The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-21 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, JAN. 20

THE QUEEN V. THE MOST NOBLE Aid.THER DUKE or
WELLINGTON, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITV' OF

OXFORD.

,
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK had yesterday brought
under the notice of Mr. Justica IVilliams a motion of
rather an unusual nature, and had by him been re-
ferred to the full Court. It was an application for
a writ of prohibition, directed to the authorities of tin
University of Oxford to restrain them from proceeding
further in a suit instituted in that Clurt against the
plaintiff in a eertain case, and Lis attorney. He was sa-
tisfied that when the facts of the case came to be fully
examined by the Court, although the application might
be a novel one, their Lordships would be of opinion
that the Chancellor's Court of Oxford, in order to relieve
themselves of the difficulty of claiming cognizance, had as-
sumed a jurisdiction to which they had no claim whatever.
The affidavits disclosed that Mr. Taylor was employed
by a tradesman named Barnes to commence an action
against an undergraduate of Worcester College, Ox-
ford. Ou the 22d of February last he issued the writ,
and on the 7th he was served with a process or citation
from the Chancellor's Court of the University of Ox•
ford, to appear before the Vice-Chancellor of the Court
on the 28th instant, to answer certain charges of having
infringed the statutes and privileges of the College in
having issued the writ. With great deference to the
authorities of the College, although the noble and learned
personage at its head knew nothing of the matter, or
much less than their Lordships at present did, he sub-
mitted that they had no jurisdiction whatever to take so
extraordinary and unheard of a course. He (Sir F.
Pollock) had had the honour of being for many years
Commissary of the Chancellor's Court of Cambridge
and although the Court claimed jurisdiction in certain
cases where one or both of the parties were members of
the University they had never arrogated to themselves
so extraordinary a power as the facts disclosed
in the present case exhibited to their Lordships.
Mr. Taylor did not appear, and he was ordered to stay
all proceedings in the cause, and to pay the costs. A
similar citation was served upon the plaintiff, who had
actually been arrested under a warrant, and compelled
to pay the money. There was at the present moment
a warrant against Mr. Taylor to arrest him for the costs
in the Chancellor's Court. He trusted the Court would
not put Mr. Taylor to the cost and inconvenience of ap-
plying for a writ of habeas corpus, or of bringing an action
for money had and received. He considered that al-
most as a right he was entitled to apply for prohibition,
the Court certainly having no legal jurisdiction to take
such a step. How could the Chancellor of the Uni-
versity of Oxford have any power to punish an attorney
for merely discharging his duty in suing Gut the regular
process of a superior Court, the Court of Queen's
Bench. He trusted, under these circumstances, the
Court would grant him the rule.

COURT—Take a rule.
THE QUEEN V. THE BRISTOL DOCK COMPANY.

This was a mandamus directed to the defendants,
and commanding thee) to make certain repairs in a
navigable cut or canal, pursuant to the provisions of
the Act 43 Geo. 111., c. 140.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now submitted to the
Court that the return made to the writ by the defend-
ants was bad. Tile defendants were authorised under
the provisions of the Act to make a new cut for the
river Avon, and they were to keep the cut, with the
hanks thereof in proper repair. The mandatory part
of the writ was to mend the banks of the new course,
but to that they gave no direct answer—they merely-
referred to the depth and bottom of the new course and
the inclination of the sides, which, they maintained,
were in proper repair, and as nearly of the required
width and slope as circumstances permitted. The gra-
vamen of the complaint was that the banks were out
of repair, and no answer being given thereto, he sub-
mitted that the return was bad and insufficient, and
that the peremptory mandamus must go.
Sir F. POLLOCK, for the defendants, submitted that
the Court was not in the habit of granting mandamuses
whenever the party had any other specific remedy. I❑
a case like the present, where there were merely re-
pairs to be done, the proper course was to appeal to a
Jury. here the defendant had made a navigable
canal or cut in lieu of the old one, and if any parties had
suffered by that, tkey could indite the defendants. Ile
submitted that they had done every thing required by
the Act—that the return was a full and satisfactory
answer to the mandamus, and therefore the rule ought
to be discharged.
The Comer said it did not appear from the argu-
ments ►that the return went a great way to answer the
complaint, but it was a point requiring further consi.
deration —Judgment deferred.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAx. 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HUMPHREYS /3. O'CONNELL.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange, to the
declaration in which the defendant had pleaded that the
bill in question had been given in consideration of two
other bills of exchange which formed part of three
bills given to cover certain monies lost at a certain game
of chance called French Hazard ; they were give❑
for an illegal consideration, and therefore the
action could not be maintained. The plaintiff's replica-
tion was de injuria, to which the defendant specially de-
murred.

Mr. Wards appeared in support of the demurrer,
and cited a number of cases in order to show that the
plaintiff had no right to recover upon bills given for
such a consideration.

Mr. HENDERSON was about to argue on the other
side When he was stopped by,
The COURT, who said the rule of law did not apply
in the present case. The defendant went too far, he
denied his liability to any one.
Judgment for the plaintiff.