The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-26 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COUVF OF CIIANCF.ItY.
TUB Lou) 'mut DAN, AT Tale
Apraln.
Lord (3,pntley t. Garthwalte. f Sarno,. Duke of St. athan'a, two
t.arthw.,,te Y. L 0.41 Grittitty, to be appeal., mane per wd,..•
9,;.ke to r.ul.er v. Rayner, &Awn!
Edvnlawoualk e. Oakley, part heard Crawnbuy v. Collin., e%celfintl• end
Carter v. of Land.ok, dlthn further direction., per )o"nent
them ~1 St. Albati'a v. Diackwai of In re V:ankn, lunntic petitiuu

St. Aihan's
Lurd Drethurtt V. Itaittbeute

rti rn Shorl."e:l, ditto
1.. re WLite, bunkropt pet. per ord.

VIC E.CII AN C I. 0 1111 COUR/.

•
scroti Till VICa-I'IIANCI:LLon,II:)‘?Av, AT HAI.P.PA,IIT TIM

Pies.% Demurrers. Lxceptions. and Fintker Directions.
Creek v. Dodson, pica Farnsworth v. Yeoman•
ttereis v. 'I a) tor, detonate, Same v. seine, further directions
Mother v. lV inter, ditto Breed. v. Breeds, exception.' and
itobttiai.e v. Bothwell, plea farther directions
Oxenfmth v. Cswkwell, further dl. I.l”nr v. Titton, exceptions and
rection, furiher direction,
Cat% kit ell v. Oxenforth, relltlon per 'fittnyt v. Payne, ditto
order Tracer v. Vickers, ditto
Dottiel.l r. Fiwes, farther directions Attorney-General v. Westwood. do.
same v. Buser, (MAY Smith v. Broatium, 3 causes, ditto

ROLLS COURT.
The Master of the Rolls will hear Causes, Further Direction., and Peti-
tions by consent. on Saturday nest, the Zkh inst. at nine in the morning.
Ceases and Petitions must be net down by two o'clock on PI iday.
General Petition limy at the Rolls on Tnendny, May 9, at nine o'clnck in
thr tn.oning. Petitions must be set down and copies left with the Secre-
tary lwfore two o'clock on the preceding day.
Short causes at the Rolls on Wednesday, May 10, at 10 In the morning.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
This day, at 12.
MID SSSSSS COMMIE JURIES.
Doe v. Mae.
To-morrow, at 12.
LONDON CO/lEEE REMANENT.
Smith T. Dawkins I Watson v.rF.arl of Bel- Crandall v. Wright
Gerry v. Parker fa.t Lloyd and another v.
Wharton v. Peover Seals v. Jacobs Whitehead
Ryan v. Nrely

Aldrldve v. Taylor
Blip( v. /tun. W. Wel.
Fowlea v. Cala

New Compel.
Brown and another Y. Smith Y. Phi
Cotten Cohan Y. Ward & LIAt.
Turner ind another v. JAILIC T. en c e
Lewis Young ♦. idayland

SITS

Godden v. Clunbs.un,
for judgment.
Day v..llead

31;dcalfe v. ktedealfe
Partridge •. Flecknoe

'DART Or EXCHEQUER.
?MR DAT. AT T O'CLOCK.
(We v. Luttrell I Bragalei V. Joek.on
Prebble v. Fenner Richard. v. Wu'druu
I
Jark.un v. Bourne Rye., v. Hattie.
wllllnm. v:shettle Smoky v. Parker
Robin,un v. Critchett

1.4 W INTRLLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUESDAY, APRIL 25.

BURGOYNE V. FREE. n D.

in this ease a libel had been filed in the Ecclesiastical Court, at
' the instance of Montague Burgoyne, Esq.. against the defendant,
Dr. Free, Rector of the parish offiutton, we believe in the county
I of Essex, chewing him in thirty-one articles with fornication and
incontinence ; with debauching and getting with child several see-
leant girls who had lived in his service; with drunkenness; with
omitting to perform divine service on certain Sunday. ; with talk-
ing indecently, and ',hewing lewd pictures to his female servants ;
with indecently turning swine into the Church-yard to the disturb-
ance of the dead ; with refusing the use of the Church to parish.
oncra for the purpose of convening vendee ; with stripping the lad
off the Church roof and selling it ; with refusing to baptize chi!.
dren when applied to for the purpose; and with divers other oft
fences, and the libel concluded bt praying the deprivation and sus.
pension of the defendant, and that be migh, be otherwise cannoni.
cell, punished. Upon this proceeding, a declaration in prohibition
was filed in this Court by Dr. Free, to restrain the proceedings in
the Ecclesiastical Court, on the ground that the suit for the offences
charged was not commenced within eight months after their al.
leged commission, as required by the 22d George 111. cap. 44. To
this there was • plea that the statute only a plied to suits against
lay persons, and did not interfere with the authority of the Church
to punish its own members, and the defendant demurred to this
plea.
Mr. CAMPBELL now in support of the plea contended, that
though the Statute of 22, (ho. 111. cap. 44, required that suits in
the Ecclesiastical Court for this description of offence, should be
commenced within eight months, yet it supplied solely to suits
against lay persons, and not to suits against the clergy for suspen-
sion or degradation. This was shown by the title of the Act itself,
which was " an Act to oreveut frivolous and vexatious suits in Ec-
clesiastical Coons;" and there was no enactment in it to prevent a
suit being instituted in au Eceleabietical Court. against a priest in
Holy Orders, for haying been guilty during a series of years. of
the matt gross and scandalous imrnoralitiy. The rule for the coo.
atruction of Stainers, as laid down by Lord Coke and by Lord
Chief Baron Comyn was, " that if a case is out of the mischief of
a Statute. it must be considered out of the purview,. though within
the worth:" and by analogy here, though this ease was not within
the words, it was within the purview. It would be strange indeed
if the limitation of eight mouths were to apply in this case, where
charges of fornication were preferred, as the most manifest proof of
the truth Ishii ellich such charges were made might be excluded;
for the time of bringing the suit Melt; elapse before the birth of •
bastard. Moreover, it was clear that this restriction must be ap-
plied to suits against lay persons, because no emit canonical punish-
ments as suspension or deprivation, could be icfiieted on any but
priests in holy orders. If, however, the Court anottLl be of opinion
that the Statute of 22d Geo. 111. applied to this ease, still the
le. Henry VII. cap. 4, which was instituted " an Act to enable
bishops to punish priests and other religious men, foe dishonest or
profane live*'" contained no such restriction; and though it might
be contended that that Act was virtually repealed by the 22d,
Geo. 111., still there was no recital of it whatever, nor any clause
repeat. It stood therefore in full force, and this declaration in pro-
hibition consequently could not apply to a case of this sort.
The COMMON SERGEANT, in support of' the demurrer, con.
tended that this Act of Parliament was manifestly • Statute for the
protection of all his Majesty's subjects without exception. If it
had been conceived necessary to exclude aey particular class,
nothing would have been more easy than to insert a clause to that
effect. The offences here charged, were of such a scandalous and
immoral nature, that the Legislature had deemed it necessary they
should be taken notice of immediately; and it never could have
been the intention of Parliament, that a man's life should be r.n.
sacked through sixteen years. as in this ease; or that the indiscre-
tions of his cattier days should be ripped up to form matter for a
suit in the Ecelesissucal Cowt. Incontinence is an offence which
may be perpetrated ; and therefore if it were carried on to such an
extent as to be offensive to public morals, there could be no doubt
that it might be matter of charge In an Ecclesiastical Court; but
the Statute was positive that the suit must be within eight months,
and thereby the Statute of Henry VII. was of course repealed.
After hearing further argunienta in the ease,
The COURT said they would consider the subject maturely, and
give judgment on a future day.
In the course of the morning, by the order of the Court, Master
LEBLANC read his Majeety'e warrant, directing the Judges of this
Court so sit in vacation time after the present term, in consequence
of the heavy arrears of business.
The Loan Curer JUST IL r: stated that in consequence of his
Majesty's warrant, the other berried Judges of the Court would
sit after the present Term to take tmfitthhed business, from the 9th
to the 13th of May inclusive, and his Lordship had so ordered it
that during the Middlesex Juries, those sittings would be at West
MiG3ter.

COURT OF REQUESTS--Picciant.T.
•
EIARRIETTE WILSON'S MEMOIRS.
THOMAS V. NEALI.
The following ease, which involves a question of great im-
portance to attorneys. was decided yesterday. The Oohing' SUM
mooed the defendant, who was attorney to.Stockdale when he
brought an action *gab at .Me. Or whyn for the piracy of the above
notorious last" Memoirs, for 1/. his. 61. foe two days attenda.xe
at the Court of King's Bench as a witness in the action, on which
occasion, it will be recollected-, Mr. Thor as, alto was the supposed
printer of Onwhyn's Edition, when c.d!ld into the box by Mr.
Brougham, appealed to the Chief Justice whether he was bound
to give evidence. which might be mn.le the subject of an action
against himself. On that occasion the Learned Judge decided that
he was not. On the hearing of the summons the above particulars
were stated, in answer to which Mr. Nede urged that it would he
placing the great body of attorneys in a very renonsible situation.
if they were made answerable for the time anti expenses of the wit.
news suiromaed by them, Arid hoped the Commissioners would
give it every consideration before they decided, especially as he
himself had not been paid his expenses of the suit.
The Conamissionere, after some consideration, adjudged, that
although there was no doubt of the justice of Mr. Thomas's claim,
they were of opinion that he should have preferred it against Mr.
Stockdale, and not his attorney.
Judgment 14 defendant, but without costs.

A special general Meeting of the American and Colonial
Steam Navigation Company was held on Monday, m consider the
propriety of paying from the Compiny's funds the amount of a
compromise, at which the owners of the United Kingdom vessel
agreed to cancel (lie contract. Sit Pultency Malcolm was called
to the Chair. Dr. Ainslie said, that the motion he had to submit
would, he trusted, give general satialuction ; he regretted that the
Company was not in a morepromerous state, but it wai evident
that the Directors had done all in their power for the benefit of the
shareholders. It appeared by the statements made at a former
meeting, that the Directors had taken upon themselves a personal
responsibility for the general good of the Company. and therefore it
was but reamiable that they should be indemnified against the risk
incurred. He concluded by moving a resolution, that there be
paid nut of the Company's fund+ the amount of the expenses in.
caned by the Dircemrs. In getting cancelled the contract entered
into for the purchase of the slain United Kingdom. Mr. W.
Porter seconded the (notion. AD. Bowring opposed the motion, on
the ground that the Directors had violated the Act of Parliament in
almost every feature. He then detailed VlOlOlll points, to prove
that the alleged Company was a mere nonentity. He did not rie-
cuss the Thracian of wilful deviation from their duty ; the) had
acted in error, violated the Act of Parliament, and had destroyed
the Company. Under ibis einusnatauses, he opposed the motion
fur indemnity. After a desulsory conversation, the Chairman put
the question. which was carried in the affirmative; and after a vote
of thanks to the Chairman. the meeting separated.