The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-28 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

GRIFFITII4 V. LORD GEORGE LOFT US.-BILL TRANSAOTIONS.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 1001.,
dated. the 28th April, 1856, drawn by a person named
Milton, and accepted by the defendant. There was a plea
that Lord Goorge Loftus had handed the bill to Milton to
get discounted, but that he had parted with it improperly,
and that the plaintiff had taken the bill with notice and
without value.

Mr. James said that he appeared for Lord George Loftus,
who had never received a farthing for this bill. He had
given it to Milton to get discounted, and to hand over the
proceeds to him, but instead of doing so, Milton handed
the bill to the plaintiff, who was an:attorney, with distinct
knowledge of the circumstances. Lord George Loftus
being in want of some money gave this bill and another
one to Milton, who signed this memorandum ;—" I hereby
acknowledge to have received two promissory notes, one
for 1501. at three months, and the other for 100/. of the
same date, for the purpo-e of discounting ; and I hereby
undertake to return those two notes, or the money, less
discount, within a week from this date." The bills were
never returned, nor a farthing of money handed over and
it was subsequently found that the 1001. bill had got into
the hands of Mr. Griffiths, the plaintiff. It would be for
the plaintiff to show that he gave value for the bill.
Mr. Griffiths--I am the plaintiff. lam an attorney
in Philipot-lane. I never was a prisoner in the Queen's
Bench Prison. I know Milton, and have been profes-
sionally concerned for him on two occa-ions. In the
course of last year Milton owed me certainly 351., and
I think also 241. 103. costs. lam not sure whether
the second bill was then matured. This bill for 241. 10s,
was brought by Barret, the endorser, to me. As Mil.
ton was indebted to me for costs I discounted it, de-
ducting my costs and the interest. It was not paid, but
was returned, and a 301. bill given for it and some costs.
The '3Ol. bill is dated January, 1856. This bill was
dishonoured when it became due in April, 1856. I sued
hint upon another bill for 351., due in April, 1856, and
recovered judgment for 411. Os. Bd. That with the 30E.
Lill would make 711. 6s. 8d , but I only claim 681. 10s.
On the Bth May I had arrested him, and he wa; in
Whitecroes-street. Afterwards Mrs. Milton called at
my office, and produced the bill now sued on, and of-
fered it to sue if I would procure his discharge. I noticed
the bill was drawn on Lord George Loftus. I objected,
knowing that there was no such person, except by cour-
tesy. I knew there was Lord George Loftus, the infant
son of the Marquis of Ely, and I said if it is his it is worth
nothing,
explained that it was the marquis's
ritbhpaeroapfomosr Sheo numbersaid thoaft
years,L ord
aGeorgerelieve had known
hm
fromher
his difficulties had given *nim this acceptance. I in.
struoted -
thu oit
street,
takeohts the
dnd ye d
t clerkogivtoe
me
eak2es tthoensnoefcselsastaer,y andinquiries.l
consented She
aon ocean :tc he
r gbillt
andahseell
e asked
the
ef orderl wouldf or the silvaet ,un andlo giveoro
billA fatuerowda,rudds Ithmeesgtl
slates,
Milton
whichin Flledeeti
dined. The best offer I have. had for the s'lates is a bill
due. I did not see ha month before the bill became
to him asking him to
at three months for 10/,
answer.
first
intimation on th that obcacdas'n e intimated my office more than
mea.olir
algsali.n, Lord George called at
him. I directed my clerk to write
right to part with the lo
the bill had been improperly
that Lord Georgmated that
but I never had any
The jury gave a verdict
alullioauduttakoelattitutheed.bidllB.l.
10e3 ofobit.ained. That was the
bill..ThatMilton had
was
fi
vneotweackpseraffetecrt
the plaintiff for tb

COURT 9F EXCHEQUER
JAMES V. SMITII. Nov, 27.
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged
libel.
It
tiredappea that the plaintiff who had been for seve-
ral years ido,-, resided at the Hot Wells, Bristol,
and was in an invalid state, suffering severely from
chronic diseases. She had been attended for some years
by a medical man living at Bristol, who had also at-
tended her husband during his lifetime. Tho medical
man was in the habit of visiting Mrs. James as many as
three times every day. This circumstance gave rise to
some calumnious reports, which reached the ears of the
defendant, who is a clerk in the Great Western Railway
Company's offices at Bristol. Hearing that the plain-
tiff calied on the wife of a person who rented a house
of him, he wrote to the latter, stating that he would
not retain him as a tenant if be permitted such visite,
and at the same time described Mrs. James as a person

of most depraved chwacter. The letter constituted the
libel for which the prsent action was brought.
Mrs. James was examined, and denied most positively
that there was any innroper intimacy between her and
Dr. Waffle. He attenled her and her child merely as a
professional man. Hi bad not a key to her door. He
sometimes came in through the kitchen, and frequently
brought her meat and vegetables, for which she always
pail him. She and hir child drove out occasionally in
Dr. Wallis's carriage. She was possessed of some pro-
perty, on which she lived.
Dr. Wallis was examined—He said he had sometimes
remained As long as thee or four hours a day, on some
occasions, at the plaintiff's residence, who was suffering
from varicose legs and ether complaints. He had given
fireworks to the plaintirs boy. He would not swear
positively that people s%ere- not in the habit of calling
after
.him in the street in consequence of his visits to
Mrs. James. He bad never paid out of his own pocket
for the boy's schooling, although he had taken money
fr, ma the plaintiff to the schoolmaster. The neighbour-
ho ,d in which he lived abounded in defamations, and he
was aware that there was a report attributing to him the
paternity of the plaintiff's child.
The L'zd Chief Byron summed up, and the jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, with 40s. damages.

ARCHES' COURT..
(Before Sir John Dodson.)
DENISON V. DITCHER. .

The Admiralty Advocate moved the Court, on behalf
of the Archdeacon of Taunton, to admit the libel of ap-
peal given in this case. It was, he said, an appeal from
a court constituted under the 3d and 4th of Victoria,
chap. 86, commonly known as "An Act for better
Enforcing Church Discipline." By that statute a clerk
accused of offences:against the laws ecclesiastical could
only be proceeded agnitist-underits provisions. There
were ts o ways of proceeding, one by sending letters of
request from the diocesan of the clerk accused ; the other
by the diocesan sitting in person and proceeding to hear
the case. The latter mode bad never been put in force
previously to the trial of the Archdeacon of Taunton. It
so happened that the diocesan was patron of the pre-
ferment which the archdeacon held, and under the 24th
section it became necessary that the archbishop of the
province should act as the diocesan of Bath and Wells,
for the conduct of that trial. He did so, and it was not
necessary to trouble the Court now with any of the
proceeding;; which took place. On the 22d of October
last sentence of deprivation was passed, against which
the present appeal was brought, and it would now be
for his learned friends to state their objections to the

I.bel of appeal.
Dr. Bayford, in opposition to the libel, said that the
Admiralty Advocate had spoken of this as an appeal
from the. diocesan court, but he (Dr. Bayford) did not
fini the dio3asan court mentioned in the statute. The
archbishop sat in a suit to be tried ;before him in
the diocess within which the offence charged had
been committed. The court held at Bath was a court
without a name. There could not be a name given
to it unless the statute provided it. The court was
the creature of the statute, and whether there was an
appeal from it or not must depend on the statute ; and,
also, where the appeal, if any, was to be heard. The real
question which he was about to submit was whether
there could be an appeal to this Court or not. The libel
stated that the cruse was lately depending before the
Archbishop of Canterbury. If that was a true descrip.
tion, he must say that he thought the present official
principal of the Court of Arches was the first wbo ever
sat to entertain an appeal from the Archbishop of Can-
terbury. If there was any doubt upon the question, he
thought the Court would hesitate b fore it put itself in a
position of which no instance bad previously cccurred.
The Archbishop bad authority to do acts throughout the
province just as much as a bishop:in his diocess, and the
statute had called •his Grace into the diocese to do an act
which he had authority to do. He had done the act in
his own name, therefore it was not by the authority or
in the stead of the bishop. It was quite clear that his
learned friends could not appeal from the archbishop to
the bishop, nor could they appeal from the archbishop
to any judge who sat by his appointment. His Grace
had pronounced the sentence Which he had delivered, not
in the name of the bishop, but in his own name. Was
the statute to be interpreted contrary to every known
principle of law at present existing ? What, was an
appeal ? The degeition was given by Burns ; by Ayliffe,
in his Parergon, p. 71, and by Oughtun. It was in its
nature and its essence an appeal from an inferior to a
superior judge. The civil law gave an exactly similar
description of it ; but the appeal now instituted was
directly contrary to the very nature and definition of an
appeal. The appeal was accompanied by an inhibition,
and he presumed that the inhibition from the Arches'
C mrt was served on t' e Arc b'shop of Canterbury.
The 24th of Henry VIII., chapter 12, the first sta-
-4ute~l¢hinli appeal, was directly opposed

laid -dawn j nog. -
whole jurisdiction of a ina,ttr delegated to another judge
the particular trial Of a particular cause, an appeal would
lie from the decision of that judge to the judge who ap-
pointed him. The same principle was laid down by
Lynwood in his " Provincialis," liber 2, title 1, p. 89.
If there was an appeal from one judge to another, and
the two appointments were given to one person,
according to the dec:sion in "Bears and Biles v. Jacob'
(2 llagg. Ecc. Rep., 262), the appeal was extinguished.

The principle that an appeal would not lie from a com-
missary to a bishop was laid down in the canon law, aid
had been relied upon in very aucitzt times. Was there
anything in the statute tbat overrode the positions for
which he had contended ? By the act new courts were

ooustituted. The bishop was Co sit with certain assessors
and to try certain causes, or he might send them to the
Court of Arches. The archbishop was to try only in cer-
tain cases, the bishop in other cases. The archbishop was

not invested with the bishop's authority ; he had autho-
rity without taking any from the bishop. It might be

that when the archbishop sat there was to be no appeal,
or under general principles the appeal must be carried
to other courts. The appeal from the bishop under the

statute was to the archbishop personally, and not to the
Court of Arches. If that position was correct, the arch-
bishop did not sit as the locum tenons of the bishop.
The right of visiting the diocese appertained to the arch-
bishop, and, according to Burns, he then, for the time,
suspended the bishop's functions. There was a special
canon restraining the archbishop from doing so through-
out his dioceses, except at proper times. With all sub.
mission to, and profound respect for, the Court, he was
sure the Court would not desire to exercise jurisdiction
that did not appertain to it. He trusted the Court
would dismiss the libel.
Dr. SPIN KS followed on the same side.

l
judgment
hwn:ussusodtt Tuatoouggehwnnl
hssfeeAiaohhncdreetiti
vhddw:teal
of the
IA Lteittchtyhahiewtsi 7thacai vhheadoe:atayurtAntriobnteehrtidoodspofhtfroaaQhrotegidadheuidneueEmhedeo
eeenfsns
aad,cotswir,
the
dtdvßeet
:rohtesehaenhwraamci
getnrhh,udai
possessioncim.wdof
henaeh ns‘tehavthpo.shehtpwav
Whether
application,
dei
hwa however,
pointoheouf
heraenl ndearet,
d
Tathis
de Ceti;
exclusively
r had
uut
eivse dwl
yea
pup
tpp
oeanl
watatheye
terms
all
pprevious
e jurisdictionof
fiotuh
esaeedepended
gt
iosfl
ata Parliament
oo l
on
ttehl ye.
subject. According to the defining clause, sec. 2, the
word " bishop" was to be construed to comprehend
"archbishop," from which he contended that " bishop"
and "archbishop" were used synonymously. The act
was concerned with two matters ; one, the jurisdiction
of bishop and archbishop ; the other, the jurisdiction of
the appellate tribunals. From the 2d section to the be-
ginning of the 15th the word " archbishop" did not
occur. The report of the proceedings in this case was,
in the first instance, filed in the registry of the Arch-
bishop's Court, but by the directions of the Court of
Queen's Bench it was ordered to be registered in the
diocess of Bath and Wells. Tee proceedings had been
taken under the 11th section, and the chancellor selected
to sit as assessor Nag the chancellor of the diocese, and
not the Dean of the Arches, who would have been the
proper officer if the archbishop was sitting qua arch-
bishop,. and not qua bishop of the diocess ; the.deanse-
lected was the dean of the cathedral church of Wells,
not of Canterbury. The other assessors chosen threw no
light on the question. The sentence was in keeping with
the idea that the archbishop was acting as diocesan. The
preliminary commission was composed of beneficed clerks
resident in the diocese. All the proceedings, therefore,
had been carried on as if they were before the Biehop
of Bath and Wells. The reason why they were not
a a
actually carried on before him was because he was the
patron of the preferment. The archbishop , was to
be considered as the diocesan, and nothing more. His
learned friend seemed to have forgotten that every
archbishop had tWo characters—the
diocesan as well as the character of ail archbishop. The
statute had made a court of its own, in utter Contempt of
He(th
character
Admiralty
A dv a
cof t
e)
e
nc'abloYrr ina ct the whole proceed-
ings; of all that bed
aadlimcaitnteodnitchaal tParinticeipPplet lay fl'oM MI inferior to a superior
judge,i
ng s; a
nanddhteh
alsoer e way6citnak anomaly
ittei the
been urged oh the authority of turns) Aylifte, and Lyn-
wood: It was not his fault, but the fault of the 14egisla-
tore, that such an anomaly existed. The right of appeal
was given by the 15th section of the statute, but the
argtittieht of his leiikned ffietitl cunt to the extent that
there wets no appeal at all—that a cieegyttitue *as to be
oernive
Witholit the regtilat gradation of appeal. el c-
eording to the 15th section, *here the biihop had heard
a case the appeal was to lie to the Court of Arches, and
front it to the Judicial Committee. But it his leattled
friends argument, was cottect, the court at Bath and
Wells was a third court, and from it there was no ap-
peal. That wag A veteetly unnatural con,truction, and
The archbishop
hoantel nwolliicyhiee•evreray-li(jait)euvierWei ruQnlr:rintim in a' 'Y
court of appeal, and when it 7 i said that the appcat.
should lie to the archbishop it meant to the Lan;;, of the
Archbishop. Throughout the act letters of request and
an appeal went in the same channel. It letters of re-
quest would lie to the Arches' Court, there was an end
to all the anomalies to which his learned friend had
referred. It was clear, from the 16th clause, that the
could. not
courtlo
lt
ofar calipbpi sehaol po
fc otuhled
psreonvdin
clee.tt letters
Thef requestarch
d
sos
jet.
onic:
erlettersapps
iohnf
et re ed) 17:ithehos tu sectionl as s
haavrce
eh
ntb
ahi soeht
enacted
,m thatebu t
powerst
ha
es od oi oan .71ns:
longed to the Consistorial Court and the Cour' t of
Arches, thereby recognising the Court of Arches.,

the judgment delivered in the Clurt of Queen's Bench
on the 27th of May last, Mr. Justice Coleridge said that,
under the act, the archbishop was substituted for the
bishop ; he would not be acting ae archbishop of the
province, but pro hac vice as the bishop of the dio-
cess. lie did not rely on that decision, but it strong)•
confirmed the position that the whole statute clothed the
archbishop:with a diocesan character. The Court of
Queen's Bench said to the archbishop, "You must not
confound your character as archbishop out of the act
with your authority under the act." • •
Dr. Deane having been heard on the same, side,
The learned Judge said he would give his decision on
the next court day.