The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1838.

part of an individual connected with a Joint-stock Company.
The amount of scrip certificates which have been re-issued
without the authority of the Directors of the Company re-
ferred to has been variously estimated, but nothing upon
which the smallest reliance can be placed is yet known on
the subject. We may now mention, as the same has been
done by one or two other papers, that the person charged
with the abstraction of the certificates in question is a Mr.
Terry, who was acting as managing director or treasurer
of Ryan's Anti-Dry-Rot Company, the party defrauded.
It was reported this evening that he had been in communi-
cation with the solicitor to the Company, and that security
had been offered to the amount of his deficiencies. The
statement is not credited. We do not hear of any business
having been done in the shares since the discovery of Mr.
Terry's proceedings.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 27.
KINDER V. LORD ASHBURTON.

This case came before the Court on a general demurrer
for want of equity.

His Lordship the MASTER of the ROLLS, after going
at great length through all the facts of the case, said that
he was not surprised that the defendants should take the
earliest opportunity of having this case disposed of. He
thought it necessary that the inspectors of bankrupts
should be brought before the Court, and, therefore, he
should allow the demurrer for want of parties. The plain-
tiffs, however, to have leave to amend. He would give
no costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 27.
SHIPMAN V. BRIGGS.

This was an action for a malicious arrest.

Mr. Sergeant Bompas and Mr. Knowles appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Humphery
for the defendant.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had been
an innkeeper at Birmingham, and, having taken a large
inn in London, became rather embarrassed in his circum-
stances. That the defendant had been employed by him
in the course of his business, and that there was an ac-
count between them. Under these circumstances the de-
fendant arrested the plaintiff for the sum of 401., and sub-
sequently prosecuted his action against him in the Cour.
of Exchequer, but did not recover in that action. The
question in the present cause was whether the plaintiff had
had a reasonable and probable cause for arresting the de-
fendant. A lengthened correspondence between these par-
ties respecting their private transactions was given in e%i-
dence, and witnesses were called to speak to the state of
the accounts between them. The defendant proved a
balance in his favour ; but on the part of the plaintiff it was
contended that at the time of the arrest the defendant had
no means of striking a balance and ascertaining whether
any, or what, sum was due to him. The case turned
almost entirely on the settlement of the account between
the plaintiff and defendant, without presenting any points
of general interest.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 151.

ARCHES COURT, Nov. 27.
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE REV.

ARCHDEACON LAW V. THE REV - GAFIER.

This is a criminal proceeding by articles instituted by
the Very Rev. the Archdeacon Law against the Rev. Mr.
Gafier, for brawling in the chapel of St. Mark—a chapel
of ease to the church of St. Peter and St. Paul, with Bien-
corn and Whitcomb annexed, in the city of Bath, and in
the diocese of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The facts of
the case are these :—The chapel in question was erected
in 1832, under the direction of the Commissioners of the
Church Building Act, and consecrated soon afterwards,
and the Rev. Mr. Gafier was appointed officiating clergy-
man thereunto by the Rev. Charles Cooke, the incum-
bent of the mother church, in Alarch, 1836, the pew-rents
being assigned as the stipend. Mr. Gafier obtained the
ordinary license from the Bishop of the diocese, and per-
formed the duties of Minister of the Chapel. In the course
of last year the incumbent died, and the Very Reverend
the Archdeacon Law succeeded to the parish Church.
That Reverend Gentleman in May appointed Mr. Valpy
to the Chapel, who also procured the proper license from
the Bishop of Bath and Wells. On the Ist of June Mr.
Valpy, having been appointed by the existing incumbent,
and having received the usual license, claimed the pulpit
of the Chapel, which was refused by the Reverend Mr.
Gafier, who performed the service on that day. It was
subsequently agreed between the parties that this suit
should be instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court to try the
rights of the succeeding incumbent to revoke the appoint-
ment of his predecessor, and to place another Clergyman in
the pulpit of the Chapel. Articles pleading these facts,
and praying for ecclesiastical censure against the party cited,
were offered for admission.

Dr. PHILLIMORE (with whom was Dr. ADDAMS) ap-
peared on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Gafier, and opposed the
admissibility of the articles. The Learned Advocate referred
to the various Acts of Parliament bearing on the point, to
the 57th of Geo. 111. c. 99, to the Church Building Act of
1818, and to others, and contended that, endowed as this
Chapel was, Mr. Gafier could not be considered an ordi-
nary curate, and the law applying to such cases had no
reference to this. He was appointed minister of this cha-
pel, and not the curate of the incumbent of the Mother
Church. If his appointment to this chapel bore any re-
semblance to a curacy, it was to a perpetual curacy. The
Commissioners of the Church Building Act never intended
in framing the law that the clergymen of these chapels
should be changed at the death of the incumbent. The
law was not made to increase their patronage. The
Learned Advocate also opposed the admission of the ar-
ticles, on the ground that the question intended to be
brought before the Court was not raised in them.
Her Majesty's Advocate and Dr. Haggard were on
the other side, and contended that by the death of the in-
cumbent the license of Mr. Gafier was rendered invalid.
The successor has the right to consent to the nomination of
the person previously appointed, or to place another clerk
in his stead. The Learned Advocate referred to the sen-
tence of consecration, by which the chapel was appointed
as a chapel of ease to the mother church, and by
which its allegiance to her was shown. The minister
of this chapel was the curate of the incumbent, and
according to the universally admitted law with regard
to curates, a new incumbent might take a new curate.
It had been suggested that the office of minister of this
chapel somewhat resembled a perpetual curacy, but the
mode of induction was entirely different—the minister of
this chapel only required to go through the same ceremony
as ordinary curates, whereas perpetual curates had to de-
clare their assent and consent to the books of Common
Prayer, to take the oath of allegiance at the Quarter Ses-
sions or in Westminster Hall, with many other things of a
similar nature, which were requisite, and which if they did
not perform they were not perpetual curates. The articles
raised the question, and were entitled to admission. The
Learned Judge was prepared to give his opinion, but as
that was the case, he would allow the cause to stand over,
that the articles might be offered for admission in a different
shape. His present opinion undoubtedly was, and he be-
lieved that the Court must subsequently come to that con-
clusion, that the occupant of the chapel was unable to hold
that office contrary to the wishes of the new incumbent.
The case should stand over, in order that the articles may
be altered, and the question fairly raised.