The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-07 00:00:00

WAYS AND MEANS.

The house then went into committee.
Mr. LAING moved the following resolution :—That,
towards making good the supply granted to her Majesty,
the sum of £4,500,000 be granted out of the Consolidated
Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
—Agreed to.
The house then resumed.

CUSTOMS ACT.
' The report on resolutions 11 and 12, relating to the tim-
ber duties, was brought up and agreed to.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes to four o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-(THI I DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ASSAULT ON A RIFLE VOLUNTEER.—James
mortis was charged as follows :—Mr. Wm. Montgomery,
of 32, Shaftesbury-terrace, clerk, said that at one o'clock
that morning he wag in the Black Horse, at the corner of
Jermyn-street, Haymarket, with two friends dressed in
Rifle 'Volunteer uniforms, when the defendant said in a
most offensive manner to his friends—" You are smart
fellows," and continued his sneering and jeering. One of
his friends said he had not got the pluck to join the corps,
when he struck him (complainant) a severe blow in the eye,
and he then gave him in charge.
Defendant admitted the assault, and said that he was in-
sulted. He merely said, " How stupid it is to come here in
such a dress."
Mr. Beadon said it was as well perhaps not to wear the
uniform more than necessary.
The complainant said they had been to Willis's Rooms
to the dinner of their corps.
Mr. Thomas Webb said he was in uniform. Defendant
called them riflemen, and said they were a parcel of
fools, and everybody was laughing at them. His friend
said he had not pluck enough to come out in uniform, and
he then struck him in the face, and afterwards struck him
(witness).
Mr. Beadon said it was a most unprovoked assault, and
he did not see why men who chose to belong to rifle corps
were to be chaffed while in their uniform. He had no no-
tion whatever of it, and should fine him £3 for the assault.
ExpEzzLemENT.—Henry Bailey, a young man in the
employ of Mr. Peter Robinson, draper, of 106, Oxford-
street, was charged with embezzlement.
Eleanor Eades, servant to Miss Connel, of 2, St. John's-
Gardens, Kensington Park, said, that on Saturday, pri-
soner brought a parcel containing a black silk dress, and
Miss Connel gave her £3 to pay the bill, £2 10s. 114 and
the prisoner gave her the change and a receipt which he
signed.
Robert Patten, cashier to Mr. Peter Robinson, said it was
the prisoner's duty to hand over all monies he received to
him. He had never accounted to him for the sum in ques-
tion, and said that, not having change for a £lO note, he
had not been paid. The signature to the receipt produced
was in the prisoner's handwriting. The prisoner had been
in the employ of the firm for two years.
Prisoner was remanded for a week, but will be committed
for trial.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Peers present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth
Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingston and other peers.
APPEAL.—MAXIVELL (PAUPER) V. IeCLURE.
_ _

The further hearing of this appeal was resumed this
morning.

Mr, Adams was heard for the appellant.
The Attorney-General (Sir Richard Bethell, Q.C.) was
heard for the respondent.
Mr. Anderson, Q.C., followed on the same side.

The contention was whether Samuel 111‘Clure, late cf
Wigan and Dumfries, was at the time of his wife's death a
domiciled Englishman or Scotchman.

I The Court of Session, on the 18th of December, 1857,
held that he was domiciled in Wigan.
Mr. Mundel was heard in reply. The learned counsel
submitted that the evidence showed that Mr. M'Clure
changed his residence from Wigan to Dumfries, and that
his domicile was Scotch, and that his wife's (Ann Donald-
son's) personal estate, which was considerable, should be
distributed according to the law of Scotland, and not the
law of England.

The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the decision of
the Court of Session ought to be affirmed. It was clear that
on the Bth of April, 1851, Mr. M'Clure's residence was in
Wigan, England, and that although he went to live at
'Laurel Mount, Dumfries, he did not intend to abandon his
English residence. The Lord Chancellor dismissed the
appeal without costs in respect the appellant was suing in
forma pauperis.

The other noble and learned lords entirely concurred

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL.

THE REV. ALFRED POOLE V. THE BISHOP OF LONDON.

This morning the Judges of the Privy Council consisted
of Lord Chelmsford, Sir John Coleridge, Lord Justice
Knight Bruce, and Lord Justice Turner, who sat in the
Council Chamber, Whitehall, for the purpose of hearing the
appeal of the Rev. Alfred Poole, whose licence as curate of
St. Barnabas was some time since suspended by the Bishop
of London, and the decision afterwards confirmed on appeal
to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Dr. Phillimore, in opening the case for the appellant,
said this was an appeal on behalf of the Rev. Alfred Poole
against the decision of the Archbishop of Canterbury con-
firming the revocation of his licence. The Bishop of Lon-
don revoked Mr. Poole's licence on account of some alle-
gations that were made against him, under the
98th section of the act applying to such cases.
Upon this decision Mr. Poole appealed to the Arch.
bishop of Canterbury, who conceived that by merely
looking into the case he was complying with the terms of
the act, and confirmed the bishop's decision. Mr. Poole
urged that this was not a hearing, as provided by the
eleventh section of the act, and requested that he might be
heard in due form, and a decision duly pronounced. The
archbishop refused to accede to this request, and
Mr. Poole found it necessary to appeal to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus. This
was granted, and the archbishop held a Court at
Lambeth Palace, when the Dean of Arches (Dr. Lushing-
ton) pronounced the judgment of the Court, and the Arch-
bishop officially added these words—" With the able asssist-
ance of my learned assessor I have given the merits and
circumstances of this appeal. my most serious and careful
consideration. I am of opinion that the proved and
admttted allegations alleged in the language of the
statute are good and reasonable causes for the revoca-
tion of the license and that the Lord Bishop of London
has exercised a sound discretion in revoking the same ; and
I am further of opinion that the course pursued by the
appellant is not in accordance with the rubric or the doc-
trines of the Church of England, big most dangerous and
likely to produce most serious mischief to the cause of
morality and religion." The question to-day before the court
was whether, against the sentence so delivered, there did not
lie an appeal to the Crown. It was a matter of the greatest
importance, as the revocation of the licence by the Bishop of
London tended to prevent him from obtaining preferment
in any other diocese ; and tho question so deeply affected
the 6,000 or 7,000 clergymen who were connected with the
Church, He (Dr. Phillimore) had, in connection with this
matter, to submit these propositions : —lst. That proceed-
ings before the Archbishop of Canterbury were proceedings
before the Ecclesiastical Court. 2d. That from every Eccle-
siastical Court there lay an appeal. 3d. That it was the
duty of the Crown to allow parties facilities for prosecuting
that appeal.
Judgment has not yet been delivered.

PROM THE GAZE7TE OF LAST NIGHT