The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-24 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT, July 23..

The Master of the Rolls was occupied in hearing Sir Charles
Wetherell, for the defendant, in the tart-heard case of " The
Corporation of Arundel v. Holmes," during the whole of the
morning. When his Lordship gives judgment we will report it.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, July 23.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor was occupied the
wgole day with hearing short causes and unopposed
petitions, none of which possessed any points worthy of
a particular report.

PALACE COURT, July 23.
SMITH V. RANGEIL.

This was an action brought to recover a sum of 241. Ils. Id.,
for a quantity of tares sold to the defendant in lEt3B. The de-
fendant pleaded payment, and also a set off. With respect to
the sale of the tares there was no doubt upon the evidence ten-
dered ; but for the defendant a document was put in certifying
the payment of 121. on account, and a witness proved that a
cart, value 61., and potatoes to the same amount, had been also
sold by defenant to plaintiff, which it was contended settled
the account. Aftera lengthened investigation, in which, from
the remoteness of the period at which the transactions took
place, the evidence was of a rather unsatisfactory nature, the
Jury found a verdict for the defendant.

SECONDARIES' COURT, July 23.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
GREVILL -V. BROWNING.

This was an action to recover the sum of 16/. 13s. 7d.,
for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded
that he was not indebted.

It appeared in the evidence that during the time the
goods were being supplied, the plaintiff removed from his
shop, and commenced business as a meat-salesman, leav-
ing the management of his former business to his step-
son, a young man about nineteen years of age, who had
frequently solicited custom in his own name, saying that
his father had resigned all connexion with the business,
and some of the bills furnished to the defendant in the
present action were made out in the name of the son.
Mr. PAYNE, for the defence, argued that the debt was
contracted with the son who was a minor, and might have
sued by his next friend ; but if he did so he would be
liable for the costs, and it was more convenient, there-
fore, to bring the action in the present form. He begged
the Jury to consider that as some of the bills were made
out in the son's name, his client might be again sued and
compelled to pay.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff in the full amount claimed.

CONSISTORY COURT, July 20.
MALY, FALSELY CALLED READ, V. READ.
This was a suit for a nullity_ of marriage, by reason of art
undue publication of banns. The question was, whether it had
been done with the connivance of both parties.
Dr. LUSHINGTON delivered judgment to-day. In doing so
the Learned Judge remarked that he considered the evidence
to be very unsatisfactory, but as there were no children, nor any
other parties likely to be affected by his decision, except the
parents, he shouldAlecree in favour of a nullity.

DILLON V. DILLON.
This was a suit instituted by the Rev. Dr. Dillon against his
wife for divorce on the ground of adultery, alleged to have
taken place on the 29th of December last, at an inn near
Rochester, but a knowledge of which did not reach Dr. Dillon
till the 10th of May following, and the citation was issued on
the I I th. A libel was then given in on behalf of the husband;
and the wife now tendered a responsive allegation.
Dr. ADDAMS, for the husband, contended against its ad-
missibility. He trusted that if the Court did not reject it in
tuto, it would, at least, direct extensive reformations to be
made in it. The great object of the responsive allegation was
to prove an alibi.
Dr. Nicnot, on behalf of the wife, submatted that the aver-
ments contained in it were all entitled to proof.
As the case is not yet fully before the Court, and the details
are of rather a peculiar nature, we at present refrain from giv-
ing at length tie arguments of the Counsel on either side ;
but we subjoin a brief summary of the main points contained
in the decision of the Court.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON, in pronouncing his decision stated the
nature bf the case, and said that the Learned Counsel for
the wife had very properly called his attention to the gene-
ral circumstances of the case ; not, indeed that it happened
to be necessary, since he had thought it his duty to give the
papers relating to it very serious and particular considera-
tion. The facts on the face of the libel were very peculiar,
and must excite the vigilance of the Court. According to
the statements in the libel and in the exhibit annexed the
marriage took place on the 26th of November, 1839, and the
party proceeding in the cause was, according to the entry, a
Magistree. a Doctor of Divinity, and a clergyman of the
Church of England. When he came to look at the libel, he
found that it pleaded the marriage, and that the adultery was
alleged to have taken place about one year subsequent to it.
The 7th and Bth articles of the libel were marked,with a con-
siderable degree of singularity. The 7th pleaded that the
adultery was unknown to Dr. Dillon until the 10th of May,
1841, and then pleaded that he separated from his wife. The
Bth pleaded that shortly before the 10th of May Dr. Dillon
received information of it, but that he did not credit it, but
still he acted as though he believed it. Having gone over
the heads of the libel, he would come now to that respon-
sible allegation. It had been said by the Learned Coun-
sel for the husband that certain witnesses had been already
examined on the libel, in order to prove the charges
alleged, and that this allegation was introduced for the purpose
of delay, and to put the husband to expense. The Court could
not listen, however, to any argument of that kind, as it would
only tend to the subversion of ;justice. It was utterly impos-
sible to form a conjecture as to whether the facts could be
proved. It might happen that the witnesses would doubt the
identity, or even that it would turn out that they negatived
it. He apprehended that the wife 14c1 a right to meet the
charges in as specific a form as that in which they had been
made. There was nothing in this case that rendered it im-
possible that evidence might not be produced in favour of
the counter plea, and that it might not be proved that the
person seen at the inn was not the same party now charged
with adultery. He (the Learned Judge) was of opinion,
therefore, that the articles 1,2, 3, and 4, were all entitled to
admission. No doubt then could be entertained as to the ad-
mission of the sth article also, which was a counter plea of the.
article of identity contained in the libel. It was said that the
6th article went in proof of condonation. Condonation, how-
ever, presumed guilt, but he apprehended that it was a rule
that might be applied to double pleas; therefore he considered
it admissible. He was of opinion that part of the Bth article,
which pleaded cruelty as a bar to the suit for divorce must be
omitted, as the Learned Counsel on behalf of the wife himself
disclaimed the idea that it could be received on such grounds.
The first part of that article, however, he thought was admis-
sible, as it might tend to the elucidation of certain parts that
would appear obscure when the defence came to be considered.
The charge, in his opinion, must be viewed with great suspicion,
and he wished his mind satisfied that the husband himself be-
lieved it, and that he had brought a true case before the
Court. He entertained no doubt as to the admissibility of
the 9th article, which applied to the conversation of Dr. Dillon
with Mrs. Dicks. He must say that it was somewhat extra-
ordinary that in conducting this suit Dr. Dillon had taken it
into his own hands. The Rev. Doctor was the person who,
according to the plea after the commencement of the suit, had
an interview with one person, who might be a witness in the
cause. With respect to the 10th and 11th articles, he was of
opinion that they were admissable. If true, nothing could be
more inconsistent, or render it more doubtful to him whether
Dr. Dillon would be entitled to the aid of the Court, if it
should be found that during the very pending of the suit he
was holding long interviews with his wife. The allegation was
then admitted, as reformed.
MANSELL V. MANSELL.
This was a suit brought by the husband against the wife fur
a divorce, on account of adultery.
Dr. Annams said he could offer no defence.
The Court pronounced in favour of the divorce.

COURT OF REVIEW, July 22.
EX PARTE NUTTING, IN RE HAMLET, A swrxattrr.
Mr. SwarmTarr applied on behalf of two petitioners, repre-
sentatives of a military officer named Crossley, deceased, claim-
ing an order as encumbrancers on certain shares in the. Gen-
eral Steatia Navigation Company, the British Gas-light Com-
pany, and the Colombian Mining Company. In September,
1836, Mr. Hamlet applied to that gentleman for a loan of
2,3001. at 5 per cent. interest. This was arranged, and a bond
executed; with assignment of these shares as a security. Mr.
Hamlet applied to Mr. Crossley to dispense with formal notice
to the Companies of a transfer of the shares, on the ground of
his exercising the.office of Director thereon, with considerable
profit to himself, and the consequent injury which must ensue
in the event of his removal from the direction. The petitioners
attended under the commission for the purpose of proving a
debt, but were opposed by the assignees, who claimed the shares
in right of the bankrupt's reputed ownership, as laid down in
'the 72d section of the Bankrupt Act. In a case "Ex parte
Duncan," the Vice• Chancellor held that notice to a Director
was notice to the Company as in the case of partnership, and
the same doctrine had been followed in this Court.
Sir J. CROSS said, the present case was different from rill
others, in consequence of the express stipulation that the
bankrupt should continue to be the reputed owner. How can
you get over that fact ?
Mr. SWANSTON contended that if there was a constructive
notice, an express notice was unnecessary, and the agreement
for its omission of no importance. An absurd arrangement like
the one alleged could not affect the rights of the petitioners.
Mr. Russell, for the assignees, was not heard.
Sir J. CROSS said, if the fact depended solely on Mr. Ham •
let's own affidavit, which was in part contradicted, and on
which he had an interest in defeating the claim, he should have
been careful in placing implicit reliance on it, but it was par-
tially confirmed by the evidence adduced by the pe'itit
He was therefore of opinion that the fact of there being a
private agreement to forbear notice was distinctly proved. lf
it was concerted between the parties to make the transfer
secret, it was emphatically a case within the meaning of the
72d section. He was of opinion that in virtue of the arrange-
ment the original owner retained order and disposition fur cer-
tain purposes, and, by contrivance with the true owner, re-
mained in apparent ownership. This applied to all the shares,
and the petitioners not being entitled to any declaration in their'
favour, must have their petition dismissed with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July P.
WAKEFIELD AND WAKEFIELD'S BANER,UPTCY.—THE LATE
EXTENSIVE DEFALCATIONS ON THE STOCK-F.XCIIANDE.
The examination of these bankrupts was resumed before the
Learned Commissioner this morning early, and
Mr. J. Stone appeared as counsel for the assignees.
There were very few creditors present.
The elder bankrupt was first examined. He said the amount
of expenses exhibited in the balance-sheet was correct. He
had drawn out of the concern 75,154/. and his son 37,2561•
Those amounts were correct. The books showed it.
Sir C. F. WILLIAMS said, he was informed that the books

VISITATION OF THE ARCH-

BISHOP OF YORK.
(From the Doncaster Gazette.)
TUESDAY, JULY 20.—The adjourned visitation of the
Venerable the Archbishop of York was held in the Ca-
thedral, on which occasion Dr. Phillimore, the Arch-
bishop's Commissary, took his seat at about one o'clock.
The following members of the Chapter were present :
The Very Rev. Dr. Cockburn, the Dean ; Archdeacons
Todd, Corbett, and Wilberforce ; Revrs. W. H. Dixon,
W. V. Harcourt, H. S. Markham, Canon Residentiaries;
Rev. T. Barnes, E. V.Harcourt, Esq., C. Thiselton, Esq.,
and four or five others.

The Court being opened by Mr. Buckle, the Registrar,
Dr. PHILLIMORE said he understood that the Dean was
wishful to make some apology for the contempt which he
had offered.
The DEAN said it was not his intention to have called
their attention to this subject until the business of the
Court was over. But, as he was called on, he had no
objection to read the paper which he held in his hand,
and which, for the satisfaction of the Archbishop, he had
prepared. He did not wish to stand upon technicalities,
and would, therefore proceed. The Dean then proceeded
as follows:--I wish again to be admitted to the friendship
of the Archbishop ; and I am sorry if I have said or
done anything which has given dissatisfaction. It is
with pleasure that I state thus much with respect to one
of the most serious subjects which can occupy the atten-
tion of this Court, that a change has taken place in my
sentiments in respect of that subject, when no longer
under the excitement of the Cathedral Act—a measure
which I consider an invasion of the rights of Deans and
Chapters. I admit the impropriety: of allowing any pe-
cuniary considerations whatever to influence the dis-
posal of any ecclesiastical livings for the benefit of the
Church, whatever local questions or technical distinc-
tions may be raised to it. I wish also to state my entire
conviction of the right of the Archbishop to inquire into
the conduct of his clergy in his Visitorial Court, and my
assurance that any resistance which I may have offered
to the proceedings of the Court was not intended to in-
vade that right. For the intemperate expressions I may
have used in connexion with this inquiry, I am truly
sorry ; and I beg leave to apologise to the Archbishop,
and also to you, his representative. The Dean appeared
to be somewhat affected during the delivery of these re-
marks, and spoke the conclusion in afirm tone of voice.

Dr. PHILLIMOILE said he collected from what the Dean
had said, that he was willing to atone, as far as possible,
for the contempt he had offered to the Court, and the
resistance he had interposed to its jurisdiction and autho-
rity. If that attempt had been persisted in it might have
led to the severest censure and punishment. He was
content, under the apology now offered, to remit all the
penalties of the Dean's contumacy, and continued—Mr.
Dean, I absolve you from your contempt ; and I hereby
monist' you not to offend in the premises for the future ;
and you are hereby monished accordingly.
The Learned Commissary then proceeded to comment
on the late decision of the:Court of Queen's Bench, which
had ruled that, by a recent statute, this Court was di-
vested of all authority to pass sentence of deprivation in
cases of simony ; and the sentence of this Court to that
effect was therefore void. The Court, however, had a
right to inquire into such cases, with a view to ulterior
proceedings. The prohibition of the Court of Queen's
Bench was confined to the sentence only, on the ques-
tion of simony, which had come suddenly upon this Court
during the inquiry. All the other acts continued to be
of binding authority and obligation.
After some further remarks, a discussion ensued
between the Learned Commissary and Mr. Bull, who
attended on the part of the Dean, in relation to some
matters which had been before the Court on the former
occasions, and on the question whether a certain sum of
520/. belonged to the fabric of St. Peter or to the Dean.
—The Dean said he had placed the matter in dispute in

the hands of Sir Wm. Follett and Mr. Cresswefl ; and
he understood the latter was in communication with the
Archbishop on the subject. At all events, he was willing
to abide by Mr. Cresswell's decision on the subject.—
To this the Rev. W. V. Harcourt consented.—Arch-
deacon Wilberforce inquired whether it was to be
considered that the sentence of excommunication was
withdrawn- : to which Dr. Phillimore replied that the
sentence was nullified by the decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench.
After some further discussion relating to a few minor
points, the Commissary adjourned the Court until Satur-
day, when he should wish to be put in possession of
Mr. Cresswell's decision, in which case it is expected the
business of the visitation will be brought to a conclusion.