The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-17 00:00:00

The judicial committee of the Privy Council had before
them the case of llebbert (hertofore Elphinstone), against
the Rev. J. Purchas. This was an appeal against a
judgment of the Dean of Arches (Sir It. J. PhMimore),
delivered in February, 1870, in a case promoted
by Colonel Elphinstone against the Rev. J. Purchas,
perpetual curate of the Church of St. James, Brighton.
The appeal is from the decree, inasmuch as the judge did
not omit or decline to pronounce that Mr. Purchas had
not offended against the statute law and constitution. It
was submitted that the respondent-should.have been,ad-
monished against offending in future, and thit lae-should
have been condemned in costs in respect.of the matters
complained of, alleged to have been proved against him.
Mr. Stephens, Q.C., who appeared with Mr. Archibald,
and Mr. Shaw for the appellant, the respondent not being
represented, proceeded to argue the case for the appellant.
After some further proceedings their lordships adjourned.

THE ST. ALBAN'S CASE.

The case " Martin v. Mackonochie " was heard be-
fore the Judical Committee of the Privy Council,
composed of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford, and
the Archbishop of York. Mr. J. Stevens, Mr. Archibald,
and Mr. Shaw appeared for the appellants. The def en
dant did not appear, but had filed affidavits. Mr. Stevens
stated the case. In this appeal, which was from the
Arches Court of Canterbury, judgment was originally given
by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The appeal
was from a sentence or decree pronounced by the Right
Hon. Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore, the official Principal
of the Arches Court of Canterbury, on the 28th March,
1868, in a cause of the officer of the judge, promoted by
John Martin, Esq., against the Rev. Alexander Heriot
Mackonochie, the incumbent and perpetual curate of the
new parish of St. Alban's, Holborn, for having offended
against the laws ecclesiastical in the following matters :
By having, during the prayer of consecration, in
the order of the administration of the Holy
Communion, elevated the paten above his head,
and permitted, and sanctioned such elevation ; and taken
into his hands the cup and elevated it above his head
during the prayer of Consecration, and permitted and
sanctioned the cup to be so taken and elevated, and knelt
or'prostrated himself before the consecrated elements,
during the prayer of Consecration ; and permitted and
sanctioned such kneeling or prostrating by other clerks
in Holy Orders. He was further charged with using lighted
candles at the Communion Table during the
celebration of the Holy Communion, when not
wanted for giving light ; with using incense, and
with having mixed water with the sacramental wine.
In the Court of Arches the official principal pronounced
against the respondent with regard to the elevation of the
cup and paten, the use of incense and the mixing water
with the wine, and admonished him to abstain from such
practices in the future. The official principal, however,
declined to pronounce that he had offended in regard to
the kneeling or prostration, or the use of lighted candles.
The appeal, therefore, had reference only to the kneeling
or prostrating before the concecrated elements. After
hearing Counsel on both sides their lordships
confirmed the monition of the official principal, and pro-
nounced as well against him in regard to the prostration or
kneeling and the use of lighted candles, condemning him
in costs. On the 4th of December, 1869, the Lords of the
Committee having heard the respondent and his counsel
in reply to a motion to enforce the monition, pronounced
that he had not obeyed the montion with respect to the
kneeling and prostration, and admonished him to abstain
therefrom in future. The learned counsel now said that
affidavits of Edward John Pond, Henry Dangar, and
Nathaniel White had been filed, from which it
appeared that the respondent continued to dis-
obey the said monition, and that he knowingly
and habitually sanctioned the elevation of the paten and
cup above the head of the officiating clergyman in the
prayer of Consecration during the celebration of the
Holy Communion, such elevation being the practice of
his curates when saying the said prayer in his place and
stead,and in his presence; and further, that he habitually
sanctioned kneeling or prostration both by himself and
curates. The appellant, therefore, prayed their
lordships to declare that the respondent had not
complied with the monition, and that it might
be enforced as their lordships should deem meet.
Mr. Stevens quoted various authorities to shew that the
actions of the respondent were strictly in keeping with
the understood meaning of bowing or prostration, and
that the monition had been consequently disobeyed. The
learned counsel then referred in detail to the affidavits
filed on the part of the respondent. They included those
of the Rev. Arthur Henry Stanton, the Rev. Henry
Edward Willington, curates of St. Albans, and Mr. Lay-
man, churchwarden of the same parish. That of the re-
spondent was in effect as follows :—That on the afternoon
of the 4th of December 1869, the day on which the judg-
ment of the Court to enforce the monition was delivered,
he expressed to the assistant-curates of the church of St.
Albans that he intended the monition should be obeyed. In
celebrating the Holy Communion on June 17 he stood and
remained standing during the whole of the Prayer of Con-
secration in the said service, and did not at any time
during that time kneel or in any way bend his knee or
knees. Since that time this rule has been invariably
carried out. With regard to the affidavits of Nathaniel
White, Edward John Pond, and Henry Dangar, they were
not, it was stated, regular worshippers at the Church
of St. Alban's. The respondent further stated
that he was convinced that no intelligent
person carefully observing his gestures during
the consecration prayer on the 17th June, or any other
time since the delivery of the judgment of their lordships
could have imagined that he had knelt, or in any way
bent his knee or knees.
At this stage of the case Mr. Stephens applied for an
adjournment, to enable him to examine those who had
filed affidavits on the part of the respondents, which was
granted.

THE WINTER CIRCUITS OF THE JUDGES.
The remaining arrangements for the Winter Circuits of
the judges are now completed, as follows, viz. :
Mr. Justice Byles :—Leeds, Wednesday, November
30th; York. Wednesday, December 7th; Derby, Monday,
December 12th.
Mr. Baron Bramwell :—Cardiff, Tuesday December
6th ; Worcester, Friday, December 9th ; Warwick not
fixed.

THE RECORDERSHIP OF COLCHESTER.—MT.
Phelbrick has been appointed Recorder of Colchester, in
the room of Mr. Bushby, one of the recently appointed
metropolitan police magistrates.
SONGS Al( BALMORAL.—At a musical soiree at
Balmoral, a few evenings since, a new ballad, " The
Parted," was sung by the Princess Louise with great feel-
ing, to the delight of her Majesty and the distinguished
party. The Marquis of Lorne sang Gounod's charming
romance for a tenor voice, " The Empress of my Soul,"
with much artistic taste and finish.—Birntingham Gazette.
SUICIDE or A SOLICITOR.—Mr. Edward Gayford,
solicitor, Birmingham, lately employed by Messrs. Beale,
Marigold, and Beale, shot himself through the heart as he
was leaving home on' Tuesday morning, and fell dead on
his own doorstep. He was about 30 years of age, and
recently married. No reason can be assigned for the
suicide.
OPENING SHOPS ON SUNDAY.—Mr. Spooner, the
Wednesbury Stipendiary, on Tuesday, fined a tobacconist
one penny for keeping his shop open on Sunday. In in-
flicting this penalty, Mr. Spooner, while expressing his
disapproval of Sunday trading, said the law had become
so obsolete, and was broken so generally, that one man
ought not to be picked out and punished so long as the
multitude of offenders were allowed to go free.
BEALES.—At the Cambridge County Court
on Tuesday, Judge Beales said he had been misrepresented
in the papers as to issuing an order that attorneys and
solicitors practising under him should appear in " suitable
attire"—that is, in gowns and bands. He gave no such order,
although he approved of such a course, but he left it en-
tirely to the parties themselves. M. P. Adccock, the only
solicitor who appeared in " attire," said he had been in-
duced to do so from the representations made, coupled
with a postal-card advertisement from a well-known
London robe-maker, offering to supply the requisite
articles, and referring him to the judge's alleged order.
The judge said the party had no authority to use his
name.

ENCOUNTER WITH A THIEF.—On Tuesday night,
John Taylor, a cab proprietor at Sunderland, discovered
that some premises had been entered into by thieves. On
entering he was attacked by two men, and knocked down
with a " jemmy." A retriever dog kept the men at bay
until Taylor got to his feet again. On doing so he seized
a log of wood to defend himself with. One man then
made off, but the other again attacked Taylor, and a
struggle ensued. A policeman, a quarter of a mile dis-
tant, heard cries for help, and on coming found both men
severely cut, especially the thief, whose head was much
injured. He had to be carried for a mile to the station,
and thence to the infirmary. The doctors pronounced
him past recovery.