The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-03 00:00:00

SHENK V. TABOIS.

This was an action for work and labour done, in
which the defendant, amonst other pleas, pleaded the
Statute of Limitation, and the Secondary, before whom
the action was tried, decided that the documents put in,
in answer to that plea, were not sufficient to take the
case out of the statute.

The Court was of opinion that the Secondary had
judged wrongly, and that the documents and letters
ought to have gone to the Jury.—Rule granted.

FRENCH V. FRENCH.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
421/. The plaintiff (a relative) lent that sum to the
father of the defendant, the borrower appending to the
stamped receipt, a memorandum to the effect that if he
died before repayment of the loan, he desired his
hairs to pay it out of his effects. He soon
afterwards died, and the defendant, in order to prevent
the plaintiff's proceeding ,against some property which
it was desired by all parties to leave in the hands of
the widow and daughter of the deceased, agreed to take
his father's debt upon himself, by nominally borrowing
the amount from the plaintiff, and repaying it in dis-
charge of the original debt. No money passed on the
occasion, nor was there a stamped agreement. The
verdict accordingly, under direction of the Lord Chief
Justice, was for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Bouras now applied for a rule for a
new trial, but the Court saw no reason to disturb the
verdict, and refused the rule.
On the motion of Mr. Sergeant TALFoURD, the name
of Mr. Freshfield, solicitor to the Bank, was struck off
the rolls, that gentleman retiring from the profession,
which he entered in the year 1796.

REYNOLDS V. DOYLE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, formerly
the agent of Don Pedro, for raising troops, &c., in this
country, against Sir J. M. Doyle, to recover 601. which
he had paid upon a bill of exchange accepted by him
for the defendant's accommodation, and upon his gua•
rantce to hold the acceptor harmless. The verdict was
for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant BoltrAs moved to set aside the ver-
dict, on the ground that there was no such guarantee
as to take the plaintiff's claim out of the statute of limi-
tation, the bill having become due in 1832.
The COURT decided that as the bill was not paid in
till 1837, the plaintiff's claim was not affected by the
Act, and the verdict must stand.

ARCHES' COURT.
(Before Sir H. JENNER.)
Yesterday being the first day of term, the Ecclesi-
astical Courts were opened with the usual formalities.

William Frederick White, Esq., D. C. L., of Trinity
College, Oxford, was admitted an advocate, and
Thomas Broadhurst Buckle, Esq., one of the Procura-
tors-General, exercent in this Court, by virtue of re-
scripts from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
THE VICAR OF GEDNEY.-REFUSAL TO BURY A CHILD

OF WESLEYAN PARENTAGE.

THE OFFICE or THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY MASTIN V.

Escott, for
THOMAS SWEETS SCOTT, CLERIC.
which
compmreasnedrsibeevderiny
This suit, which has been brought by letter of
request, from the Commissary of Leicester, is in-
stituted by Mr. Thomas Cliff, of the parish of
kninownthaats county, against the Rev. T. S.
e.scott, for disobedience to, and contempt of the ca-
nons and discipline of the Church of England, in having
refused to bury the corpse of Elizabeth Ann Cliff. The
father and mother of this child belonged to the sect of
wall 17th Wesleyan Methodists, and the re-
fusal of the Vicar to bury it was founded on the ground
of its not having been baptised according to the forms
and ceremonies of the Church of England. Articles,
stating the facts of the case, have been given in on be-
half of the party proceeding ; and an allegation, re-
sponsive to them, was now offered on the other side.
The articles state that the Rev. Mr. Escott, theViear of
Gedney, in the diocese of Lincoln, after due notice, on
•!abeth Ann, the daughter of Thomas and Sarah Cliff,
minister
er
thereof
buryiin
ae
act manner
acnonreprs e
and brought
form,
he
KofinDg,secli.cleansct,e,reinfusle6(ol3to, bury the corpse of Eli-
a) disobedience of the 68th of the constitutions and
canons ecclesiastical, agreed to by
tatosheitshCe Convocation,
with
shall be suspended by the Bishop
churchyard, convenient notice having been given to
him t
space of three months. The
preacher
e rbe been
the Book of Common Prayer; and, in case of refusal
(except the party deceased be excommunicated), he
responsive
ph
oi sh diocesesive
allegation for t h e
this day offered stated that the
tchheildp
teacher of the Wesleyan Methodists,
baptised by a
ordained man, and, consequently.
Mr. Elisha Baileys
who was not an
such baptism was
null and void. That baptisms by laymen had been re-
pudiated by the Church from the time of the Confer-
ences at Hampton-court, in 1600, to the present time ;
and in the eleventh article it was pleadedas, that even ac-
cording to the doctrines of the sect, laid down by
Wesley, their founder, preachers or teachers were not
authorised to administer the holy sacraments.
Her Majesty's Advocate, Dr. Haggard, and Dr. Ni-
choll, opposed ; and Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Harding
supported the admissibility of the allegation.
Sir H. Jenner admitted the allegation, with the ex-
ception of the 11th article, in which the principles of
Methodism were laid down, and which
a point, whieh would be fairly
t would neces-
sarily introduce into the cause matter entirely extra-
neous. The great question in which the case would
turn was as to the validity of lay baptisms, and this was
not the time to discuss th
argued on the hearing of the cause. To give any opinion
on so important a topic without hearing argument would
be presumption on the part of the Court. It would,
therefore, now merely admit the articles of the allega-
tient which set ferth the canons and laws of time Chqrch
as to the validity of laylaaptisms, and wo&d reject the
last, ie h3h
13 i 1
W ' the doctrines of .!ohn Wesley were laid
down.
The allegation, with the rejection of this article, will
accordingly admitted, i

BAIL COURT, Nor. 2.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
This being the first day of Term, his Lordship did not
.ake his scat upon the bench until half-past one o'clock.

THE QUEEN V. CHARLES SMYIHERs.

Mr. STAMMERS moved for a certiorari to remove the
depositions, and likewise to show cause why the defend
ant should not be ;Admitted to bail in the country. A
similar application had been made to Mr. Baron Rolfe,
during the recess, but his Lordship had been of opinion
that no order ought to be granted. He had now, how-
ever, in support of his motion, to submit further affida-
vits, in addition to those which had been laid before
Mr. Baron Rolfe.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that as this was in the
nature of an appeal from the decision of Mr. Baron
Rolfe, he thought the application had better be made
in the other Court, as it would be then in a Court in
which one Judge alone presided.