The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-28 00:00:00

THE CHARGE AGAINST A BANK
MANAGER.

Yesterday Mr. Samuel Greenway Finney, the general
manager of the late English Joint Stock Bank (Limited),
in Clement's lane, surrendered to his recognizances before
the Lord Mayor. at the justice room of the Mansion House,
to answer further the charge, on which he had been arrested
on a warrant on Saturday week, of making and concurring
in making divers false entries in the books of the bank,
and of omitting, or concurring in omitting, certain
material particulars, with intent to defraud. Mr.
George Lewis, jun., solicitor, of Ely-place, again
conducted the prosecution ; the defendant was re-
presented by Mr. Littler and Mr. Straight, bar-
risters. The case was first before the court on Monday
week, and the defendant was accused in the opening
speech of Mr. Lewis of deliberately and fraudulently
making fictitious entries in the bank books, and of omit-
ting statements affecting the position of the bank from its
books and from the reports to the shareholders. He
was, however, stated to be no more and no less guilty than
the directors of the company. On evidence given by Mr.
Francis D. Lambert, of Devonshire-place, Portland-place,
the prosecutor, and Mr. C. F. Kemp, one of the liqui-
dators and auditors of the bank, the defendant was
remanded on bail till yesterday, when several witnesses
were called in support of the prosecution. The case was
again adjourned.

THE CASE OF MB. BENNETT OF FROME.

The Church Association has failed in its attempt to get
the second work of Mr. Bennett, onthesubjectof the Real
Presence, investigated. Mr. Stephens, Q.C., has made an
application to the Court of Queen's Bench, (Justices Lush,
Hannan, and Hayes), for a rule calling upon the Bishop
of London to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should
not issue commanding him to issue a commission
under the Church Discipline Act for the purpose
of making inquiry as to the grounds and
charges made by Mr. Shepherd against the Rev. Mr.
Bennett, vicar of Frome Selwood, for holding doctrines con-
trary to those of the Church of England. The original
commission (Mr. Stephens stated) had been called upon to
adjudge whether a certain passage in Mr. Bennett's
work, " An Examination of Archdeacon Denison's Propo-
sition of Faith," was heretical. They had sent the case
to the Arches Court. The present application was made
in consequence of a reissue of the work, containing the
same expressions of opinion with regard to the real pre-
sence and the adoration, but it was more specific with
regard to the reception by the wicked. An application
was made to the Bishop of London by Mr. Shepherd's
solicitor to issue a commission to inquire whether in re-
spect to the reissue there were grounds for further in-
quiry. To the application his lordship replied that ho
had carefully considered the matters laid before him, and
having examined the book said to have been published by
the 11ev. Mr. Bennett within the diocese of London, he
was of opinion that it was not a case in which he ought to
issue a commission. The question was whether a bishop
had an absolute discretion in refusing to issue a commis-
sion under the Church Discipline Act when a layman
having an interest in the matter charged his parish clergy-
man with having published doctrines inconsistent with the
29th Article and Book of Common Prayer. There had
never been any formal decision upon the power of a bishop
in such a case as this, for it really involved the supremacy
of the Crown and the right of the laity. There was not a
case from 1640 down to the passing of the Church Dis-
cipline Act where the laity had not a right to have any
question in reference to ecclesiastical matters discussed in
open court, provided cause was shewn for ecclesiastical
cognisance, and security was given for costs.
Mr. Justice Hayes asked what was the reason for
having a second commission for the same thing ; and if
a second why not a third.—Mr. Stephens said the reason
was that in the second publication Mr. Bennett was
more specific as to the reception of the body
and blood of Christ by the wicked. A decision
in this case might further prevent litigation. Mr.
Justice Lush said this appeared to involve the same
point as was raised on the first proceedings against Mr.
Bennett.—Mr. Stephens said it could not be satisfactorily
raised under the first proceedings.—Mr. Justice Lush said
that, according to his recollection, the doctrines were put
forth quite as strong in the first book as in the second.—
Mr. Stephens said he should be content if the court would
say the fist proceedings would include this publication.
—Mr. Justice Lush said this court could not give any
judgment that would bind the ecclesiastical court. He
was fully prepared to say there should be no rule in this
case, on the ground alone that in the exercise of the dis-
cretion of the court they would not allow a second suit
for the same matter whilst the first suit was pending.—
Mr. Justice Hayes said the book appeared to have been
first published ten years ago.—Mr. Stephens said there
had been a reissue of this work, teeming with theo-
logical poison, since the issuing of the commission. Its
republication was another offence. Mr. Shepherd was
not aware of the existence of the work until after he made
his application last year. In dealing with the discretion
of the court in granting this rule, the learned counsel
quoted Lord Camden, who said, " The discretion of a
judge is the law of tyrants. It is always unknown. It
is different in different men. It is casual, and depends
upon constitution, temper, and passion. In the best it is
oftentimes caprice ; in the worst it is every vice, folly,
and passion to which human nature is liable."
Mr. Justice Lush, in delivering judgment, said he was
of opinion there should be no rule. He should pause be-
fore he overruled a case decided in this court in 1859,
though only by two judges, that it was discretionary, and
not obligatory, for a bishop to issue a commission. He
also thought there should be no rule on another ground—
viz., that in their discretion they ought not to force a
bishop to do that whichhis matured judgment told him he
ought not to do. The bishop had not declined jurisdic.
tion in this case. He had applied his mind to it, and he
had come to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to
issue a commission. When the court recalled to their
minds that the proceedings pending against Mr. Bennett
involved substantially the same question—the same sub-
stantive matter—they ought not in their discretion to
compel the bishop to issue a commission. If the present
proceedings failed, and the prosecutor thought it expedient
to pursue the inquiry further, it would then be time for
the court to say whether it was obligatory on the bishop
to do what he was asked. He thought the bishop had
exercised a wise discretion in not issuing another commie-
lion whilst the first was pending subtantially for the same
matter.
The other learned judges concurred.

The Dundee and Peterhead whaling fleets have
this year proved as successful as those of last year were
unfortunate. On Monday the Arctic arrived at Dundee,
bringing a total catch of 4,000 seals, which are expected to
yield about 50 tons of oil. Other ve eels aro reported to
have caught much larger numbers, and, bnt for an accident
to her rudder, the Arctic) would have remained until May.
LUXURIANT AND BEAUTIFUL HAIR.—MRS. S. A .
ALLEN'S WORLD'S HAIR RESTORER OR DRESSING never fails to
quickly restore Grey or Faded Hair to its youthful colour and
beauty, and with the first application a beautiful gloss and de
lightful fragrance is given to the Hair. It stops the Hair from
falling off. It prevents baldness. It promotes luxuriant growth;
It causes the Hair to grow thick and strong. It removes all
dandruff. It contains neither oil nor dye. In large Bottles
Price Biz Shillings. Sold by most Chenliwts and Verfomers.
Depot 266, High Holborn