The National Register.
London, England, 1811-05-12 00:00:00

- . • • -„L
LAW. RBPOIitS.. •
,„
~

COURT OF KINO'S BENCH.

MONDAY, MAY 6. •
At the Sitting of the Court, Mr. Parke took the usual Oath,
upon his appointment of Attarncy-Ganeral of LancaAer, is
room of Mr. Serjeant Cockell, deceased.
TILE KING V. THE BISHOP OF LONDON.
This was a conditiOnal Rule obtained by Mr. Warren, last
Michaelmas term, for a Mandamus to be directed to the Bishop
of London, calling on him to show cause why lie refused to
cense Mr. Povall, as Evening Lecturer of St. Bartholomew's.
The Attaawypf;caare/ was proceeding to show cause against
the Rule being made absolute, when '
Lord ELLXXISOROUGIi asked Mr. GatTow (who was in sup•
port of the Rule) whether he was prepared to show upon the
19th Section of the 12th and 14th of Charles li. that the Bishop
could refuse the fiCense, and that there was no appeal to the .
Archbishop—by this Section, the power was ye ,ted in the Arch-
bishop of the Province, and the-Bishop of the Diocese. At pre-
sent, it did not appear that any application had been made to
the Archbishop of the Province, and his l.ordship thought, that
before the Court should grant a Mandamus in a case like the
present, they should be satistiect that there was no other legal
remedy—they had a right of application to the Archbishop, and
in case of his refusal might then come back to the Court.
Mr. Garrow said, that this clause had not occurred to any of
the I .earned Gentlemen who met in, consultation upon this
question. It did not appear that any application had been nuetc
to the Archbishop, the usual course in such cases was only
resorted to,that of applying only to the Bishop of London.
Lord ELI-EIk:BOROUGH observed, that until there had been a
failure of relief froth those who had the power sit granting it in
the first instance, the Court would be unwilling to interfere.
After they had got a refusal they might apply to the Court as the
derider appellantjurisdiction.
Mr. It arraii said this case bad been considered by himself
and his Learned Friends, as the simple case of a Magistrate re-
fusing to do an act' which by his magistelial capacity he was
bound to do; and as the Court would never require a party to
go about the country from one Magistrate to another, in case of
refusal, he therefore did not think it necessary to go farther.
Garrow thought, that if the jurisdiction was originally in
the Archbishop and 'Bishop, he greatly feared any application
to the. Archbishop would be of no avail, as in point of delicacy
towards the Bishop, he could not grant the license.
Lord ELLENBIRROUGII.--" I cannot suppo:ie for a moment
that a mere point of etiquette would induce the Archbishop to
forego a public duty. Let a proper application he made to the
Archbishop, and let the rule be considered as dlschartied, unless
on Wednesday you show cause, to the contrary."

••••••11d1MOD
TVZSDAY; iIAY 7•

•SIR F. BURDE.r/rV. ABBOTT.
This cause being called on for further argument,
Mr. Serjeant Shepherd, for the plaintiff, said, that in conso.
quenre of what had occurred yesterday, when the Court induire
ad of his Learned Friend, Mr. Huiroyd, whether they were
willing to postpone the argathent on the demurrer in this cause,
con3ldeting it a question of very great importance, he had no
objection to put off the further argunieet,.if *e Court could so
arrange it as to come on within the gresent or the next Terns.
He was rerfectly willing to accede to any arrangement the Cud;
might thick pro;:.e.r. i • .
Lord ELLENBOROUGH. " It has been the general rule of this
Court not to have a Trial! at Bar in an isstialAst feria. The
Court would not he willing to break Varough a generti rule;
but, if it is broken throuelt, we slionkl rather tike it on the first
Monday in the ensuing Term. We wish to Lire you this advalse
tage, rather than you should have any delay. The Court, bow-
ever, will consider of It.
Mr. Serjeant-Sheidierd said the cause stood for Friday next.
Lord ELLENBOKOUGH said that day weuld. be we soon tie
Mr,Justice Le Blanc to attend; hut the 'EI liar of Burdett v.
Coleman, might take place any day iu the Term. They (the
Court) were willing to give every facility to the trial of the cause.
consistent with the usual practice ot the Court.
STRAND BRIDGE.
Mr. Curney.applied to the Court fors rule to shnetr cantle
Why a Mandamus should not issue to be directed to the Trustee:
of the Strand Bridge,_ commandins them to ley the second in-
stalment of a sum of money whicli.had Se a*arded by a.
Jury. A similar rule to pay the first instlihnent had Leen dis-
charged on the last day of the last Term, upon ati express under-
taking of the Company that they would complete the payment
three weeks; but it Wdi pot until the trlit April that they pod
the first instalment due the preceding 20th . of. SeatouibiT4, tfr.

.. r