The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-01 00:00:00

FREES CASE,

Lord DENMAN said, in compliance with the promise he had
made in this case, he had looked over all the papers and sta-
tutes connected with it. It was an application for a mandamus
directed to the Bishop of Winchester, commanding him to
hear the appeal of the Rev. Dr. Free, to restore him to his
rank as a Fellow of the College of St. John's, Oxford, and
also that the Bishop should visit the College. Two former
applications had been made to this Court, both of which had
been dismissed ; and it was not now necessary to refer to them
further than as regarded one or two facts which appeared upon
the affidavits before the Court. In the first place, there was
no power to compel a visitor to visit, except in the case of a
Member of the College, and in a case touching his interests.
Dr. Free claims to be a Fellow, although he had accepted a
college living in 1808, of which he had afterwards been de-
prived by the sentence of the Court in the year 1830. He
contends, that having been so deprived of his living, he is still
a Fellow of the College. The answer to this is, that
having accepted the living, he ceased to be a Fellow,
and, that his being afterwards deprived of that living,
did not restore him to his Fellowship.
After having attentively considered the several sections of
the Statute, the Court was clearly of opinion, notwithstanding
the very ingenious arguments drawn from particular portions of
it, that the accepting of a living deprived Dr. Free of his Fel-
lowship. The words " perpetuis socius" had been strongly
relied upon, but the Statute was clear and distinct upon the
stipulation that the parties shall not give their Fellowships for
hire or reward, and it was, therefore, quite clear in the opinion
of the Court, that there was no ground for the present appli-
cation, and the Rule for the mandamus must be discharged.
Doctor Free wished to call the attention of their Lordships
to the Statute of Elizabeth, and was proceeding to address the
Court, when

Lord DENMAN observed, that after the Court had delivered
its judgment, it was not usual for any party to address it.
Dr. Free then retired.
BOROUGH OF CARNARVON.
Lord DENMAN—In this case a rule had been obtained for
an information in the nature of a quo warranto, calling upon
the two defendants to show by what authority they exercised
the office of Aldermen of the borough of Carnarvon. It ap-
peared that only two Aldermen had been elected, although
the Act required that six should be elected ; and it was con-
tended by Sir W. Follett that the election must go for no-
thing, on account of this irregularity, and also on the ground
that the election did not take place on the day required by the
Act. Without giving any opinion upon the matter, the Court
thought there was so much in that argument, that it was fit it
should be put into a course of further enquiry, as the point
was quite a new one.—Judgment deferred.

THE KING V. \VM. FRIPP, ESQ.—BOROUGH OF BRISTOL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why an information, in the-nature of a quo warranto, should not
be directed to the defendant in this case, calling upon him to
show by what authority he filled the offices of Mayor and Al-
derman of the city of Bristol. The ground upon which the
application was made, was that Mr. Fripp IN as not duly qua-
lified to be Alderman or Mayor, because he was not duly qua-
lified as a Town Councillor. By the 28th section of the new
Municipal Act it was provided that no person should be qua-
lified to be elected as Councillor or Alderman for a bo-
rough, who shall not be entitled to be on the list of bur-
gesses of such borough. The 29th section made a distinction
between persons entitled to be on a burgess list, and persons
enrolled on the burgess list. It was for the Court to say
whether if a person be elected an Alderman or Councillor
he is duly entitled to be on the burgess list. Mr. Fripp was
on the burgess list, but he (the Attorney-General) contended
that he ought not to be on it, because he was not qualified to
be a Councillor, within the meaning of the 9th section, which
restricts the qualification to occupiers of houses, &c., and who
are rated as such within the borough. Mr. Fripp lived seven
miles from the borough. He was a shareholder of a joint
stock company, called the Bristol Life Insurance Officio, which
company occupied premises in the city, which ware regularly
rated, but Mr. Fripp's name did not appear upon the rate, nor
did that of any other shareholder. Ilia (the Attorney-Gene-
ral's) objection was, first, that the defendant could not be con-
sidered an occupier ; and, secondly, that he could not be con-
sidered as rated; and, thirdly, lie would contend that, accord-
ing, to the Act, no person could be considered as rated whose
name did not appear on the rate.
On these grounds he submitted that Mr. Fripp was not
qualified to be elected a Town-Councillor, not being entitled
to be on the
-burgess list.

Cow-a
—You—may take a rule.
TIE KING V. DUNCONIBE.
The defendant in this case had been convicted, at the pro.
secution of the Society for the Suppresson of Vice, of the ex-
posing for sale obscene publications.
Mr. MESSMER now prayed the judgment of the Court on
the defendant.

An affidavit was put in by the defendant, praying for al
arrest of judgment, on the ground of surprise, &c., and
The COURT ordered the case to stand over till next term.
DOE DEM. TATHAM U. WRIGHT.

The COURT gave judgment at great length in this case,
which turned upon the validity of a will. Tho case has ex-
cited considerable interest from the large amount of property
involved, and a new trial having been moved for, on the ground
of the rejection, at the former trial, of certain letters which,
it was contended, would have satisfied the Jury of the imbe-
cility of mind of the testator. Lord Denman said the opinion
of himself, and his Learned Brothers Littledale and Cole-
ridge, was, that these letters were not admissible. The other
two Judges had given no opinion, having been engaged in tha
case in its early stages. Following up the principles which
always regulated the proceedings of that Court, where a losing
party had tendered evidence which had been rejected at the
trial, and which the Court had subsequently decided to be in-
admissible, they were of opinion that there ought to bo
new trial.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

THIS DAY.

OLD COURT.
The Session of the above Court for February was opened
this morning before the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Alder.
man Kelly, and Sir C. Marshall, the Recorder, Sheriffs, and
other City Officers.

The G-rand Jury having been sworn in, were addressed by
The RECORDER—Iie said, though only three weeks had elapsed
since the last Session was held, he was sorry that the calendar,
which lay before him, presented so serious a catalogue of
offences. It was the heaviest one, considering the nature of
the crimes, that had beer, presented to a Grand Jury since the
institution of the Central Criminal Court. He then alluded to
the often-expressed opinions as to the necessity for another
Court for the trial of juvenile offenders. He would not—it
would not become him, in his situation, to give any opinion upon
a question of so much importance as it was, and especially
as it was likely to engage the attention of the Legislature in
the ensuing Session. -He would, however, say thus much, that
whatever was decided upon, that Body who had made so many
sacrifices for the establishment of that Court, the Corporation
of London, would still be found most ready to do all in their
power towards carrying a good plan into full operation. In
the calendar, he was most sorry to say, there was one direct
charge of murder, and one of manslaughter, which was di-
vided by so very nice a distinction, as to make it a difficult
matter to di3tinguish it from the higher and more grave charge.
There were also three capital charges of asaon, which would
require their particular attention. The Learned Gentleman
recapitulated these cases, and advised the Jury to send all
cases upon which there was the least doubt, ex), to
a further enquiry. There were other 44fige's of a
a serious nature, but they did not rectigiro particular attention,
though they must necessastly taLe np much of the valuable
time of the G.r4a iuq. After explaining the laws relative tq
perjury and receiving of stolen goods, he dismissed
assuring them of the best attention of the c4,-,urt, when any
case of difficulty was brought before;Jury,
The COURT was ocr;,,;p;ed the: Whole .of the latter pall
in ehiiing over the names' of the jurig T•44o49ned •
ft prni morning
idrff£ different over
counties.

t4e high wind on Saturday last, tare of the
sPh7es of the steeple of the ancient church of St. John, in
NqWC4ole%vv4s partially blown down.