The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COU:aT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 19.

THE QUER N V. THE PROPRIETOR:, OF THE;.:RAIL;I4II,4y
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this se, *likeli was an
applicatinra for a criminal information agariiit the defendants
for an alleged libel upon the Eastern Counties Railway Com-
pany. Vhe libel charged the Directors of the Company with
the wilful publication of false reports of the state of the affairs
of the Company with a view to deceive the public or the Share-
holders, or both. Now, bearing in mind that the Court re-
quired a direct denial of the statements, whatever they might
be, in th e alleged libel, and considering the manner in which
that denial had been given, without intending in the slightest
degree to. question the veracity of the party by whom the denial
had been made, it appeared to them that tl.ere uas some
ground in. these reports and proceedings for the allusions made
to them, and for raising a doubt as to the accuracy of these re-
ports, alt'nough not to the extent of making injurious remarks
to the prejudice of the Company. Upon the whole, however,
bearing ix. mind the opportunity given to the Directors to deny
these allt!gations fully and entir,ly, and that another remedy
was open. to them if they chose to avail themselves of it, the
Court was of opinion that the application woald be most pro-
perly dis p osed of by discharging the rule on the payment of
costs.—F:ule discharged.
THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORE AND DR.
PHILLIMORE.

Loed Desstasr gave judgment in this case, which had been
argued ai.. considerable length during the present term. The
proceedir gs in this case might be very shortly stated. His
Grace th% i Archbishop. as Ordinary, cited the Dean and Chap-
ter of York to attend a Visitation, and appointed the learned
civilian, Dr. Phillimore, as his Commissary for the correction
and puniiohment, by ecclesiastical law, of whoever was contu-
macious, and for the administration of articles, and receiving
their pros entments and answers, and f,r doing everything else
pertaininv to the quality of the Visitation. The ancient for-
mula were observed, and there seemed no reason to doubt that
there was sufficient authority to inquire ire() the ecclesiastical
offences of everybody concerned. At the first meeting the
Dean att ended, and an inquiry was made respecting the sale of
some Chourch preferment, of which he was said to have re-
ceived thee proceeds. He conductedhimself on that occasion in
such a r. tanner as was deemed contumacious, and sentence of
contempt was, by the Commissary, pronounced against him.
He then departed, and the proceedings went on, and, in his
absence, the Rev. Mr. Dixon, one of the Canons, made a
direct &large of simony against the Dean. He was accord-
ingly no uested to attend, and did so, but the Commis-
sary required hire, in the first place, to purge him.
self of the contempt, but he declined to do so.
He agai n absented himself, saying, not by way of courting in-
vestiganion but of defiance, that Mr. Dixon might go on with
his charge. The Learned Commissary was of opinion that the
charge was established, and that the Dean for that offence
should .be deprived of his office. Sentence of deprivation was
afterwr.rds solemnly pronounced by his Grace the4rchbishop.
Prohibit ion was claimed on several grounds, and a late Act of '
Parham:sent, the 2d and 3d Victoria, ch. 86, " for the better
enforcing Church Discipline," was relied upon. The enactment
was qusi: ified by a proviso that nothing in the Act should be
constru ed to affect any authority over the clergy in their• re-
spective: provinces which the Archbishop or Bishop might then
exercise without process of Court. The 23d section was also
quoted,, which provided that no proceedings in criminal offences
should be instituted, except in the manner provided by that Act.
It was st intended that although sec. Ist of the general enactment.
extend ed to all offences, and although " causes," a word well
unders food, were the only proceedings mentioned in the pre-
amble, the 23d sec. provided that the statute shall be observed
in all ,niminal proceedings instituted in matters ecclesiastical.
But th e question was, was this a criminal proceeding or arising
out of tile visitation ? The answer appeared to be, that as soon
as the visitor proceeded to examine into the ecclesiastical
offence s which were alleged against the Dean, and more espe-
cially a ;hen that charge was regularly made at the instance of
an acct alter, a criminal proceeding was undeubtedly instituted.
It was 'Anther alleged that the proceedings in such cases mnst lie
in some Ecclesiastical Court, and that this was not an Ecclesiasti-
cal Cove t for such a purpose. Now that brought them to the ques-
tion of w hether the Archbishop, as visitor, was legally entitled to
deprivo the Dean of his office for an ecclesiastical offence, without
the int NI ference of a Court of Law. In order to come to that con-
clusion. it must be established to their satisfaction that such was
the made of proceeding in former times, but no example of
such a power having been exercised by the Archbishop and
clergy, even is regular and solemn visitation, had been laid
before them. It was admitted that they were exempted to a
certain extent at these visitations from the forms of common
law, but some forms, as far as regarded the knowing and an-
swerin g the charge, were absolutely necessary. The different
modes of dealing with the charges had been enumerated ; in the
ordina_ry case articles were exhibited, and the party had time and
place greren him, and then sentence waspronounced, but, accord-
ing to :s1 their ex pet ienee and knowledge of the proceedings in
these courts,not without process. It was well known that the as-
sumed want of the power now claimed was one reason for intro-
ducing the present law, and the Court was aware that the juris-
diction of visitors had been very distinctly defined.by Lord
Holt, iklr. S. Kinner, and other common law authorities.
The Learned Judge here referred to the various authorities
that bad been cited and the arguments that had been founded
upon the! decisions in these eases. From all these cases, and a
review a f all the arguments urged before them, the Court was
constrained to conclude that the most Rev. Prelate, in so far
as he ha d proceeded at a visitation to deprive the Dean, had
acted be yond his jurisdiction. They declined to enter upon
the consideration of the numerous points of objection that had
been urged en behalf of the Learned Commissary ; but there
was orme which the Court thought it was fitting should
be disposed of on the present occasion. It was argued
that tae sentence, was final, and that there was no power
in that Court to interfere. That argument required to be
narrowly watched, because if carried out to the fullest extent
it might be used to give effect to unlawful proceedings. In
looking at the words of the sentence, they found that the Dean
was ad monished not to act, on pain of the greater sentence of
excommunication ; but it should be remembered that the Dean
could not appeal before the sentence had been pronounced,
because the deprivation was the only thing done beyond the
jurisdiction of the Archbishop. Up to that point certainly his
Grace had the power to interfere, with a view to ulterior pro-
ceedings, and it appeared that the Lord Chancellor had in one
case dissolved the prohibition, because the appeal was
made before sentence had been pronounced. The Court,
if it felt any doubt whatever, would feel itself bound to invite
further discussion, by calling upon the Dean of York to de-
clare in prohibition ; but after the full, the long, and the ma-
turely prepared discussion that had taken place, enforced by
the arguments of the most eminent Counsel, and with the
highest legal ability, they owed it to all parties—they owed it
to the public, and in a particular manner they owed it to the
Church, to encourage no doubt where they felt none, on a sub-
ject of such immense importance and so deeply affecting its
rights, its interests, and its duties. The rule for the prohibi-
tion must, therefore, be made absolute.

BAIL COURT, June 19.
DOE U. WESTON.

This was an action of ejectment to recover possession
of two houses in Vine-street, one of them being the Ship
public-house.
The lessor of the plaintiff in this case sought to re-
cover possession of the premises in question under a
proviso of re-entry, contained in defendant's lease, on
the ground of forfeiture ; and the forfeiture was alleged
to have been incurred by breach of two covenants in the
lease, one a covenant to repair, and the other a covenant
to use due diligence in procuring annually a license for
the Ship public-house, and not to do or be a party to tl4.
doing of anything which could endanger the procuring
of that license. It appeared from the evidence that the
defendant had broken down the party wall between the
two houses and caused a door to be placed there, thus
opening an internal communication between the two
houses ; but that when objection was made by the land-
lord to that proceeding the door had been taken away
and the wall rebuilt. -Further, it appeared that the de-
fendant had on two several occasions had persons drink-
ing in his house at illegal hours ; once at half-past ten
on Sunday morning, and once at half-past twelve at
night ; that on one of these occasions he was fined 10s..
and on the other 405., and that at the licensing day the
Magistrates refused his licence.

The .JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury that he did
not consider the breaking down the wall and putting a
door a substantial breach of the covenant to repair.
though it might have been of a covenant not to commit
waste. He was inclined to think that the keeping open
at illegal hours was a substantial breach of the other
covenant, but he left the question to them.—Verdict for
the plaintiff.

•
NEWMAN V. SAVORY.
This was an action of trespass and false imprisonment,
to which there was a plea of not guilty.
It appeared that the plaintiff was a toll-collector at
Newgate Market, and the defendant a butcher. On the
23d of last January the defendant went with his cart to
'Newgate Market and left it standing in a line with the
other carts, whilst he went into the market to make pur-
chases. He left two pigs in the cart, and upon his return
the pigs and the cart were gone. Whereupon the de-
fent'ant, though remonstrated with, gave the plaintiff into
the custody of a policeman, rho took him to the station-
house, and thence before a Magistrate, when he was dis-
missed. For that injury the plaintiff brought this ac-
tion, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—da-
mages 50s.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 19.
IsIORLEY V. GUNDRY.

Mr. Thesiger, Mr. 11. Evans, and another gentleman
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. J. Jervis and Mr.
Bylescondueted the case for the defendant.

✓
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
a sum of money from the defendant fur use and occupa-
tion, meat and other articles, as necessaries furnished and
supplied to his wife.
The defendant, it will be remembered, has, within the
last few months, rendered himself somewhat celebrated,
by the rna,nner in which he has assaulted some of the
police upon the occasion of their going to execute a
warrant upon him in his chambers in the Albany, Picca-
dilly, and by his conduct and demeanour at the police-
office subsequently. It will be in the recollection of our
readers also that at the last Westminster Sessions this
gentleman was convicted of the assault, and ordered to
enter into his own recognizances in the sum of 1,0001.,
and to find two sureties in 5001. each. Not being pre-
pared with the sureties, Mr. Gundry was driven off to
the Westminster Brideweil in his own carriage.
In the present case it appeared that the defendant had
been in the habit of ill treating his wife, whom he had
turned out of doors, after she had for some years, pre-
viously to the alteration in his conduct towards her,
enjoyed all the comforts which could be commanded
by a gentleman of considerable property, the posi-
tion in which the defendant stood in a pecuniary
point of view. Mrs. Gundry, in February last, had
written two letters to her husband, stating that
unless she received an answer to the contrary within two
days she should return home. Not receiving any com-
munication from the defendant on the 13th of February,
Mrs. Gundry accordingly went to the house, but not
being admitted, she had been compelled to board and
lodge at the plaintiff's, and the present demand was the
result of that fact. Evidence was produced to show that
for the accommodation Mrs. Gundry received at the
plaintiff's, boarding in the house, herself and servant, and
occupying two bed-rooms and one sitting-room, the
weekly charge of 4L 14s. 6d. was Int too much.
Mr. JERVIS, on the part of the defendant, took several
objections to various items in the bill of particulars.
Amongst others were charges for moneys paid by the
plaintiff to tradespeople on account of Mrs. Gundry.
These items were therefore erased from it.
Lord ABINGER said he hoped that each of those par-
ties would bring actions for the recovery of the sums
against the defendant.
JEavis trusted that if such a course were pursued,
the defendant would give proper instructions, and having
given them, that he would not then lock himself up from
his legal advisers, as he had done in the present instance.