The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-12 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
KENSINGTON CIIURCII-SLATES.-CHESTIIITON AND ANOTHER. V.

PAIRTCLOUGH.

Sir W. FOLLETT appeared to show cause against a rule
obtained last term by Mr. Cresswell, for a prohibition, to
stay proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. The facts of the case were briefly these ;-__A Church-
rate was made for the Parish of Kensington, on the 28th June,
1833, in the vestry-room of the parish Church by the Church-
vFs wardens, Overseers of the Poor, and Parishioners in try
assembled ; and it was to raise a sum of 1,4451., for repairing
cleansing, &c. the parish church, and for indernnifyirig the
churchwardens for all expenses they had been put to, in the
execution of their duty. That rate was for the year, from
Lady-day, 1833, to Lady-day, 1834. An appeal had been
made against that rate by the defendant, when it was alleged,
that the rate, or a portion of it, was intended to be applied to
the payment of deLts incurred by the churchwardens, in the
preceding year, and being retrospective, was therefore illegal•
It was answered on behalf of the churchwardens, that the pa-
rishioners had agreed to pay certain expenses incurred
by the churchwardens, respecting the parish church,
that the fact was known and communicated to all the parishion-
ers in vestry assembled, and that they consented thereto. The
question came before Dr. Lushington, and ho was of opinion,
on the admission of that allegation, that the rate was intended
to apply retrospectively, that the rato was illegal, and rejected
the article tendered on behalf of the churchwardens, The
churchwardens then appealed to the Judge of the Arches
Court, Sir Herbert Jenner, and that Learned Judge taking
a different view of the case dismissed the allegation proved.
An appeal was then made by the parties moving the present
prohibition, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
against the last judgment. That appeal was lodged at the
instance of the defendant, and was now before that Court,
although no steps had yet been taken in the case. The
simple question then for their Lordships was, had the Judi-
cial Committee of the Privy Council jurisdiction to en-
quire into the validity of a Church.rate ? Had it autho-
rity to reverse the judgment of Sir Herbert Jenner? and
if so, how could their Lordships grant the prohibition
prayed for ? Nothing was more probable than that
that Court would revise the judgment of the Arches Court, as
it bad power to do, end if so why should the defendant apply
to their Lordships at all, The Learned Gentleman here re-
ferred to the Act 2d and 3d Will. IV., chap. 92, which gave
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council authority, as a
Court of Appeal in matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
submitted that no ground had been made out for the interfer-
ence of that Court.

Mr. CREawELL (with whom was Mr. HENDHnsoN) was
heard in E. uppert of the rule. There were only two
points forthe consideration of the Court in the preliminary objection
taken by his Learned Friend. The first was, whether Mr.
Pairtelotigh was precluded by having applied to the Judicial
Cornmitt& of the Privy Council, from applying to their Lord-
ships for a prohibition. Now, he need only mention the case
of " Cousins v. Derby," and several others, to convince their
Lordships that the defendant had the right to do so. The
next point was, whether the position of the ea.° before
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was such as
to entitle the defendant to the interference of their Lord-
ships, and the affidavit of Mr. Fairtclough was conclusive
upon that point, as it set forth that the appeal was now
pending before that Court. Upon these grounds, he con-
cluded that the rule should be made abosolute,
The CounT was of opinion that the objection which bad

bee, taken to the rule must be held valid. Assuming that the
Judicial Committee of the Pa ivy Council was an Eceles,asti.
cal Court of Appeal, they must assume further, that at pre-
sont it had cognizance of the case, and would decide upon it
according to law. There was nothing- upon which they could
come to the decision that the prohil,ition ought to go, and the
rule, therefore, must be discharged.—Rule discharged.
THE KING V. THE CORPORATION OF TOOLE.
Sir W. FOLLETT appeared to shew cause against a rule
which had been obtained in this case for a mandamus directed
to the Mayor and Aldermen of the borough of Poole, and
commanding them to execute a bond under the common seal
of the Corporation, to pay to Francis Edwards a sum of 421.
9a. 10d. per annum out of the funds of the Corporation, as
compensation for an office of profit from which he had been
removed under the provisions of an Act of Parliament
—the Municipal Corporation Act. It appeared that Mr.
Edwards had been appointed to the office of Collector of
Duties upon certain goods and merchandise imported
into the borougis of Poole. Mr. Edwards had held the office
from the 3d December, 1834, till the 15th January, 1836,
when he was removed by order of the new Town Council. A
memorial had been addressed to the Lords of the Treasury,
and they decided that Mr. Edwardswas entitled to compen-
sation. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to cite several
sections of the Municipal Act, for the purpose of showing that
the Town Council were not entitled to apply any portion of
the funds of the Corporation for such a purpose, and that
they had no power to do so.
The ATTORNEY-GENKRAL and Mr. BINGHAM were heard in
support of the rule.
The COURT said it would look into the local Act to which
reference had been made, and pronounce its judgment on a
future day.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
Ssme motions merely of form, and presenting no matter of
interest, having been disposed of, the Court rose soon after
11 o'clock.