The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-23 00:00:00

GROCOCK V. WELLER.

Mr. BALL moved in this case for a rule directed to
the officer of the Court, and commanding him to issue
a writ of capias, without a Judges order or a writ of
summons being previously issued. The defendant,
Weller, had been before the Insolvent Court the day
before yesterday, when he was opposed by his creditors,
and remanded for seven months, for having fraudulently
made away with property. He was in custody at the
suit of a friendly creditor, and it was supposed that the
object of the other creditors would be frustrated if the
present step was not taken, because at the end of seven
months the Insolvent would be entitled to his discharge.
By the Ist and 2d Victoria, chap. 18, it was provided
that an Insolvent Debtor might be detained by writ of
capias without a Judges order or writ of summons.
Lord DEN MAN—What does the officer say?
Mr. BALL—He wishes to have the opinion of the
Court.

Lord DENMAN—Did you mention the case to Mr.
Justice Littledale ?

Mr. BALL—Yes, my Lord, and he desired me to
mention it to the full Court.
Lord DENMAN—Take a rule.
THE QUEEN V. REYNOLDS, CLERK.

This was a rule calling upon the defendant to show
cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue di-
rected to him and commanding him to restore the seve
ral registry books belonging to the parish of St. James's,
Bury St. Edmunds, in Suffolk, to the custody of the
Rev. Henry Cooper Hinde, and to permit the said Mr.
Hinde to officiate as Cnrate or Reader of the said parish.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now appeared to show
cause against the rule which had been obtained by Sir
F. Pollock during the present term. The application
was one of a very singular nature, and the circumstances
would disclose facts of a very extraordinary description.
It was literally a mandamus to Mr. Reynolds to permit
Mr. Hinde to discharge the duties of his office. The
Reader or Curate of the parish of St. James had been
usually appointed by the Corporation of Bury St. Ed-
munds, there being a regular contract with him, by
which he should either hold the office for one year, or
from time to time, as the Corporation might think fit.
The parish, he should observe, was unendowed, and
the question was whether there was any. thing
in the Municipal Corporation Act which took
the appointment out • of the hands of the Cor-
poration and vested it in the Bishop of the Diocese.
It appeared that originally the Readers were appointed
from time to time, but latterly they were appointed to
hold the office for life. They officiated at the Sacra-
ments of the Lord's Supper, &c., but had no salary from
the Corporation, receiving merely the usu; l sur ;lice fees
of the Reader or Curate. On the 9.5 th 1V ay 6: Town-
Council of Bury appointed Mr. Reynolds header or
Curate, in the room of Mr. Atkiason, deceased, and from
that period he had officiated as such, performing divine
service and administering the Sacrament. On the Ist
of July the registers of baptisms and burials were given
into his custody, and lie had since then retained them.
On the 2d July the Bishop of the diocese granted a
license to Mr. Hinde to act as Curate, and be, forti-
fied with that license, but having no other title to the
office, applied for the present mandamus. Now, the
parish was not endowed—there were no lands attached
to it—and the Bishop had not the power to appoint a
Curate. There was no authority which could entitle
Mr. Hinde to the rule prayed for. It was not a tem-
poral right which that Court could grant, inasmuch as it
was merely a claim to be allowed to preach and officiate.
By the 139th section of the Municipal Corporation Act
it was provided that if the Corporation did not dispose
of any estates whereunto any right of advowson, or any
benefice or ecclesiastical preferment attached, then the
right of appointment to such ecclesiastical preferment
should rest in the Bishop of the diocese. Now he (the
Attorney-General) contended that the appointment in
question did not come under the denomination of an
ecclesiastical preferment—it was not a saleable office
under the terms of the Act—the Corporation were the
rectors, and had a right to make the appointment upon
what terms they pleased, and therefore the Bishop had
not the right to interfere. For these reasons he sub-
mitted that the present rule must be discharged.
Mr. Andrews and Mr. Wightman followed on the
same side.

Sir F. Por.Locs, in support of the rule, contended
that the present case came distinctly within the provi-
sions of the 139th section of the Municipal Act, and
which proviso had been most wisely and judiciously in-
troduced, to prevent the inconvenience and scandal
which would arise from the occurrence of cases like
that now under their Lordships' consideration. The
Learned Gentleman then proceeded to point out what
the provisions of the Act were, when he was inter-
rupted by
Lord DENMAN—Who said that the Court was in-
fluenced so far by the Act of Parliament as to think
that the mandamus should go, but the question then was,
was it a case in which they could grant a mandamus ?

Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK submitted that it was. For
instance, there could be no legal objection to the man-
damus going to compel Mr. Reynolds to give up the
Registry Book. There was an important duty cast
upon Mr. Hinde, who, he concluded was the legally ap-
pointed Curate, which he could not discharge while
these books were withheld. The Learned Counsel was
proceeding with 11;s argument, when
The COURT said that they were of opinion the man-
damus must go as regards the first part, namely, the re-
storation of the Registry Books.

THE QUEEN V. THE PROPRIETOR OF THE MANCHESTER

CHRONICLE.

A rule for a criminal information had been obtained
in the course of the present Term against the defend-
ants, Messrs. Lester and Hewett, the proprietors, and
Mr. Dyer, the editor, of the Manchester Chronicle,
for an allured libel on Sir C. Shaw, Commissioner of
Police for the borough of Manchester.
Sir W. FOLLETT now appeared to show cause
against the rule, and observed that with regard to one
of the defendants, Mr. Hewett, he had an affidavit,
which set forth that he was one of the proprietors of the
paper, but had no control over its management, and that
he extremely regretted that any observations should have
been made in it reflecting on the character of Sir C.
Shaw. The libel in question was a commentary upon
an eulogium on the character of Sir C. Shaw, which ap-
peared in one of the liberal newspapers of the town, and
which, he contended, did not, under the circumstances,
exceed the legitimate bounds of newspaper criticism.
The Learned Counsel then read the alleged libel, which
we gave at some length when the ruie was moved for.
The Court would not, he was satisfied, interfere unless
there were charges against the private character of Sir
C. Shaw which were subsequently wiped off by Sir
C. Shaw's affidavits. Now the alleged libel charged
him with having been horsewhipped by Mr. Hawkins,
which was not denied. It stated further, that he had
aqbuoituttedfoutlheplawyinaat tcrlirddes.
dispute
inTchoantsweq•ausenncoet doefniaeddbisyp
C. Shaw, but it was insinuated that the foul play was
intended to be attributed to him, but the affidavits of
the defendants denied that most fully.
Lord DENMAN said, if there was no reiteration of
these charges, and that the defendants said they did not
mean "to make any imputations upon the character of
Sir C. Shaw, then the matter was at an end.
Sir WM. FOLLETT said the defendants had never
meant to impute foul play at cards or cowardice to Sir
C. Shaw.
Mr. THESIGER said there were other charges also,
and if the defendants now expressed their regret for the
statements they had made ; and further, that they
meant no imputations on the character of Sir C. Shaw,
he would be satisfied, but less than that he could not
be content with.

After a good deal of coquetry on both sides,
Mr. TIIESIGER expressed himself satisfied, and
The COURT said they were very glad the question
had terminated in that way. The only object Sir C.
Shaw could have in coming to that Court was the vin-
dication of his character, and after what had been

•

EVENING EDITION

stated by the defendant's counsel every person must see
that his object had been answered.
The rule was consequently discharged.
THE QUEEN V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE COURT

OF REQUESTS OF BIRMINGHAM.
This was a rule for a mandamus to the Commis-
sioners of the Court of Requests of Birmingham, on
the ground of an illeeal election of a Clerk to the Court.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. MANNING were
heard in support of the rule, and Sir WILLIAM Fol.-
LETT against it.

The COURT were of opinion that the rule for the
mandamus must be discharged.

BAIL COURT.-(ThiS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF WORCESTER.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue against the
Magistrates of the county of Worcester, commanding
them to allow a highway rate under the sth and 6th
Will. IV. c. 50. The rate had been made by the sur-
veyor in the usual manner, but the Magistrates had
refused to allow it, because the surveyor refused to
pay a fee to their clerk. This fee, he apprehended,
was illegal, iria.qnuch as it was not mentioned in the
Act, which expressly directed that no other fees than
those enumerated should be demanded.
His LORDSHIP granted a rule nisi.
RICKETS V. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE said he had been instructed
to move for a mandamus, on the part of the defendants,
to examine witnesses, and as the business of the Court
at this period of the Term was so pressing, perhaps
his Lordship would allow it to be heard at Chambers.
This was an action brought against the East India
Company for a considerable sum of money, and the
affidavit on which he moved stated that the cause of
action arose in India, and that it was necessary wit-
nesses should be examines to substantiate the defence
of the Company. There was an affidavit, on the other
side, of Mr. Freshfield, showing that from the nature
of the proceedings, the treasurer of a certain society,
and some other public officers at Calcutta, were neces-
sary witnesses on their behalf, and the plaintiffs had
thereupon obtained a mandamus to examine witnesses ;
and it was necessary that the defendants should be
armed with the same power.
4Mr. BAILEY, on the other side, had no objection to
the application being granted, if his Lordship thought
the Learned Sergeant had made out sufficient grounds
f r a rule to snow cause.

His LORDSHIP intimated that to be the case, and
said the parties might attend at Chambers any day when
it would suit their convenience.

(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. FROST, VINCENT, AND EDWARDS.

WHATELET moved for a writ of certiorari in the
case of John Frost, Henry Vincent, and William Ed-
wards, against whom indictments had been found at the
Monmouth Assizes for sedition, and which had been
traversed until the next Assizes The affidavit on
which he moved stated that great alarm existed in the
county of Monmouth, which was likely to continue for
some time to come, and that a fair and impartial trial
could not he had without the aid of a Special Jurv.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—It is not removed out of
the county, then ?

Mr. WHATELEY—No, merely to have a Special Jury.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Is it not rather early ? It
is a long time before the assizes.

Mr. WHATELEY understood that a considerable time
was requisite to make the necessary preparations, and
this certainly was a case of sufficient importance, to be
tried by a Special Jury.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—On whose behalf do you
apply ?

Mr. VITHATELEY—On the part of the Crown, my
Laid.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—I really think you might
wait until next term.

Mr. WIIATELEY—My instructions are, that time
presses as to giving the necessary notices, to enable the
prosecution to go to trial at the next assizes.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Very well, sou may take
your rule.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.