The Express.
London, England, 1850-04-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 1850.

to walk with hiss down to ehasabsee, bat new in time to
Sad him. This Wee la 1846. la the month of May or June
in that year, Mr. Cobbe's father sem over tram Ireland,
en 'I it was propmed one morale, that they should all go to
Vauxhall Gardens I. the sewing. Mrs. Cobb., however,
was, or feigned to be, ill in the afternoon, and the Mesm.
C .bbe, father and eon, and Mire Laura bbe (sister to Mrs.
Cobb., sad who forums time was raiding with her), went
to Vaezhal4 leaving lbs. Cobbs in her rem. Soon after
the party had gore Mr. Talmadge game sad wed received
by Mrs. Cobb*, sad stayed with her is the drawing room
oath past 11 o'elegit at night. Is the month of August fol-
lowing Mr. Cobbs and his father Sock a trip to Germany,
leaving Mrs. Cobb. ad bee sister at the boom in Queen-
strut. They were Aerate fortnight, and darts' that Is..
a rattans* was sun ow the steps °Maid' the door almost
every night about 11 o'clock, and Un. Cobb', her sister and
the servants having retired to their respective apartments
for the night, used to some and open the door, and light the
gentleman up stain to her bedroom. Two servant women
spoke to this occurrence on three several nights, and the
learned connect said he could prove it happened ten times, or
more ; but Lord Campbell said it was not necessary. Only
let them prove who the gentleman was. One of the servants
proved that the said gentleman wee Mr. Talmadge. She
saw him distinctly from the bedroom window on an upper
floor while he wee standing on the steps outside the
door, and from a lattice window from her room opening
on the stairs she saw Mr. Talmadge and her
mistress ascending the stairs to the mistress's bedroom, the
latter holding a light in her hand. Mr. Talmadge used to
go away about five o'clock in the morning, Mrs. Cobb.
accompanying him down stain. One morning, the footman
having the key of the dour in his pocket, Mr. Talmadge
wadi not go out at the usual hour. Ile went back with
Mrs. Cobb. to her room. They went down two or three
times to the door, but fiadiog it locked went back. The
witness did not state when or how Mr. Talmadge got out
that morning. She said her mistress was aware that she
knew Mr. Talmadge was in the house on three nights. On
Mr. Cobbe's return from Germany, after one or two nights,
Mrs. CAN' propcoed, as she was not well, that he should
sleep up stairs, and he did. The counsel were informed by
Lord Campbell that it was nut necessary to give further
evidence of the adultery. On the 13th of March,
1847, Mr. Cobbs went to his chambers in the
morning as usual, and Mrs. Cobbs after giving
the servants directions as usual I,r dinner, &e., left
the house, and was not seen y her husband or servants
since. She is now residing with Mr. Talmadge at Palsy,
neer Paris, where a cagy of the bill was d on her.
Mr. Cobb., after his wife's elopement. having made inquiries,
discovered sufficing proofs of her iefilelity, and brought an
action fur adultery against Mr. Talmadge, who suffered
judgment therein to r, by default, and on a writ of inquiry
a jury assessed the damages to 5001. Mr. Cobbs has also
obtained a definitive sentence of divorce, a menu et thorn,
in the ecclesiastical court. . . .

Lord Campbell, addressing the house, said it appeared to
him that the allegations in the bill were sufficiently proved,
and he moved, there furs, that the bill be then read a second
time.

It was so read accordingly.

ARCHES COURT.—YESTEIDAY.
Barns &a UItILIBMIT la.ca FV.T.

THI OFFICE Or TIM JVDOS PlitiMuTlD HT COOPER

AGAINST DODD.REFUSAL TO SLAT....-JUDONISNT.

Tb• particulars of ttis causes were given when the argu-
ments were heard, and to-day lodgment was delivered.
Sir H. J. Fust commenced by stating that the cause was
promoted by Mr. Charles Henry Cooper, the coroner for
Cambridge, against the Rev. Edward Dodd, vicar of St.
Peter's, Cambridge, for refusing to bury on the 31st of
December, 1848, • parishioner. due notice having been
given, and the cause wu brought by letters of
bequest from the Bishop of Ely, the patron
of the living held by the party proceeded against; the letters
were presented on the 31st of January, 1349, • decree was
then ordered to issue which was served on Mr. Dodd per-
sonally in February of that year, and afterwards returned
into covet. No appearance having been given in on behalf
of the rev. pntieman, the certificate was continued from
day to dsy until Eater term, when he; was pronounced in
contempt. Upon the sitting of the court for the second see
Biog. Mr. Dodd appeared personalty, but under protest
After argument the court overruled and ordered the party
to appear, absolutely reserving however, the question of costs
until the final determination of the suit. The case cams on
for hearing on the bye day (the 21st of February), and the
3th of March. Toe court now gave its opinion opoo the
effect of the articks, and also the evidence
then proluted. The learned judge thought it
cecessary to stare these particulars with some minuteness,
because the length of time and the delay was considerably
increased by the want of an appearance on the part of Mr.
DAd, and his subsequently appearing under protest. The
learned judge proceeded to state the circtiortances of the
ease. The suit was brought into that court under the pro-
visions of the 63 canon, dated in the year 1603. The pin.
port of the canon was to inflict the penalty of suspension of •
minister for three months in the case of his re-
fusing to bury • corpse which should be brought into
the churchyard, according to certain forms set
forth in the book of Common Prayer, convenient
totiee having been given of such burial ; unleu it should
appear the party deceased was under sentence of eimmenu-
nication or other grievous sia ; and, ao.ordiog to the rubric,
there were two other circumstances under which the sir.

vice was not to be read—namcly, when the clergyman was
unadvised, and when the deceased had laid violent hands
upon himself. 'the question, therefore, was this—lied
Mr. D odd so conducted himself in this ease as to incur the
penalties of the 69th canon ? The first admission to be
taken in the suit went to the very root of the proceeding,
for it stated it was brought lure by letters of request from
the bishop, who was the patron of the benefice of which
Mr. Dodd was the incumbent. Dim, that being
the ease, unless there MS • power given under
the act 3 & 4 Vie., chap. 86, the court co:sld have no juries
diction to entertain the matter.—The learned judge referred
to those sections of the act which related to the order of pro-
ceeding where clergymen were charged with offences against
the laws ece.4 siaatical, or against whom might exist scandal
or evil report, to show that the bishop of the diocese was em-
powered by law on the application of any pasty complaining
on or his own mere motion, to issue a commission under his
own hand and mil, five persona, one of whom should
'be his vicar general, for the purple of inves-
tigating the grounds of any charge against •
clergyman, and upon receiving a report that it was lawful
for the bishop, with the consent of such clerk and party
proceeding, to pronounce any sentence he might think fir,
not exceeding, however, the sentence which might be pro-
nounced in common course of law, and that such sentence
should be final. The 13th section had • provision, be which
the bishop might go, if he thought prop< r, to the Court of
Appeal, to the province, to be there heard, according to the
law and practice of such court. The bishop, therefore, had
the option either of bearing the case himself, alter the com-
missioner, had made their report, or before the commis-
sion should have issued, or afterwards to send the case to
the court by letters of request. There was nothing
compulsory on the bishop in either of the cues. The
act of parliament, however, did not stop there, the autho-
rity of the bishop was qualified by the 24:h sew ion, which
set forth that where the bishop wee a patron of the living
held by a party accused, he was prrhibited from doing any
act save that of sending letters of request to the court of
appeals of the province, and that if he did not do so, he
could exercise no authority at all. It was upon the con-
struction of this act of parliament that the court had been
called upon to decide that it had no jurisdiction in
the matter ; but the court having beard the arguments of
the rev. gentleman, was of opinion that his protest could
not be maintained. Under the circumstances, it might
be a hardship upon the party against whom the case was
promoted ; but he (the learned Judge) could not travel from
the words of the act of parliament. And the objection had
been taken by Mr. Dodd to the citation, which was, that be
had been described as the Vicar of St. Peter's; whereas St.
Peter's was not a vicarage, but • perpetual curacy. There
MIS no evidence, however, before the court as to the nature
of this benefice. Mr. Dodd was cited as the Vicar of St.
Peter's ; he had appeared in that character to the citation,
and there MA nothing before the mart to show that St.
Peter's was not a VIM:VC lie was presented in the year
1844 to the vicarage of St. Giles and St. Peter's,
in Cambridge, and had ever since been looked
upon as the minister of those united parishes.
;rs
ta:rued that except so far as they had se-
churches, burying grounds, and parish officers,
they were united and dependent upon each other, to form
one benefice. The learned judge was therefore of opinion
that the objection of Mr. Dodd could not be maintained.
Another objection taken was, that it had not been declared
in the articles that the deceased had not laid violent hands
on himself, and reference was made to the game laws; but
the two cues were materially different. In the game laws
the magistrates' conviction MN summary, and in order to
bring a person under the jurisdiction of the magistrates it
was necessary he should be proceeded against as a person
not legally qualified. Here the obligation was a general
one that the minister of the parish should read the
ureic' over the bodies of hie parishioners, due deuce having
been given him before. He (Dr. J. Fut) held the jurisdic-
tion of the court to be established beyond all doubt under
the Church Discipline Act. He would now consider the
circumstance under which the present suit had been
brought. The articles charged Mr. Dodd with having
offended against the laws ecclesiastical by refusing to bury
the body of William litotes, a parishioner, after convenient
moth:ernes him thereof. They set forth that upon the 27th
December, 1848, William Stutes was found dead
is the parish of St. Peter's ; that on the fol-
lowing day (28th) an inquest was held upon the
body and a verdict returned to the effect, that the deceased
was found drowned gad suffocated in a ditch in Cambridge,
no marks appearing on his body, and there being no evi-
dence before the jurors to show how or by what means he
beaus suffocated. The usual certificate of the deputy
coroner for the interment of the body was delivered to Mr.
Dodd upon the same day when be ds clewed to naive it
without the averment and depositions taken before the jury.
The coroner, acting under the provisions of the Registration
Aot, refused to accede to Mr. Dodd's wishes, and the
next day the wife of deceased's son informed Mr.
Dodd that the family wished the corpse to be buried
at two o'clock on the Sunday following in St. Peter's
Churchyard, u near the mother's body as could be. The
rev, gentleman said he thought he could not bury the body
because the deceased died la a state of intoxication, and
subsequently suggested to the son that the father should be
taken to the dissenters' cemetery, where they were not so
strict, and that he (Mr. Dodd) would pay the adidditional
expense. The son thereupon promised to endea-
vour to obtain a grave in the cemetery, but his
application proving tensaceessful, he again celled on
Mr. Dodd on the Sunday aerobes, and told him that the
body must be 'atoned that day, as it ad become a nui-
Naos, sad the relatives had arrived. The corpse was thee
brought to the chareltoteat plead seer the door ; but es the
deer we. Ina* to be *sod, Ike body, alter :tumbling there

upwards of an hoar, was taken beat, and the next morning
interred Ina cemetery. It these faete were established, there
would be good ground for the proceedings adopted, and the
rev. gentleman would be liable to the censure set forth in
canon 68. Some of the facts could not be disputed. The
deceased, States, was an old inhabitant of St. Peter's parish,
and a member of the church of England; and he was found
drowned, without any marks of violence on him. The
wooer's certificate was given for the burial under the
Registration Act, and delivered to Mr. Dodd ow
the same day. Mr. Dodd knew, therefore, the
cause of death as determined at the inquest,
but Mrs. States proved that on the Friday previous Mr.
Dodd said the deceased could not be buried, a he died in-
toxicated. This was Mr. Dodd's reason, but he did not sup-
port the allegation by evidence. States, the son, stated that
on the Saturday night Mr. Dodd sent for him, and said he
could not bury his father because he wee intoxicated, and
had walked into the river. There was, however, no evi-
dence of the fact alleged. Other evidence went to show Mr.
Dodd's refusal, and hie suggestion that the body should be
taken to the dissenters' cemetery, where they would not be
so particular. This advice was hardly consistent with the
duty of a clergyman of the church of England. It appeared
that Stutes assented, hut returned the next morning to Mr.
Dodd with the information that the dissenter* had refused
to have a grave dug, and therefore the body roust be interred
in the churchyard of ft t.Peter'e. Stumm' original acquiescence
was not a voluntary act, but was forct 1 upon him by Mr.
Doll's refusal to do what the court consil red was his duty.
No objection was taken on account of the day or the hour
named, but Mr. Dodd refused altogether to have the service
performed in St. Peter's churchyard. The court was there-
fore of opinion that Mr. Dodd had incurred the penalties
of the statute, notwitbetonding the agreement which had
been forced upon the son of the deceased. Other evidence
went to corroborate Stoles' evidence. On Sunday the 31st
Dec., in the morning, three parties went to Mr. Dodd with
a message to the effect that there was no alternative hut to
have the body buried in St. Peter's churchyard at half-past
2 that day, but the rev. gentleman still refused to do it then
or at any other time, or to allow any other clergyman to
read the service for him ; and thereupon he was in-
formed by one of the parties that be, had not
come there to ask a favour, hut to demand a right, and un-
less Mr. Dfdd complied proceedings would be immediately
commenced in the Ettl siestical Court. had this been the
first notice given, the court would have conehereel it insufil.
Meat, as in the cue of " Titan:eh v. Chapman," but that
was a very different one, for no notice was given until the
corpse was actually in the churchyard. Clearly Mr. Dodd
was am-nable to the statute, and the court would have to
suspend him accordingly for three months from his ministry,
having no discretion uuder the 68th canon, however much,
as in the case of " Eecott v. Esteem" the court might have
wished for such discretion. Urfortunately, however, no
other judgment could be pronounced. The court,
therefore, must decide that Mr. Doll did:refuse to
bury the deceased, due notice having been given,
and the body Meeker been actually brcught at
the time notified, that Mr. Dodd diet not appear, and
the body was eventually taken back and buried the next day
in a diesentiog burial ground. It had been stated that Mr.
Cooper brought this suit as a matter of speculation; but Mr.
Cooper, although an attorney, was also the coroner, and it
was natural that the family should seek his advme, and still
more 40 ae be was a relative, and the parties most interested
were net in affluent circumstances. hie. Cooper could only
recover his taxed costs not as an attorney, but as a promoter
of the Mike of the judge. Tim Hey. Mr. Dodd mutt be con-
demn-. 1 in the costs.

Natice of appeal was immediately given.
FRANKFORT V. FRANKTONT.

„--
The Queen's advocate (Sir John Ddelson) prayed tLo court
to decree Lord Frark'ort in contempt. in consequence of his
having neglected to ply to Lady Frankfurt, since January,
1849, the alimony of 8001. per annum allotted to her by the
court ; the non-payment having occasioned great privation
to her ladyship. A sequestration of hii 1 ,rdidsip's property
in !re and was therefore asked.
Application granted.