The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

ARCHES COU'IT.

(Before Sir John Dodcon, Dean of Arches.)

THE KNIGHTSBRIDGE CHURCH CASE.-JUDGMENT.

This m-rning Sir J. Dodson, Dean of the Court of
Arches, delivered judgment in the case of Westerton v.
Liddell, and Beal v. Liddell, on an appeal from the deci-
sion of Dr. Lushington, the Judge of the Consistory
Court of London, relative to the removal of the cre.
dence table, the high altar, the gilded candlesticks, and
divers altar coverings, which were changed at different
seasons of the year from the church of St. Paul's,
Knightsbridge. and St. Barnabas, Pimlico. There were
a large attendance of persons attracted
_to the Court to
hear the decision.

The Dean of Arches, on taking his seat, explained the
circnmstances under which the case came before the
Court, remarking, that that of St. Barnabas was some-
what different in point of form, but substantially the same
in fact. The learned judge then proceeded to deliver
his judgment; taking first in order the question of
crosses. It seemed to be admitted on all hands that the
cross was to be considered an ornament, and it was now
to be considered whether or not such ornaments
were legally admissible. The learned judge then
entered at great length upon the Parliamentary
and rutnical authorities bearing upon the question of
crosses, and remarked that the use of the cross at St.
Paul's had been sanctioned by the Bishop of London,
who consecrated it whilst it was there. It appeared by
a letter under the Bishop's own hand that he never saw
it at the time of conseeratioa, a large altar dish having
been placed before it. It had also been alleged that the
cross at St. Barnabas had been sanctioned by the Bishop;
and the Rev. Mr. Bennett had given evidence that he
was minister of the church at its consecration in
1850, and that he communicated with the Bishop
of London both personally and by letter, apprising
him that it was his intention to place a cross there, and
asking his consent, but that the bishop refused to sanc-
tion a movable cross as illegal, but that he had no objec-
tion to a fixed one. On that Mr. Bennett had the cross
put up, where it remained during the consecration, and,
as far as he knew, up to the present time. Since, how-
ever, Mr. Liddell had§been the incumbent, the bishop
had expressed his desire that the crosses should be
removed, adding that he bad no power to remove them
himself, except by a proceeding in his Consistory
Court. It was of very little consequence whether
the bishop assented to it or not, for the bishop
apostolic in such a matter could not make it legal if
the law declared that it was not so. It was notorious
that crosses had not been in general use in the Church
of Eogland for many years. An affidavit had, however,
been put in by Mr. Beresford Hope, stating that in 13
churches he knew of crosses being used, but two of them
were in churches in Scotland, and of the remaining
eleven he did not say whether the crosses were on
the altar or moveable, and he (the learned judge)
suspected that in the majority of the eleven churches
mentioned they had been put up recently and without
authority. When it was remembered that there were
14,000 churches and chapels in England, he did not
think the eleven English churches relied upon in the
affidavit of Mr. Beresford Hope, of much importance.
The learned judge then cited a number of authorities
and said that he had come to the conclusion that the
use of the cross in churches and chapels was not justi-
fied, there being no authority for them, and he therefore
nowt pronounce against their use. With regard to altars,
he was of the same opinion as Herbert Jenner. First,
that they must be of stone, not fixed, but moveable
At St. Barnabas the altar was of stone, and
fixed, while at St. Paul's it was of wood,
and to a certain extent it was moveable. With
regard to credence tables, he found no authority for
them, and he therefore pronounced against fixed
stone-altars and credence table, and for their re-
moval. It was directed that during the celebration
of the sacrament that the covering of the altar should
be a white linen cloth, and there was no autho-
rity for embroidery or ornaments, and he there-
fore pronounced against it, and the same applied
to the cloth to be used during the ordinary ser-
vices of the Church. There was no appeal against the
bronze chancel gates, aor the candlesticks,
and therefore we had no judgment to pronounce upon
them. With regard to the commandments they
must be fixed at the East end of the church as the law
directed. He therefore affirmed the conviction of the
Court below, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
THE ROYAL BRITISH FANS.-EX PARTE.

Mr. La wrance applied in this case under the following
circumstances. He stated a gentleman, who was one of
the unfortunate shareholders in the Royal British Bank,
a few days since filed a petition under the arrangement
clauses, and his Honour granted the usual protection both
to person and property ; bet notwithstanding the Sheriff
bad levied an execution, although notice of the
petition had been given, he submitted that this was
clearly a contempt of this Court, and his Honour had
power so to deal with it to compel the sheriff to give up.
In a case where one of the parties who had petitioned
the Court had been taken on an attachment from the
Court of Chancery, even in that case his Honour
had directed a discharge. But without withdrawing any•
thing he had said as to the contempt, but leaving the
Court to deal with it, he would, if there was any idea
that the furniture would be removed, pay into the hands
of the official assignee the value of the property.
The plaintiff's solicitor said he would give possession
in that case, on the understanding that it should be paid
to him in the event of the arrangement not being carried
out, the proceedings not being converted into a bank-
ruptcy.

. _
His Honour—Yes ; you reserve your rights.
Mr. Lawrance then handed over a cheque for the

amount.