The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-06 00:00:00

LAW INTEL

VICE-CHANCELLOR STUARTS COURT.

NOTTIDGE V. PRINCE.-THE A GAPEMONE.

Mr. Bacon, on the part of the defendant Prince, resumed
his address this morning. He said the judgment of Lord
Justice Bruco such as in some way to prejudge the present
case. Miss Nottidge, he contended, according even to the
witnesses brought forward by the plaintiff, was a person of
sound mind, with respect to the disposition of property,
although she appeared to labour under certain delusions
with respect to the divinity of Mr. Prince. Mr. Rouse, the
attorney, who had resided seven years in the Agapemone
with his wife and child and conducted the whole of
the correspondence relative to the transfer of Miss Not-
tidge's property to Prince, gave it as his opinion that the
lady was perfectly sane with regard to money affairs; and
as to the exaggerated notions prevalent as to the practices
within the Agapemone, he stated that, during the time he
was a resident, he had nothing to say with regard to the
daily practices therein. He, however, did not seem to
approve of the doctrines which it was but fair to say he
now considered to be mischievous. During the whole
of the time that Mr. Rouse was engaged in the transfer, he
had frequent opportunities of ascertaining whether there
was any undue influence on the part of the defendant,
but none such had leen proved on the other side.
On the contrary, it appeared that Miss Nottidge had
made the gift of the money to Prince, as a free
gift, and in accordance with the rules of the Agape-
mone. The money was not given by Miss Nottidge
on her first taking up her abode at the Agapemone, but
after she had left on the first occasion, and quitted the
asylum she had been placed in, she again returned, and
then in the presence of Thomas she made the money over
to Prince without his knowledge, as he should show that he
did not know of the traLlitiKer of the property until 15 days
after it had been made. It was no uncommon thing for
money to le made over to the defendant, because Rouse
himself when he entered the Agapemone paid £1,500 to
the fund of the body. Mr. Starkey had paid £B,OOO, and
several others bad made similar donations. The learned
gentleman proceeded to read a number of affidavits,
amongst which was one of Miss Nottidge to the effect that
she had transferred the rnminy fn Print,* without hi.
knowledge.

The case will not be concluded before to-morrow at the
earliest.

THE REV. JAMES BONTVELES ej SE.

COURT OF ARCHES—THIS DAY.
(Before Dr. Lushington, Dean of Arches.)
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP

OF LONDON V. THE REV. JAMES BONWELL, INCUMBENT
OF ST. STEPHEN'S, STEPNEY.
The Rev. James Bonwell, perpetual curate (or rector, the
point being undetermined), of St. Philip's Church, Step-
ney, appeared personally in court this morning, for the pur-
pose either of opposing \or admitting certain articles filed
against him by the bishop of the diocese, arising out of
grave charges of immorality of which he is alleged to have
been guilty. 0 wing to the rules of the Arches Court, Mr.'
Best, of the Oxford circuit, who has been Mr. Bonwell'®
counsel throughout, could not appear professionally, being
a member of the common law bar, and the rev. gentleman
therefore determined upon conducting Lis own case.
Sir J. Harding, the Queen's Advocate, appeared for the
Bishop of London, and Mr. J. B. Lee, his lordship's secre-
tary, was in attendance to watch the case.
The learned advocate briefly stated the nature of the at-
tides. The first article set out the general law; the second
set forth the institution and license of Mr. Bonwell to the
incumbency of St. Philip's. The remaining articles set
forth, that, on or about the month of September, 18.58, Mr.
Bonwell mado the acquaintance of Elizabeth Yorath at
Margate, and that he represented himself to her and her
friends as an unmarried man (he being married at the time) ;
that subsequently, in London, he harbour, d her in St.
Philip's school-room, where she gave birth to a male child,
which afterwards died and was buried. They then pro
ceeded to set forth the various acts of intimacy between Mr.
Bonwell and Miss Yorath in London and various parts of
the country. They also set forth the facts connected with
the birth of the child, and traced Mr. Bonwell's connexion
with the birth, such as fetching the doctor, hiring the
nurse, &c., the private baptism of the child by Mr. Bon-
well, and his instructions to the unthrtaker to bury it.
The last article alleged that Mr. Bonwell was a priest, of
the United Church of England and Ireland, and therefore
amenable to its laws.

The Rev. Defendant said that this was a legal question
of the admissibility of the articles, and he could not, there-
fore, enter into the merits of the case. The bishop could
have proceeded in twoways. He could as soon as the scandal
came to his ears have sent the case to that court, or he could
have issued a commission. His lordship elected to take the
latter course, but he allowed the case to stand over for five
months before he took any proceedings whatever. He ar-
gued at some length that the Court could take no legal cog-
nisance of immnrtilitioc 0,-,mrattcod withrnit the boundaries
of the diocese of London, the commissioners having been ap-
pointed to inquire merely into his conduct in the diocese of
London. He objected to the 4th, sth, 6th, and 7th ar-
ticles, on the ground that they charged offences not com-
mitted within the jurisdiction of the Bishop, under whose
authority the commission was issued, and he objected to
other articles because they were not founded upon any
portion of the commissioners' report. Then the dates were
set out with much vagueness, and he should ask the Court
to direct that more specific dates should be given, as in
n'any cases he believed he should be able to prove an alibi.
He objected to the 18th and 20th articles (that of harbour-
ing Miss Yorath), which he contended constituted no eccle-
siastical offence; and to the 22d article, because it did not
set out with sufficient explicitness where the child, Philip
Yorath was baptised, or where he gave instructions to the
undertaker for its interment.
Sir John Harding, in reply, said the report of the
commissioners bore directly upon the articles which he now
asked the Court to admit. He considered that Mr. Bon.
well was in error in contending that the articles could not
embrace any acts of immorality in other dioceses, because it
was necessary to insert introduction, acquaintance, arrange-
ments, assignations, &c., in order to lead up to the main
charges alleged. It was, moreover, the intention of the
articles to prove adultery in the diocese of London,
and one of the articles was specifically pointed that way.
There was no intention to visit Mr. Bonwell with ecclesi-
astical penalties on account of his acquaintance with Miss
Yorath, or for having represented himself to her and her
friends as an unmarried man, although if it were true he
had committed a most outrageous moral offence. Mr. Bon-
well said—lf I had said so, I should be willing not only to
be deprived of my benefice but my orders. There was no
truth in the allegation.
Sir J. Harding submitted that the dates were sufficiently
set forth in the articles, but if the Court thought that the
article must be struck out on account of want of proper
specification of dates, he must submit to the decision. With
regard to the private baptism of the child, it was not right
to make it an ecclesiastical offence in this case.
Dr. Tristram followed on the same side, contending that
this was not an appeal from the commissioners, but it was
an entirely new proceeding, and that, therefore, the pro-
moters of the suit were entitled to embody in the articles
facts and circumstances last brought before the commis-
sioners. With regard to dates, Mr. Bonwell could easily
supply them if they were material—for instance, as to the
time Mrs. Bonwell was at Margate.
Mr. Bonwell—She never was there, and it is upon that
ground I want dates.

Dr. Lushington said he was sorry ho had not seen the
report of the commissioners, and without it he should not
like to express any opinion. He would, therefore, defer
judgment.

POLICE INTELLIGE2VCE-(THIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
ROBEERY BY A SERVANT.—A BAD CASE. `Mary Ann
Keller, a rather good-looking young woman, was charged
before Mr. Seeker with stealing £7 14s. in money, and a
dress of the value of £1 10s., the property of Helen Alexan-
der, assistant to Mr. Glen, baker, of Regent-street ; and
also with stealing a shawl, the property of Elizabeth Nor-
ton, also an assistant in the same employ.
Helen Alexander said the prisoner entered Mr. Glen's
service as a servant on the 30th of April, and on the even-
ing of the Bth of May asked to go out for an hour, which
was permitted, but she never returned. On going to her
box shortly after the prisoner had left the house, she missed
£7 14s. in gold [tad silver, and also a dress of the value of
305., which she had seen safe two days before.
Elizabeth Norton said she missed from her box the same
evening a shawl and atold and enamelled brooch, both of
which were safe the previous evening.
Gordon, 336 A, said he apprehended the prisoner in
Regent-street tho previous evening, and on charging her
with the robbery, she said she had been induced to do it by
a girl named Thompson, and that she had taken her to a
house in the Waterloo-road, and that they went to bed
together, but that in the night the girl Thompson got up
and went off with the money and property. Front the de-
scription the prisoner had given him of Thompson, he be-
lieved her to be one of the worst thieves in London.
The prisoner, who had no questions to ask, was then re-
manded.

BRUTAL SPORT.—On the Complaint of the
Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
two carters—one residing at Fountainbridge and the other
in High-street—were on Saturday, the 2d inst., charged
before Bailie Forrester, in the Burgh Court, with cruelly
ill-treating and torturing two horses under their charge on
the afternoon of Wednesday, the 16th ult., under the bridge
on the road leading from King's Stables to St. Cuthbert's
Church, by tying together, back to back, the two carts to
which the horses were yoked, and lashing the animals with
whips, to cause them to pull against each other, until one
of the horses was overpowered and dragged a considerable
distance. The carters pled guilty, and were each fined in
10s. and costs, with the alternative of 20 days' imprison-
Inent.—caleflonian Mercury.