The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-31 00:00:00

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

Lord Campbell left the Court idiaalf past two
o'clock, in order to attend in the Court of Criminal
Appeal. His lordship gave notice that on Monday
(this day) Mr. Justice Eric -would sit in the Bad
Court and take motions, Monday being the last day
of Hilary Term.

THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE REV.
ALFRED POOLE V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-

BURT-JUDGMENT.

In Michaelmas term Mr. Bovill obtained, on the
part of the Rev. Alfred Poole, a rule calling upon
his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue command-
ing him to make or cause to be made, an inquiry
into the matter of the appeal of Mr. Poole, accord-
ing to the provisions of the statute Ist and 2d Vic.,
cap. 106, and to hear the said appeal, and to decide
upon the merits thereof.
The Attorney-General, Dr. Twiss, and Mr. Sum-
ner appeared on the part of the Archbishop of
Canterbury; Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Dr. Phillimore, and
Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the Rev. A. Poole.
The Attorney-General having shown cause
against the rule,
Lord Campbell, after conferring with the other
learned judges, said----We think the mandamus
must go, and that there shall be a hearing. All we
have to consider is, whether there has been a hear-
iig. There has, in my opinion, been no hearing,
and therefore the rule must be made absolute, so
that the Rev. A. Poole might have a hearing. I
give no opinion as to the form in which that hear-
ing should be. The archbishop, I have no doubt,
will have most excellent advice, and have no doubt
now the hearing will be satisfactory, and that
justice will amply be done to all parties. The rule
must be made absolute.
The other learned judges concurred.

BAIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Erie.)
TYACK V. DANIELL.

Mr. F. Russell moved for a rule nisi on the part
of Mr. Daniell, the defendant in a plaint originally
entered in the County Court of Redruth, to set
aside an award by arbitrators to whom the matter
was referred. The learned counsel based his appli-
cation on three grounds—first, that the arbitrators,
after one of them had promised Mr. Daniell's attor-
ney not to proceed on a certain day when he could
not attend, had heard Mr. Tyack and his witnesses
ex parte; secondly, that at a subsequent meeting,
on the 23d Dec., Mr. Daniell applied for an ad-
journment to enable him to call two witnesses—
Mr. Pryor and Mr. Downing, whom he believed
would contradict Mr. Tyack in certain statements
which were not true, and had come upon Mr.
Daniell by surprise, and that the arbitrators pzo-
ceeded to make their award on the next day, with-
out hearing those witnesses; and, thirdly, that the
award was not final, as it did not notice Mr.
Daniell's claim of set-off in respect of some shares
in a mine which Mr. Tyack was bound, but had
failed to deliver.

Justice Erle—You may have your rule at
your peril.
Rule nisi granted.
Two or three other motions having been disposed

of, and a great number of attorneys sworn on ad-
mission, the Court rose at half-past 11 o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sittings in Banco, Hilary Term.)

GARTON V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this case Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., showed cause
against a rule for an injunction, under the Railway
and Canal Traffic Act, enjoining the defendants not
to charge the plaintifffor the collection and delivery
of goods from Bristol, the plaintiff, as a carrier,
doing that for himself. The learned counsel con-
tended that the carriers made great profits on
packed parcels, and had, in fact, eight parcels out
of twelve carried for them for nothing as packed.
parcels. The charge made was for the carriage of
goods from terminus to terminus, and no charge was
made for the collection or delivery of the goods.
The Court, without calling on Mr. Collier to sup-
port a rule, said the rule must be made absolute.
It was a great pity that some of the facts stated
had not been brought before the Court in Baxen-
dale's case, which determined this.—Rule absolute.
THE RHYMNEY RAILIVFY COMPANY V. THE TAFF