff on that Mese likewise. The emotion, then•
fore, depended on the third plea, that the defendant had
paid to the plaintiff the sum of 601. in full satisfaction of all
claim for damages. It was • doubtful potot whether an in.
fent could receive • snot in twister ion of damages; and he
should, if neemeary, reeerve that point for the opinion of the
court. But, in order to raise that qnselote„ it was stow
!wry that the jury shouM find that the sum of 601. had been
paid by the defendant In satisfaction. Hie lordship, them
fore, left it to the jury to say whether the sum of 601. was
paid by the defendant in satisfaction of the damages for the
false imprisonment or to prevent her appearing against the
defendant's son at Oulkihall. la the event of the., finding
that the sum had not been paid in satisfaction, they must fit
the amount of damages.
TOO Jury retired, and, after an absence of an hour and a
half, returned into court with • verdict for the plaintiff
Deranges, 501.
His lutdship said it wee nonmilitary now to reserve the
point.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-YESTERDAY.
Dawns W. thumtArsain ROSCIIELL.
PAir■ r. PLOWICIN.—SzyucrIox.

This was • writ of inquiry to as-eu the damages in an
acti..n brought in the Court of Exchequer, to recover com-
pensation for the loss of the services of the plaintiff's
thughter, by reason of her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, and in stating the
eau to the jury said, that his client was Mr. Joseph l'syne,
a master plumber, 'lsola, and painter. carrying on twinges
at Redford, and the defendant was Samuel Plowman, a
boot and shoemaker, earryieg on business with his lather,
also at that to an. The circumstances of the present case lay
in a very narrow compass, and be would not endeavour in
any way to excite the feelings of the jury, but ask them to
give that fair amount of damages to which the
plaintiff was entitled. In 1847 the plaintiff's wife
died, and he was left a widower with seven chil-
dren, of whom the eldest was Emma, the subject
of this inquiry, who was then but sixteen years of see, and
lips the decease of her mother, the whole Cafe of her bro.
abets and si-ten, and of her lather's house devolved upon
her, and her services in those respects were of great value to
him. Shortly after the mother's death, the defendant be-
came aequ •inted with the family, and he visited her
avowedly to pay his addresses to her, and afterwards he
formally became her suitor, prolcsting the most honourable
intentions, and the greatest affee•ion, and he regularly
visited her at home with her father's sanction. This con-
tinued until 1849. when the plaintiff, to bis great grief, die
covered that his daughter was enceinte by the defendant,
who had accomplished her seduction more than twelve
months before, and he then made great exertion to induce
the defendant to marry her, but he continued to make promise
after prom se, disregarding them all, until on the 7.h
of December she gave birth to a chil 1. The defendant, his
mother, and sister visited her during her iUnsee, and the de-
fendant repeatedly hoped that the would soon recover, in
order that they might be married, and when she was well,
fully • xpecting that the defendant really intended to marry
her, she actually took the preliminary steps for the per-
romance of the ceremony at the registrar's. Perceiving that
the defendant held back, the plaintiff again urgently re-
quested him to fulfil his pie ge, and the defendant sent him
the billowing letter, which the learned counsel characterised
as one of the meat sooland insolent epistles that could he writ-
ten under such circumstances, and, considering that it was ad-
dressed to the father of the girl whom he had seduced and
abandoned, one of the most heartless ever penned :
Sir,—ln answer to your request of last night concerning either
hearsay from me or trying other means, I suppose by that you mean
to bring It Into court. If you b eve any regard her your daughter
you would sot'think of each an exprisure. As it regards in irrying,
decidedly bhall nut, and foe this rea.ion, lain too toed of a Angle
lite ever to think of each a Wag. Without any further trouble on
your part or Was, I propane to pay two and inxpenee a week for the
child. —I am, sir, yours,
January, 29, 11150. Pence[. PLOWILAII.
P.N. An answer to-morrow, in writing, will oblige.
To Mr. Payne.
The plaintiff's answer to this communication was the writ
in the present action, and no correspondence or conversation
had taken place between the parties since.
Emma Payne was then called. Sne proved the facts stated
by Mr. Thomas, and the handwriting of the letter. She
stated that it tcuk nearly the whole of her time to attend to
her baby, and she was entirely dependent upon her father.
Her father bad had to engage a person to perform the
domestic duties she discharged after her mother's death.
Evidence was given as to expenses incurred.
The defendant did not appear.
The learned Under-sheriff, in summing up, remarked that
the defendant's letter was certainly ,an aggravation of the
conduct he had been guilty of.
The jury gave • verdict for 601.