The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Before Chief Baron Pollock and Barons Martin, Erastro
well, and Wilde.)
WARD V. LUMLEY.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., this morning moved for a, rule
for a new trial in the cause which was tried a short time
ago at Guildhall, when a verdict was given in favorer of
the plaintiff. The question at issue was in effect whether
the defendant had forfeited his right to the lease of her
Majesty's Theatre. The learned counsel contended tI let *
certain document had been admitted as evidence at the tristi
which should have been rejected.
The Court refused the application.

THE RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES lA's ll'

GEORGE'S-IN THE-EAST.

CONSISTORY COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Dr. Travers Twiss, Judge.)

THE REV. BRYAN KING V. ROSIER.
This morning having been appointed by the lstalleti
judge to deliver his judgment in this painfully note rioas
case, Mr. Rosier, accompanied by several friends, appeared
in court to receive such judgment.
It will be recollected that the case was heard befory Dr'
Twiss on Tuesday, the 3d instant, when a great many wit.
nesses, including Capt. S. Hall, were examined. Mr. Roevleit
the schoolmaster, and Mr. Blatchford, positively a We°
to the fact that on the 14th August, during the celebr etioa
of the afternoon service, the Rev. W. P. Burn, the offi
ing curate, fell down in a fit, when Mr. Rosier exclai toes,
"Itis a judgment of God upon him I God has strucli
down 1 Down with Bryan King l" On the part a f
Rosier, he himself, as also a large number of parishio net*
were examined, who denied that it was Mr. Rosier 1'713°
uttered the words. The second charge preferred agains
Rosier by the Rev. Bryan King was, that when the cl Lurch
was re-opened on the 6th of November, he approa che4
Capt. Savage Hall, a member of the congregation but 'not
parishioner, and exclaimed, "This thing calls himiself
captain. He is a disgrace to the army." It was also alleged
that he approached Mr. Blatchford, another member e.f the
congregation, saying, "This man means to swear 1:
upon him in Wellclose. square." Out of these transao tlo°
proceedings took place at the Thames Police Court, Nil:de'
were fully reported at the time.
Dr. Travers Twiss, in delivering his judgment, cool'
menced by saying that the suit was instituted by the Ret'
Bryan King, the rector of St. George's-in-the-East, aigainst
Mr. Rosier, a parishioner. The decree, which was eiervel
on the 28th of January, cited Mr. Rosier to appear it. that
Court to answer certain articles charging him with bra's+.
ing, chiding, and quarrelling during and after the perforal;
anee of Divine service, on Sunday, August the 14th, a
Sunday, November 6th. The proceedings were insti toted
under the General Ecclesiastical Law, but the charge:
were laid in the terms of the sth of Edward the 6th, otIP• "
which enacted that in the case of any person who
words or otherwise chided, brawled, or quarrelbed, it
should be lawful for the ordinary of the place to Buse,
him from entering the church, and of a clerk to suspend
him from the ministrations of his office. The same ststa'
went on to enact severe penalties upon those who smote o,
laid their hands upon one anotherin any church or &Are's;
yard. The immediate object of the act was to repreeS
disturbances, which in the early period after the fLefart
mation were apt to break out amongst the lari,
ardent supporters of the Reformation, and the tactual
zealous supporters of the Latin ritual. Since tl/:,
time it been made of wider application. Al
same time he must say that the jurisdiction exeVoo
by the ecclesiastical courts in this country did not dept
upon that statute, nor did the statute create the crittae_,
brawling charged in this case, inasmuch as the statul
passed to aid in the punishment of, and by no means to crest"
the offence. Any disturbances (vide Hawkins in his. f
of the Crown) in a church were visited with severity rat r
loci, which in other cases would probably pass altogetbeOf
unnoticed ; the object clearly was to protect the worship
the sanctuary from desecration, and to preserve the repo
of the dead. The evidence which had been adduced 1001°:
the Court imputed to Mr. Rosier that he brawlegl 0c
words ; and he was, moreover, charged of being gailtioje
that offence on two occasions. When application was ra
to the Court by the Rev. Bryan King, the promoter of thesuit, to permit the office of the judge to be promoted/ 0,
(Dr. Twiss) required an affidavit to be put in by all d
witness of the transactions. This was done, and aprinielfa4to
case having been made, he allowed the office of thejeldgto
be promoted. He would now proceed to consider 1"1.0
were the specific charges against Mr. Rosier. They 19fnee.
of a twofold character, and Mr. Rosier had given ill a
gative issue to both. In the first place, it was cher:re
against him that on the 14th August, at the 4 o'clock ,
vice, when the Rev. W. P. Burn, the officiating ear:ol
fell down in a fit, he exclaimed—" It is a judgment of V
.49
upon him—Down with Bryan King" or words to that vele",
effect, and that he thus caused great disturbance
church, whereby the service was interrupted. 1/10
these points three witnesses had been called, og
a parishioner, and two non-parishioners. (The lea if
judge then went through their evidence, which has alteoo
been reported.) This evidence (he said) if it stood eel
would go to show that two of the witnesses had net 03
Mr. Rosier until that date, and that neither of therelof
heard him say "Down with Bryan King," although 'sof
heard him use the other words. In his defence Mr. 110 of
called thirteen witnesses, the accuracy of one or t%c°or
whom could not be relied upon, but the general accuraaela try
the witnesses called by Mr. Rosier he was fully prePat, ;of
admit, Into the details .f that evidence he would ue_.' 400
but he would state his general impressions founded et
an examination of the general testimony—the result Of t lire
was that the Court did not think the charges against
Rosier had been established. 6tli
With regard to the second charge, that of the
00003.
November, in which it is alleged Mr. Rosier aPPr seie a'
Capt. Savage Hall, saying "This thing calls hira-oesf
captain ; be is a disgrace to the army ; he is a t-collecl;
swell ;" and other words, two witnesses had been Cosa
by the prosecutor, while Mr. Rosier had oily wee
one (Mr. Tzone) who evidently did not speak to the d 9 or
transaction as that charged. Those words were waeciiiito
great aggravation, and calculated to produce iefhat the
disturbance. The prayer of the prosecutor was et)
Court should admonish Mr. Rosier. The Court %vet'•
difficulty in complying with that portion of the Ps'
csior
The Court was further prayed to condemn Mr. Par
4
in the costs of the proceedings ; and in this Yo oaf
the prayer it would be necessary for him
a few words before pronouncing Lis decisiole.9,.„o
had always been laid down in the Ecclesf. aistewre,
Courts, that the cost of causes were in the that
tion of the Court. By that it was not mean that
tbei
costs could be granted or withheld at discretion, se', t the
were always within the discussion of the counsel. the
d beeu
same time costs might be mitigated, and ft had the
practice of the Consistoty and the Arches Court, vrt the
promoter had not proved all his case, to direct rhold
person be condemned to a certain sum, which h
fix at
D
hf
co,
admonishedr.P hi l li
andm or e askedcondemned, the judgeandt to telloud
Mbre r
. Rost' o
tempt if he did not obey the order of the Court
to e
natio
Mr. Rosier said—l appeal from this Cour
malicious Pres°
"as an innocent man, and declare it is a .
ti on,
t
Mr. Rosier and all the parties left in a a
citement•
and as a Britissubject I
state 0f
1 roe,