The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-08 00:00:00

THE SUN,- LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 8, 1841.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, May 7,

SYDNEY V. RANGER.
In this case, which was part beard, Mr. hcons was heard
for the plaintiff against the petitior; of the defendant.
The prayer of the petition was to, nave a certain estate, of
which Sir Robert Sydney was t 1.1,:, purchaser, put up to re-sale,
in order that he might be ';;charged from the purchase in case
the estate brought a hi4ner price than he gave for it, and that
if the re-sale produetid less, that he should be retained as the
purchaser. It appeared the eAste was originally sold in the year
1833 for 600/. to a Mr. Blackwell ; it was afterwards con-
sidered that 6004, was a rather low amount for the estate to
bring, and for the benefit of all parties it was agreed to open
the biddings. Sir Robert Sydney undertook, as Solicitor to
conduct the sale, and the estate was purchased for 6701., in the
name of a Mr. King, the real purchaser, however, being Syd-
ney. The application of the petitioner was, as stated above, on
the ground that Sir Robert Sydney, as being solicitor to the
sale, v:as a disqualified person to purchase the property.
%Kr. JACOBS contended that as the petitioner Ranger
Lad admitted that at the time of the sale, he had strong sus-
picoris of Sydney being the real purchaser, and that yet, while
having those suspicions and taken no means to ascertain the
truth, he confirmed the sale in the year 1838, after it had been
kept open four years, during which period it was free to any
higher bidder to come forward, the petitioner had therefore no
right to make the application, which he (Mr. Jacobs) opposed.
Sir Robert Sydney was not a voluntary purchaser, in con-
sequence of his having undertaken to open the biddings in
character of solicitor, he was in fact, a compulsory pur-
chaser, as no one else offered. The Learned Counsel
therefore submitted, that under those circumstances, and as
in the re-sale there was a clear gain to the estate, the Court
ought to refuse the application with costs.
His HONOUR postponed giving his decision.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Mar 6.
THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND DR.
PHILLIMORE.
Sir WILLIA3I FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. Cockburn)
moved for a rule to show cause why a prohibition should not
issue to the defendants to prohibit them from proceeding fur-
ther in a case of deprivation of ecclesiastical rights. He
should state pretty fully the circumstances which had occurred,
and which rendered it necessary that some application of this
sort should be made. Certain differences had existed among
the members of the capetular body of York respecting the pro-
perty of the trustees of the Chapter fund. There was an order
made by the Dean and Chapter to pay a sum of money to the
Dean. One of the Canons Residentiary, Mr. Harcourt Vernon,
a member of the capetular bedy, stated that he should appeal
against that order. He did appeal, and there was a cita-
tion for a visitation to take place on the 18th of January.
There had not been an instance known of an archiepiscopal
visitation in York since the year 1715. A citation for a
visitation was issued on this occasion. At this visitation
Dr. Phillimore appeared as the Commissary or Commis-
sioner from the Archbishop, under the authority of a com-
mission, which stated that the Archbishop had duly and
lawfully appointed a visitation to be held on the 18th of
January, between the hours of eleven and two, " and
whereas we were about to commence the said visitation in
person, but may after find ourselves prevented by
certain other business, " &c., therefore Dr.
Philli-
more was appointed Commissary. That was the autho-
rity under which the Commissary was to act. The visitation
was for the purpose of making inquiries and receiving pre-
sentments only, and it entered into the mind of no one at
that time that it would ever assume the shape or form
which it did afterwards. On the 18th of January, certain
articles were exhibited by the Archbishop, and they had re-
lation to various matters connected with the chapter and the
cathedral. The 19th of these articles or interrogatories was
" Are the chancels of the churches and chapels belonging to
your body in good and sufficient repair ?" That interrogatory
had led to the circumstances which had since taken placo ill
the cathedral. On the 18th of January the articles were ad-
ministered. No answers were at that time given, but as there
were certain disputes respecting the property of the Chapter,
it was thought better that they should be referred to arbitra-
tion. This proposition was assented to by all the parties
interested in the dispute, and an agreement was made to
subject these disputes to the decision of an arbitrator. The
tins agreement was made did not take
place till February. In the meantime cer-
tain answers to the interrogatories were put in by some
of the members of the capetular body, and one gentleman,
teillatthweh
the Reverend Mr. Dixon, among other answers to the
2inlhst of
articles, returned one to the -19th, which (so the Learned
Counsel was understood to say) was to the following effect :
" That the churches of the Dean and Chapter, which are in
many counties, are repaired, the chancels are usually let, and
are left by the provisions of the lease to the lessees and the
presentments sold, but whether the proceeds are applied to
repairs does not appear." Whethi r the answer meant to
charge the Dean with having simoniacally sold the livings did
not appear, but the Dean was thus distinctly charged with the
sale of the presentations. There was a second meeting of this
visitation appointed, and in the meantime a letter was written
to the Dean, and this letter was the only thing in the shape of
a citation, or a summons of any kind, which 1 ad led to pro-
ceedings that had ended in the Dean being deprived of his
Deanery and all his ecclesiastical preferments. The letter
referred to was as follows:—' Dear Sir, it was only by yes-
terday's post that I received Mr. Dixon's answer. The
answer to the nineteenth article involves a charge against
you, which has not before been brought to my notice, and
which is of so serious a nature, that I enclose a copy of it for
your perusal, in order that you may properly reply thereto on
Thursday next." This letter was signed by Dr. Phillimore.
It was not stated in that letter that that was a charge which
would be formally brought against the Dean, but merely that
that was the answer of Mr. Dixon to one of the interroga-
tories of the Archbishop. In fact this was a private letter from
Dr. Phillimore to the Dean—it was neither a citation nor a
snmmons. The 21st February was the date of the letter, and
the meeting was to be held by adjournment on the 24th of that
month. In reply to this letter the Dean said that he was then
300 miles distant, and that he could not attend at the time
specified at that period of the year. The meeting was thee
again adjourned to the 23d of March, when Dr. Phillimore
stated that it was his intention to try the Dean on the charge
of simony, as contained in the answer of Mr. Dixon- Nei'
ther at that time, nor at any other, had there been
any articles exhibited to the Dean. The simple statement

contained in the answer was all that he knew on the subject.
The Dean stated that he protested against the jurisdiction of
the Commissary in respect of the churches, and this occasioned
a considerable altercation between the Dean and Dr. Poilli-
more, who first refused to accept the protest, insisting that the
Dean should plead to the charge, but this the Dean refused to
do. It appeared that Dr. Phitlimore thought right, in conse-
quence of this protest, to pronounce the Dean in contempt,
and the Dean left the Court on the 2.3 d of March ; and
after he had done so, in the absence of the Dean and of all
his friends, the Commissary proceeded to examine on oath,
and viva voce, certain witnesses, and then under these cir-
cumstances, without any charge made, and without any
articles exhibited, and in the absence of the Archbishop,
he made a report to the Archbishop; and the Archbishop
himself, who had never heard one witness, and had had no
opportunity of examining one deposition of any sort or kind,
on the sole representation of Dr. Phillimore, and in the absence
of the Dean, declared that he was convicted of simoniacally
selling the livings, &c. " A certain presentment was made
by the Rev. W. H. Dixon" was the statement in the judicial
declaration, but none whatever had been made until after the
sentence was pronounced; and even that which was then
brought forward was never exhibited to the Dean of York.
'f he declaration went on to allege that the Dean had appeared
before the Commissary, but had been pronounced contumacious
and in contempt, for having will ully interrupted the progress of
the proceedings, and declared that he would not submit to the
authority of the Court. Now, the Archbishop could not know
what occurred before the Commissary, for the proceedings were
not taken down in writing ; yet the document went on to
declare, that in consequence of such conduct he was removed
and degraded from his office of Dean, and from all
his dignities and preferments in the province of York. So
extraordinary a proceeding was wholly unheard of in modern
times, and so far as research into ancient authorities wont, was
without justification. If it could be maintained, it would
establish that an Archbishop of York, or his Commissary, with-
out any charge duly made or exhibited, might proceed in the
absence of the person accused to deprive him of all his pre-
ferments, and pronounce so severe a sentence as that of de-
grading him from all his offices and digni•ies in the Church.
In the course of these proceedings it never was believed that
they were going to take such a step, but something irregular
was apprehended, and on the 31st of March, which vas before
sentence was pronounced, an application was made to the Lord
Chancellor for a prohibition, woich his Lordship refused, on
the ground that all that the affidavits disclosed was, that the Com-
missary had done that which might lead to a sentence of depriva-
tion; but that it was not within his jurisdiction, there bring no
criminal proceeding in t he case, and that he could not believe that
the Commissary would take such a step. The prohibitiou was
refused, and the very thing which the Lord Chancellor had said
he could not believe the Commissary would do, was actually
done. In addition to this, the affidavits on which the present
application was founded set forth that there was a composition
entered into between the Archbishop of York and the Chapter
of that diocese, which expressly prohibited such an exercise of
archiepiscopal power in such a manner. Whatever, thee cfore,
might be the amount of episcopal authority in other sees, it
did not exist to that extent here, and the whole proceeding was
consequently irregular. The Learned Counsel quoted a great
many authorities in support of his argument, and
The COURT ultimately granted the rule.
The ATTORNEY-GEtiliAL, who appeared for the Arch-
bishop, asked for an early day to be fixed for the argument,
that peace might be restored to the diocese.
The COURT said that it would depend on Counsel them-
selves when it was brought on. It might be brought on on
the first day of next Term.

BAIL COURT, MAY 7.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE presided in thi: Court during the
early part of the morning. His Lordship left the Court about
11 o'clock, and Mr. Justice Wightman took his seat on the
Bench. The motions heard were of a purely technical nature.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 6.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster, before Mr. Baron

PARKE and a Special Jury.)
NEILSON AND OTHERS V. HA RFORD AND OTHERS.
This action was brought to recover compensation in damage,
for an alleged infringement of a patent for the improved appii -
cation of air to produce heat in fires, forges, and furnaces,
where bellows and other blowing apparatus were required.
This case has occupied the attention of the Court for three days.
The defence was the usual ons on such occasions—viz., tha'
the invention was not a new one, that the specification was at
variance with the Act upon which the patent was granted, and
that the invention was not of public benefit.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on the principal
issues, which would have the effect of establishing his right to
the patent, but they found for the defendant as to a technical
point arising in the specification. On this point, however,
leave was given to the other party to move the Court above.

AIAy 7.

THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA V. 'LORD HATIIERTON.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared to show cause against
a rule to change the venue in this ca=e from the county of
Middlesex to the county of Stafford. It was an action of trover
for coal, limestone,
&c. The venue was originally laid in
Middlesex ; it was then changed from that county to Stafford,
on the usual affidavit, and brought back again upon the usual
undertaking. The cause .vas therefore now fairly in Middlesex,
and their Lordships would require a very clear case to be made
out before they would change the venue from the county in
which it had lawfully been laid. The defendant had made an
affidavit, in which he stated that he was going to call
sixteen witnesses, most of whom were very old and very
unequal to a journey to London—that it would be neces-
sary for him to call the steward of the manor with the
court rolls, and that he resided in the nieghbourho-N
of Stafford, that he was informed it would be necessary for
the Jury to view the lands, and that there were peculiar cue.
toms in the manors of which a Middleex Jury would be ig-
norant, and that he was informed the extra expenses of a trial
in London would he upwards of 3001. That was the whole, and
he thought no case had been made out. His Lordship seemed
to have forgot that there was a railroad all the way upon which
the witnesses would suffer no inconvenience—they were able it
appeared to reach Stafford, and if so they could as easily come
on to London; that was no answer also to thecase of the steward.
With respect to the view, the only question to be tried was the
right of a customary tenant to take minerals—what possible
necessity then could there be for the Jury to see the land ? But
their Lo..d.h;y3 ,suet remember that there were
many manors in Staffordshire, and the special
Jurors in that county might not be the most
impartial in such a case. It was said a Middlesex jury would
he ignorant upon the subject ; now surely that was most de-
sirable—they would hear the evidence, and hear tie remarks of
the Judge, andcotne to a better conclusion than any persons who
were interested in the question at issue. As to the question
of expense, he need say nothing—their Lordships were well
aware that the expenses in the country would be greater than
in London.

Air. Sergeant TALFOURD safd the noble defendant seemed
to think sixteen witnesses a great Lumber, which was a good
proof that he had never been engaged in such a cause before ;
but he would only say one word as to the expenses. The)
would be obliged to take down a person from the former to
translate records, the taking down of whom would cost more
than all the sixteen witnesses. His Lordship was not aware
that one antiquary would cost more than his sixteen an-
tiquities. . _

*Mr. WHATELY, on the same side, said, his Lordship, when
alluding to the expenses, seemed to have forgot that he had re-
tained the services of his Learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
—( A laugh.) There was every reason in favour of Middlesex.
The SOLICITOK-GENERAL had no doubt his Noble client
would have been content with the services of the gentlemen on
the circuit had not the Noble plaintiff engaged extra eminent
assistance. He contended that a view would be necessary be-
cause much would depend upon the nature and state of old
workings on the land. There would be no necessity for any
contingency, for there would be no difficulty in admitting trans-
lations.

The COURT—Have you any objection to try the cause be-
fore a Worcester Jury?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--None whatever.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—We only want a fair trial, which
we apprehend we could not have in St.fforthhire.
Air. Baron PARK—Then let the venue be changed to Wor-
cester.