The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-02 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Lush.)

MARTIN V. MACONOCHIE-THE ST. ALBANS RITUAL

CASE.

Mr. James, Q.C., said he had to move the Court
to grant a rule to show cause why a prohibition
should not be accorded to stay further proceedings
which had been instituted in the case in the Court
of Appeal in the diocese of Canterbury. A charge
had been made by the Bishop of London
against the Reverend Mr. Maconochie that
he had offended against the Church Discipline
Act, and that charge had been referred to the Court
of Arches for trial. lie contended that there had
been no infringement of the Act in question,
and also that the court as appointed was
not competent to try the matter, and the
present proceeding, was to test whether it was so
or not.

The Lord Chief Justice said it appeared to him
that the charge preferred against Mr. Maconochie
was, in fact, for contradicting the directions of the
Book of Common Prayer.
Mr. James said that was so, but according to his
view of the case nothing of the kind had ever been
done.

The arguments were not concluded when the
Court rose. .

The proceedings in the Courts of Exchequer and
Common Pleas were confined to motions, all of
which were devoid of public interest.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)

THE JOURNEYMEN AND TUE MASTER PRINTERS.

This was an action to recover a fortnight's wage'
in lieu of notice, plaintiff being a compositor, and
defendant a master printer.
Mr. Beswick, attorney to the Society of Com-
positors, appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Taylor
representing defendant, who carries on business at
22k, Bartholomew Close.
It appeared that the present dispute was con-
sidered to be of considerable importance between
the compositors and the masters in reference to the
law of notice as regarded men engaged upon the
job. The plaintiff had been engaged by the defen-
dant's overseer upon a certain job, and when this
job was finished ho was not discharged, but kept
on, and then summarily dismissed. On the part of
the plaintiff it was urged that a job hand, if he
worked for a fortnight and was not discharged at
the end of that time, was entitled to the notice
customary to the trade. In the present case he had
worked for three weeks. For the defence it was
urged that a job was a job, and that plaintiff having
been only en gaged as a job hand was not entitled
to notice.

Defendant's overseer said that he engaged plain-
tiff for a job, and continued his services after that
job was finished.
ILis Honour ruled that the plaintiff was entitled
to recover. If a man was engaged for a job he
made a special contract which was terminated at
the conclusion of that job. If that job only lasted
an hour, and he was continued upon other work,
he was then entitled to the usual notice, coming
within the rules. Here the plaintiff had been
continued for a second job without a second en-
gagement, and he was entitled to the ordinary
notice.
Verdict for the plaintiff, with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

CHARGE OF FURIOUS DRIVING AND ASSAULT.—
Mr. Patrick Bellew, of Ilford, Essex, was charged,
before Mr. Knox, with being drunk, furious driving,
and assaulting William Sydney Utting, a City
driver, badge 15,998, by cutting him across the
face with his whip.

The prisoner was fined £5, or a month, for the
assault; and 405., or a month, for the furious
driving.

WESTMINSTER.

EXTENSIVE RORBERIES OF COAL FROM BARGES.
--Henry Calcott, aged 20, was charged with being
unlawfully possessed of 281bs. of coals, and not
giving a satisfactory account of the same. He was
sentenced to one month's hard labour.