The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-28 00:00:00

r E S L.) N, LO N I)1 N, WEDNESDA EVEN IN G, JANUARY 28 1857

SHARE MARKETS—(This Day.)

;", Y

,h,th.WAy,

Clngin,
yesterday.

,tusiness done
this day

Axrb3 NO 4;

. jUti
Pi.
Btrutim(. Wo blweJ
Stour Vall!y...
Birkeand. Laa,...6.1.. •
Juncl„.
JDo. actin. & Biro
do.
jßlackburn

4i

Si 9

65 - 67

L 1
25

all
all
all

£25

Bristoi ana Rzete

8i gi

%Jed/M.:Zia.

10,cHte- Ti•
rork an,l B nit
Cork, B;auk, & P 3
I(ll,rnwn'
Do. A
Do. B
Driblin&Bolfast.har,e
Dim. P. 4 Ai, Jne
iEast .

94
60A 61
35 37

Eastern

Be., B. Stock

New A.
East Kent

)
4
I.IC

East Suffolk
Do.
Erliubur,ll4,
Peelvef
iEdin. &Dune!
Forth 1¢ CiTie inn
Fnniess

01 1.1
18. 19,1
9 l!4
42 44
30 3?,

all
100
1.00

Glasgow & S. Westrn
!Great N. of Scotto,.
Great Norther:,

7 - 5
9:

I1(X.
100
1)0
IOC)

!Do. A. Stuck.,
li~U
I B Stuck.,

iGt.;tll.l/Wesir.:trA,
;Great it esters.....
1),,. Stour Val Ra
Gua. Stk

53 - 5.1

341 34i

' 93 - 95
7 - 8
92 93
76 78
1.23 125
ill 113
65 66

64 f 6

60#
6'

93 2i i

66 5i

65 70
5 fi
5 6
96 963

6i 7
112 113
106 106
201 213
10. E 10
I -
'lo6i 1074

111
106

1061 i

33i 344

20
Wit.
St.
t.

'lOO
5
1,10
1100
1.00

PREFBRENUIt SHAH

Blythandrilyne lOpei
c. pref. (issd..zt 501'
!iris. & Ex. 4 p. c. Si
Do. 4 p. c. Sharos
Calodn. £lO 4i p.c.
(11.1es.&iio.'114u. 5.t
Do. do. Pref. 5 per c.l
Cork &Bandonso.c.
Dua.Prth Aber. J
Z Anglian Cls. ASh
Do. do. Cls. B 6 p...
Do. do Cis. C 7 p. c.
Ess. Co. Ex, spcNc.
Do. No. 2

96 - 98

4?; - 5
5i - 64

119 -- 115

I ili)

12- - 121

Business
this day

98 6i

MERCANTILE LAW CONFERENCE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco.—Before Lord Campbell and Justices
Coleridge, Wightman, and Crompton.)
THE CASE OF ARCHDEACON DENISON.

Dr. Bayford showed cause why a maulamus should
not issue against Sir John Dodson, Dan of the Court
of Arches, t.a hear Archdeacon Denison's appeal from
what is now known as• the " Bath Judgment." The
learned gentleman said that in consequence of Sir F.
Kelly, who had to show cause, having met with an ac-
cident, he (Dr. Bayford) had to apply that the matter
should be postponed until to-morrow. _

Lord Campbell—Certainly not. He wag certain Dr.
Bayford could give the Curt every information on the
subject necessary. Divested of all tech?ii3alities, the
que.tion was, whether there was an ap?eal under the
Church Discipline Act.

Dr. Bayford then proceeded to explain the nature of
an appeal according to ecclesiastical law. C.msistently
with that law there could be no appeal from a superior
to an inferior judge. All the proceedings in this case
had been heard before the Archbishop of Canterbury
(the Bishop of the diocese of Bath and Wells being the
patron of the Archdeacon's preferments), at Bath, and
the final act of the proceedings at that place was the
Archbishop of Canterbury passing sentence of depriva-
tion on the Archdeacon of Taunton.

Lord Campbell—You must not assume that the
Archdeacon was sitting qua archbishop_
Dr. BAyford—l think the statute icfers that.
Lord Campbell—But that must be proved, and not
assumed.

Dr. Bayford proceeded to argue that whenever the
archbishop sat as judge in a court, he sat in his archi-
episcopal character, for it was impossible that he should
unclothe himself and assume the episcopal character.
No doubt such a case could be provided for by act of
Parliament ; but at present there was no such authority
by which he could so act. The archbishop could hold
his court anywhere in his diocese, atiil whether by statute,
custom, or by the authority of his office wherever be
held his court, it was to all intents and purposes
archbishop's court.