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

JUDGMENT-JOHNSON V. JOHNSON.

His Honour allowed the defendant his costs from the
date of his lodging a letter of disclaimer in this suit.

THE NEW JUDGE.

Mr. Baron Wilde was sworn this morning, and took his
seat on the bench, in place of the late Baron Watson, one
of the judges of the Court of Exchequer.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

,Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Wightman.)

ARBON AND ANOTHER V. HULL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant for the recovery of the value of a horse which had
bean killed by the negligence of the servant of the defen-
dant.

Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., was for the plaintiffs, and Mr•
Hawkins, Q.C., for the defendants. .

The learned counsel for the plaintiff having stated his
case, called a 'great number of witnesses, from
whose evidence it appeared that on the evening of
the 25th of November last a carriage and pair of
horses, the property of the plaintiff but let on hire to a lady
named Fussell, was proceeding slowly along Westown-
grove for some distance behind an omnibus. The coach-
man, intending to pass the omnibus, drew towards the
middle of the road, when a large van, driven by the ser-
vant of the defendant, came rapidly up and recklessly, as
was alleged, drove the shafts of the van into the breast of
one of the horses, valued at £lOO, which very shortly after
the accident died.

The case for the plaintiff having closed, Mr. Hawkins
called witnesses for the defendant, who gave it as their
opinion that the van driver was not in fault.
The case had not concluded when we went to press.

COURT OF EXCHEQUHR.

(Before Chief Baron Pollock and Barons Martin, Bram-
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 favour 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 that a
certain document had been admitted as evidence at the trial
which should have been rejected.
The Court refused the application.

THE RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES INST.

GEORGE'S-IN. THE-EAST.

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

TIER REV. BRYAN XINQ V. ROSIER.

This morning having been appointed by the learned
judge to deliver his judgment in this painfully notorious
case, Mr. Rosier, accompanied by several friends, appeared
in court to receive such judgment. _
It will be recollected that the case was heard before Dr.
Twiss on Tuesday, the 3d instant, when a great many wit-
nesses, including Capt. S. Hall, were examined. Mr. Rowley,
the schoolmaster, and Mr. Blatchford, positively swore
to the fact that on the 14th August, during the celebration
of the afternoon service, the Rev. W. P. Burn, the officiat-
ing curate, fell down in a fit, when Mr. Rosier exclaimed,
"Itis a judgment of God upon him 1 God has struck hit'
down I Down with Bryan King 1" On the part of Mr.

Rosier, he himself, as also a large number of parishioners,
were examined, who denied that it was Mr. Rosier who
uttered the words. The second charge preferred against Mr•
Rosier by the Rev. Bryan King was, that when the church
was re-opened on the 6th of November, he approached
Capt. Savage Hall, a member of the congregation but not a
parishioner, and exclaimed, " This thing calls himself &
captain. He is a disgrace to the army." It was also alleged
that he approached Mr. Blatchford, another member of the
congregation, saying, " This man means to swear I spat
upon him in Wellclose-square." Out of these transactions
proceedings took place at the Thames Police Court, which
were fully reported at the time.

Dr. Travers Twiss, in delivering his judgment, com-
menced by saying that the suit was instituted by the Rev.
Bryan King, the rector of St. George's-in-the-East, against
Mr. Rosier, a parishioner. Tho decree, which was served
on the 28th of January, cited Mr. Rosier to appear in that
Court to answer certain articles charging him with brawl-

ing, chiding, and quarrelling during and after the perform-
ance of Divine service, on Sunday, August the 14th, and
Sunday, November 6th. The proceedings were instituted
under the General Ecclesiastical Law, but the charges
were laid in the terms of the sth of Edward the 6th, cap. 4,
which enacted that in the case of any person who by
words or otherwise chided, brawled, or quarrelled, it
should be lawful for the ordinary of the place to suspend
him from entering the church, and of a clerk to suspend
him from the ministrations of his office. The same statute
went on to enact severe penalties upon those who smote or
laid their hands upon one anotherin any church or church'
yard. The immediate object of the act was to repress the
disturbances, which in the early period after the Refer'
mation were apt to break out amongst the most
ardent supporters of the Reformation, and the equally
zealous supporters of the Latin ritual. Since that
time it been made of wider application. At the
same time he must say that the jurisdiction exercised
by the ecclesiastical courts in this country did not depend
upon that statute, nor did the statute create the crime of
brawling charged in this case, inasmuch as the statute was
passed to aid in the punishment of, and by no means to create
the offence. Any disturbances (vide Hawkins in his Plea
of the Crown) in a church were visited with severity ration*
loci, which in other cases would probably pass altogether
unnoticed ; the object clearly was to protect the worship 4
the sanctuary from desecration, and to preserve the repose
of the dead. The evidence which had been adduced before
the Court imputed to Mr. Rosier that he brawled 11,
words ; and he was, moreover, charged of being guilty 0'
that offence on two occasions. When application was meat
to the Court by the Rev. Bryan King, the promoter of th°
suit, to permit the office of the judge to be promote&
(Dr. Twiss) required an affidavit to be put in by au ele,,
witness of the transactions. This was done, and a primafaw
case having been made, he allowed the office of the judge i 4),
be promoted. He would now proceed to consider wit
were the specific charges against Mr. Rosier. They were
of a twofold character, and Mr. Rosier had given in a nor
issue to both. In the first place, it was choir
-
against him that on the 14th August, at the 4 o'clock set-
vice, when the Rev. W. P. Burn, the officiating 011601
fell down in a fit, he exclaimed—" It is a judgment of ur.„
upon him—Down with Bryan King" or words to that vu°lla,
effect, and that he thus caused great disturbance in w
church, whereby the service was interrupted. TJPart
00
these points three witnesses had been called, ea
a parishioner, and two non-parishioners. (The lea d'
judge then went through their evidence, which has ale%,
been reported.) This evidence (ho said) if it stood aiusert
would go to show that two of the witnesses had note .41
Mr. Rosier until that date, and that neither of theal:uey
heard him say "Down with Bryan King," although 'tar
heard him use the other words. In his defence Mr. ROl4 of
called thirteen witnesses, the accuracy of one or o'7_
of
whom could not be relied upon, but the general Recurs
to
the witnesses called by Mr. Rosier he was fully preparr
admit. Into the details of that evidence ho would 1if,„,00
but he would state his general impressions founded 7
.tol. an examination of the general testimony—the result 01.
was that the Court did not think the charges against
';1
Rosier had been established. Di
With regard to the second charge, that of the _cites_
November, in which it is alleged Mr. Rosier aPPr7 If
Capt. Savage Hall, saying "This thing calls Win e esof
captain ; be is a disgrace to the army ; he is a greaged
swell ;" and other words, two witnesses had been
00
by the prosecutor, while Mr. Rosier had onlY
one (Mr. Tzone) who evidently did not speak to thud
transaction as that charged. Those words were w 07100
great aggravation, and calculated to produce itenlatthe
disturbance. The prayer of the prosecutor was thA so
Court should admonish Mr. Rosier. The Court 11,er.
difficulty in complying with that portion of the Ptr*7ooo
The Court was further prayed to condemn Mr•
art of
in the costs of the proceedings ; and in this 1)
the prayer it would be necessary for him °. It
a few words before pronouncing his decisions cat
had always been laid down in the Eccl°'-`,,,,cre'
Courts, that the cost of causes were in the tiott
tion of the Court. By that it was not ine7, thel
costs could be granted or withheld at discretion,t t tit'
were always within the discussion of the corm:.• the
same time costs might be mitigated, and dr_a •
practice of the Consistory and the Arches Court, tba
promoter had not proved all his case, to directthat..lloo
person be condemned to a certain sum, which he
$0
fix at £lO.
ity of c°
be gn'
admonished and condemned, and would
e Court.
tempt if he did not obey the order of th
Court to the nail;
Dr. Phillimore asked the judge to tell Mr. Ros.der be 1(11,
Mr. Rosier said—l appeal from this m
__e
us
prow
as an innocent man, and declare it is a all. l°
tion, and as a British subject Istate of great
*I.
Mr. Rosier and all the parties lefts in a IA
citeraent. justice.
demnd

No

quiet
Cent
41
gerii
Cent

Ti
Prep
toria

Ver,
to 1
San
Gra
tern

Cont

Itan]
3 a 1, e ,
lea'
m
Ann
I ith