The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-13 00:00:00

*LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ARCHES' COURT, Jan. 11.
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST.)
CORDY AND OTHERS V. BENTLEY.

In this case the churchwardens of the parish of St.
Nichol' ,s, Brighton, within the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Chichester, and also the chapelwardens of St. Peter's,
Brighf.on, proceed for non-payment of church-rates
agair;st Mr. Bentley, the case being removed by letters
of rei pest from the Archdeaconry Court of Lewes. The
case oame on to-day on the admission of the libel, which
was opposed.
The facts at present, before the Court were as follow :
Tl'.e parish church of St. Nicholas, in Brighton, and
the 'chapel of ease called St. Peter's, which was erected
und.er the Church Building Act in 1825, both requiring
repair, and the parishioners having refused at more than
one meeting called for such purpose to matte a church-
rate, a monition, dated 26th October, 1847. issued from
the Archdeaconry Court of Lewes, requiring the church-
wardens to repair the said church, which monition
being served, the churchwardens summoned a vestry to
meet at the Town-hall, Brighton, on the 9th December,
18,47, for the purpose of making a rate. At such meet-
ing, the rev. the vicar being in the chair, upon the rate
of ld. is the pound for repairs, &c., being proposed, an
amendment was moved to the effect that the reparation
and clean-keeping of the churches of St. Nicholas i
and St. Peter's be done by voluntary contributions,
in accordance with the law of the land. The chairman
decided this amendment wee illegal, and refused to put
it. A further amendment was then proposed, that the
meeting adjourn for six months; which amendment the
chairman 6150 decided to be illegal, and refused to re-
ceive. The chairman then asked if any other person
wished to move anything; and not receiving a reply, he
put the original motion, when there was 47 hands held
up in its favour and 90 against it. Ho then declared
the votes recorded against the motion to be illegal and
thrown away, and that the original motion was citified.
In September, 1849, the defendant and other parishioners
were summoned before the magistrates for payment of
the respective amounts at which they had been taxed;
when, having given notice of their intention to dispute
the validity of the rate in the ecclesiastical court, the
magistrates decided their jurisdiction was ousted. The
principal ground assigned for the opposition was that the
rate in question was made by a minority, under circum-
stances varying from those mentioned in the Braintree
cases (" Gosling and Velcy v. Joann"), which had been
decided by the Arches' Court in the year 1843, and after
wards carried through the Courts of Queen's Bench
and Exchequer, and which was now before the House of
Lords.

Dr. JENNER, in opposition to the libel, contended that
many of the items introduced in the estimates were not
properly the subject of a church-rate, and that no ad-
vantage would accrue to any party if the libel were al-
lowed to go on to proof. Although perfectly willing to
uphold the churchwardens in their duty, yet he (Or.
Jenner) submitted, while they chose to make experi-
ments, it would be exceedingly hard on the parties op-
posing if the Court did, not only refuse admission to the
libel, but also condemn the churchwardens in costs. He
submitted the rate was not made by the majority in any
sense whatever, technical or legal ; that the parishioners
assembled were under no obligAtion to vote for 'it ; and
that the Braintree case could not be taken as a pre-
cedent.

Dr. Heaintia was heard on the same side.
Dr. Curties and Dr. R. Phillimore, on behalf of the
churchwardens, contended the present case fell under the
principle involved in the Braintree case, and submitted
the libel ought to be admitted.
The Learned JUDGEI was satisfied in his own mind the
present case was not distinguished from the Braintree
one. He would take time to consider the case.
HERRING V. HERRING.

In this case the wife proceeds against the husband for
a divorce on the ground of adultery. There was no op-
position on the part of the husband, and therefore the
facts were not entered into.
The Learned JUDGE, after commenting on the delay
which had taken place, and which was caused entirely
by Mr. Herring, decided that, although he had pleaded
as a pauper, he must pay the costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jam. 11.
(Beton) Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
IN RE J. BUTTFIELD.
The bankrupt, a grocer at Newbury, came up to pass
his last examination.
The balance-sheet, prepared by Mr. Maynard, showed
the debts to be 6741., to meet which the goad debts
given up were nearly 4001. His profits had been 8241.;
losses, 1831.; trade expenses, 4941.; other expenses, 6271.
There was no opposition, and the bankrupt passed.
IN RE J. M. BRUWN.
This bankrupt was a wine-merchant of Norwich.
To-day was fixed for passing his last examination; but
the accounts not having as yet been filed an adjourn-
ment was ordered.