The Express.
London, England, 1850-07-02 00:00:00

the judgment ef the Privy Council was gives, the
bishop had felt that it was founded in error,
and hang Milk esmsmined of that Its sought to reline the
shun sad the people from the weight ef elm me circulated.
It was under them sireatastames dist the ow now rants
before this court for its derision, lad If the open should
nearly mad uanimonely shish that the role ought to h dis-
Gwyn, they would hat an is meordanes with Hutted•
needle if they did wet ones. But if they doubted, oe say
MIOISber of the inn doubted fairly and reasonably on the
questions raised, it arms their duty not the less to lane the
rale absolute es the ether hand, sad so to enable no de-
fendant to pine nom on the rein& This would be in
esserdane with the rule laid dawn by Lord ilanalald is
the we of Bt. J.elin's College o. Teddington in I Barrow's
reports, lib, sad by that rule he hoped the court would now
be (aided in that event. The first question, then. was as to
the construction nth* two atetutas, 24 Hen. VIII., and 26
Rea. VIII. The latter al which, as was intended by the
Attorney-Clemaral ia aco risme with the judgments of the
twv other court*, repealed the former in so far as it
provided for the appeal to the lines of Conviestion
is all causes touchiug the Msg. Bat this cannot be
dons except by experts words or necessary implica-
tion, and no such Mining* Is here to be found, and
whether the statute bitted se now printed, or as in the early
of parlianteat, in paragraph., the instruction and
reading must be the same. The malt of the two matters
la that there Ina made a clear and dirtinet difference be-
tween appeals in man of the Bilden s.nd of the king. Is tt •
former, the arehtlehoya judgment was final. In no other.
the appeal went to the convocation. and whether it was a
privilege or • liability it could only be taken away by the
2nd statute by elm and express words. The clear torment*
from the statute was that the appeal lay to the couvocition
from the court when the sail was first began.
Mr. Byron Alderson—lf you iaterpose the Court of Dele-
gates, by incorporating the two statutes von may have an
appeal from them tinter the 9th see. of the 27th IIen.VIII. to
the convocation, sod that constructivn of the statutes would
mske them agree with the cams which are to be found, and
with all the authorit.es on both aides.

Sir F. Kelly would not admit that the statutes were so to
be blended, hut would rather that the whole of the 2nd
statute should be imported into the first after V., 9.h semi
by which, as he contended, the true end proper mode el
✓eading and construing statutes would be adhered to.
Taking the two statutes togtther, they mean that whereas
formerly three causes cnly could be removed from Rome,
now all might, and that in the latter thou which affected
the king should be appellable in like , condition, end
fors; that is to sty, from court to court, end within such
time as thdicated by the first statute with referents to the
three clauses fist named. If this be not the meaning of the
wood statute, it is difficult to see what meaning it bap; sad
yet the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas impeded a con,
siderable quantity of time anal space in his elstiorate judg-
ment in attempting to prove the contrary. Such is the
meaning e f the 3rd sec. of the 25th Hen.VIII. ; and it might
even be that the 4th see , coming after, should, " for lack of
justic-," give an app al from the archbishop, wheat judge
meat wee before final, to the new Coors ei! Deleotie. This,
however, would apply to seises coming alone, and if reed
as we pro the 4th sectioa would not apply to or in-
terfere * ped*,WO the appeal given in all causes touckieg the
Mena by the 9th see. of 24th IIen.VIII,
Mr. Baron Alderson—You admitted in moving that there
had been five cases of appeals to the delegates in intestacy
where the king was concerned. Now, If you read the two
statutes together, but with the 9thsemof the 24th Hen.Vlll
lest of all, the reference to courts assetudembram a the dele-
get. s and accounts for those easse,while the abreact of appeals
front them to the convoestith is accounted for by saying that
the perdu were satisfied. and would go no further.
Sir F. Kelly would uhjcct to that construction, especially
as there was no provision for the commencement of any cause
in the delestates, and, in his view of the act, the appeal to
the convocation might go direct from the court where the
suit began. The acts may be united, but ought to be read
as they stand, not shifted up and adjusted ro an to meet any
eves which may exist, and every word ought to have effect
given to it if possible.. But it was further urged that there
was a concurrent jurisdiction, or • double one. This, again,
is without any true foundation. And as to the euttorities
adduced by the Attorney General, they are all of a negative
character. and by no means fitted to compare with the series
of authorities nn which the application rests. The only case
of any weight is Goodman's ; but after the judgment
of the Court of Common Pleas, that case has
been fully investigated, and it will Lot be found to
bear out the view taken of it by those courts. That
was clearly net a suit in any court, but a special proceed-
ing by vasitstorial prerogative, by virtue of which
the ki g hotted commiesions of ri view to delegates, and
hence the error into which the courts fell—for they con-
strued delegates to mean the court. Opposed to them is
the great authority of Coke, followed up by Bacon, Comyn,
and Blackstone, all of them eel:mealy 'eying it down that
the appeal must be to the Hons. of C 'avocation where the
king is concerned ; and if the court will look into and
examine them for itself, there can be little doubt that the
rule will be made absolute on the first pint. As to the
question whether this is a ease which touches the kirg, it is
apprehended that as little doubt can really arise there. The
language of the judoesents in this very eau may be referred
to as indicative of the elision entertained by the two MUMS
on this point. They bath assume and decide that Goodman's
ease was within the statute ; tied, if so, then this is, for the
ju patronstus is involved here. At fir•t it was con-
tended that that cue was not one within the act,
but it may now be appealed to for the par-
toe of showing that it is, for it being granted
that the int. re st need not be of a pecuniary nature, it fol-
lows that the interest which the Queen his, as patron, in the
reception of her presentee, is • matter so touching her as to
bring it within the est. At all events, she is lot • rested in
the matter being fit.alle decidi d, and that truth should
prevail. This being so, that which alone gins worth and
value to an adyowson is in haus here ; at.d if she be not is-
terested here, she is not in any of her Hensel.
Mr. Baron Alderson—lt is entirely a question as to the
status of Mr. Gotham, not of the Qaten. If the bishop
had discovered that Mr. Gorham was • woman, would that
be • matter which would interest her?

Sir F. Ki lly—The crown has, no doubt, an interest in the
adminsion of the particular prestige'. She has ordered his
presentation, and that order is disputed on account of the
fitness of Mr. Gerhatn. That is a matter which interests
her, and if the judgment of the Court of Arches stood unap-
pealed from, it would have been final, ccmclusive, and
binding as a judgment given by • spiritual court
in rem, and over a matter within its cognie ince.
That was clearly so from • variety (of !We, though
none c-Aild be found in matters of dupl.x quer.*
and consequently that judgment might affect the question
raised in the genre imp( dit. If this were not so it might be
that there would be two conflicting judgments on the Berne
question ; so that the evident reason of the thing was to bold
that the judgment of the spiritual court in this matter would
find the Queen's Bench and the Archbishop of Canterbury
in the quire impedit, and so it must be held to to a matter
touching the Queen. The learned counsel having cited se-
veral eases in supportof this lust point, concluded an address,
which ircupied nearly eight boars, ty calling on the court
in most earnest terms to make absolute the rule, and so to
enable the parties to take the opinion of a Court of Error on
the important points raised by the case.

Mr. Baron Parke sat to-day at nisi pins at Guildhall, but
the MCI disposed of were not deservieg of a detailed report.
One was an scion by assignees of a bankrupt named West,
who carried on the business of a tailor ia Union street, in the
Borough, for the recoviry of no less than forty bills of ex.
change, amounting in the aggregate to 3371. To. defendant
was a near reletire of the bankrupt, and the question at issue
was whether the bias were obtained in contemplation of
bankruptcy. Verdict for the defendant. The other cue
was an action of slander. involving matters very unlit for
publication. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintifr,
with 40s. damage,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—YEsTutnAT.
Hum Ma. Comasnoun
Ix In SARAH GALSIDIN—IMPO TTTTT JI7DOMINT.
In this case an important judgment was given respecting
the jurisdiction of county court judges to appoint assignees.
Mr. A :diem, thejudge of the Lancaster County Court, had
appointed a person assicseo in this case, on which appoint-
ment he had acted. The matter was brought before Mr.
Commissioser Law, who decided that there was in reality an
appointment without the confirmation of this court, and
ordered the money which he had received to be brought into
this court subject to further directions.
Mr. Commisioner Law read a long and elaborate judgment
on the point involve' in the cue. It was a question of vest
importance; and he showed from the statute, tilit a
county court could not create as assignee—such court
could only nominate, and this court would sanction.
There must be an acceptance to this court before the title of
amigo's wu completed. Mr. Addison had, however,
assumed the power to appoint. He had isaw d his parch-
ments of appointment, but ha had no jurisdiction to act in
the manner be bad done. His Honour entered into the
subject at peat length, and gave the reasons on the law
which had induced hint to arrive at his decision.
Mr. Cooke said the public was indebted to the learned
commissioner for his opinion. It would no doubt be acted
upon by the county courts, and be productive of consile fable
benefit.

The matter proceeded on the merits whether the person
who had been named wive* should be appointed by the
court.

-...
Mr. Cooke asked for the appointment, and Mr. Sugood
showed cause. The question as to the validity of such
appointments was decided in the judgment Oren.

13irroas Ma. ColosmosEß Psalm".
Ix Roxix? ATTON. U • ' CHARON!.
This insolvent, an undertaker, was oppomel,g2r Mr. Cooke
ry for Mn. Haney, and supported by Mr. S ,
It appeared that the insolvent had managed Mrs. Har-
vey's business, who was in the undertaking line. In the
canna of the ease the insolvent said the profits were very
small,—they sometimes got lase than what they paid for the
articles.

Mr. Cooke ridiculed such a lotion. If it was so, it was
oaly dace the newsmen had exposed the charges mails by
aadsttakers.

Ooiiiniasioner Phillips said that undertakers mule
exorbitant 'ha M London was the most eaponsies place
in the world to die M. (A laugh.)
Arts, ea examination the Court (fantod the Anal order.
Is mm 'Awns Law.—A HnNr ro Eluasmaa.
This insolvent, aa old soldier who h►d served at Waterloo,
had become surety for another person to borrow mousy. He
had a pension and lived in Chelsea College. His mamas
was about 901., including eoids, &a. Mr. Commissioner Phil-
lips was about to adjourn the am, as the insolvent had bo-
soms sant, whim he could not pay his own debts, and to
refine protonic.. It was, however, proposed that She in-
solvent should sot aside 161. a-year out of his passion, whisk
was aseepesd, sad promesion treated.
Mr. Dswsss opposed sad Mr. Mellish supported.