The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-13 00:00:00

LA W IN TE LLI GE v CE—Jan. 12.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Mr. Aspland moved for a rule to show cause why the
plaintiff, who had obtained judgment against the Royal
British Bank, and which judgment remained unsatisfied,
should not be allowed to issue execution against the
goods of an individual shareholder named Goddard.
Goddard was one of the sharetiol .crs of the bank who
alleged he had been defrauded, but it was not alleged
that the plaintiff was any party to the fraud. The sum
of 125/. had been paid into court by the defendant, and
Part of the learned counsel's app :cation was that the
plaintiff should be allowed to take that sum out of court.
Mr. Justice Coleridge said he believed a point of the
same kind had been made elsewhere.
_ _

Mr. A-palid said the point either had been or would
be raieed in several places.
The Court granted a rule nisi.
THE QUEEN V. MARIA. CLARK-IN RE ALICIA RACE.
In this ca-e a writ of habeas corpus had issued, di.
rected to Maria Clark, the matron of the Sailor's Orphan
Girls' Scnool at Hampstead, to bring up the body of a
girt named Alia% Race, with a view to her being deli-
vered up to her mother, of the same name. It is under-
stood the appllcant is a Roman Catholic, and objects to
her chile. receiving a 13, otestant education.
Mr. Sergeant Shee (with whom was Mr. Finlason)
stated the nature of the application.
Lard Campbell inquired if the child was in court ?
Mr. Serjeant Shee said sae was, and he was instructed
lo move that she be delivered up to her mother.
Air. O'Malley, Q.C. (*nil whom was Mr. Lash), said
he_ wa instructt d to slow

Lord Campoell :said be thought the law applicable to
the tae wai wry clear, and as decided a mburt time
before he (Lord Campbell) left the bar, in a case in
which he him-elf was counsel.

Mr. O'Malley said the arguments must occupy some
time, and as it was now late he hoped the case might
stand over till another day. He wished, however, to
slate that the matter had a.ready been before a judge at
chambers (Mr. Justice Crompion), but the nitric, of the
case had .ot ottla eta I gone into. Nevertheless, toe case
ti ad been rep. rted in the neNsp.,p,rs, and one of them
had had a leading ari.icie foui,cled on a report of what had
not token place. He wishe ito say that the statement
was evtiroly ex parte, and there was not one word of
truth in the report ; for the facts of the case were not
stated before the learned judge at chambers. It was a
mere atte:npt to influence opinion.
Lord Campbell ,aid it would not influence the opinion
of this C.,urt, though such publications were always to
be regretted.

Sergeant Shee said he had not heard of the report
before he was informed of it by his learned friend (Mr.
O'Malley).

Hr. Buvill said he appeared on the part of the Royal
Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, who had placed
the child in the asylum, where she now was, and he
-rusted that all public discussion of the question would
be stopped until after it had been discussed in this court
and uecided.

Lord Campbell said it was to be lamented when dis-
cussions in public journals took place on questions about
to be adjudica,ed upon in this coart.
Some conversation then took place as to when the case
could be heard ; and it was suggested chat it might be
taken on Saturday after the Crown paper.
Lord Campbell said, as it was acase in which the liberty
of the subject was concerned, it might be taken on
Saturday, at the sitting of the Court.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Holroyd.)
IN RE THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS.
The assignees under this bankruptcy have commenced
to put in force the powers of this eourt as against the
shareholders. This morning a number of them Were
summoned to appear before the commissioner, in
order to asdrtain whether they admitted their Ha-
This is a necessary preliminary to suing the
shareholders. The following is a list of the parties
summoned, with the amounts which they have been called
upon to pay under the directors' C3l; of 501. per share :
Mr. William Burchett, of 29, Cheapside, 1,0001. ; Mr.
Thornal Clarke, of 30, Chancery-lane, 5001. ; Mr. Ben-
jamin Dixie, of Pelican House, Peckham-road, Surrey,
500/. ; Mr. Alfred Dorey, of Hungerford-market, 500/. ;
Mr. Edmund Goddard, of 103, London Wall, 1,800/. ;
Mr. John
4501. Thomas King, of Queen-street, Cheapside,
; Mr. A. J. Mayer, of No. 8, Asbly-crescent, City-
road, 1,000/. ; Mr. Richard Michell, of 93, Oxford-street,
1,8501. ; Mr. Goorge Ragsdale, of the Strand, 600/. ;
Mr. Andrew &ewart, , ot Sidney-square, Commercial-
road, 1,2001. ; Mr. Robert Edwin Williams. of Lower
Mr. James Brand, builder, of
Thames-street, 3001. ;
Bromley, 2,500/. ; Mr. John Arundel, of Gutter-lane,
Cheapsede, 5001. ; Mr. William Barnett, of the National
Debt Office, Old Jewry, 8001. ; Mr. Henry Bosch; ot 11,
Hanover-street, Hanover-square, army tailor, 5001.; Mr.
Thomas Martin, 9, Hamilton-place, Brixton-road, 1501;
Mr. Thomas Matthews, 73, High-street, Camden-town,
5001. Mr. Frederick Valiant, of 7, Perubridge-place,
Bayswater, 1,000/. ; Mr. W. H. Boulton, of Quadrant-
road, Lower-ioad, Islington, 750/. ; Mr. Thomas
Dunn, of St. Peter's-road, Mile-end, 1001. ; Mr. Ctas.
Lee, of Alpha-cottage, Canonbury, 2501.; Mr. Adolphus
Schermann, ot George:street, Minor ies, 5001.; Mr. Th os.
Cnester Mills, of Carnden-mAtages, Caniden•town, 3001.
• Mr, Bagley and Mr.- H. Linklater appeared in sup-

THE QUEEN V. SIR J. DODSON (JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
THE ARCHBISHOP OF THE PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY).
Mr. H. Hill, Q C. (with whom was Mr. Coleridge)
moved for a rule calling upon the judge of the Court of
the Archbishop of the province ot Canterbury to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding
him to admit a libel and appeal from the archbishop, the
appeal being tr, m the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting
in the diocese of Bath and Wells as statutory substitute
for that bishop. The question turned entirely on the
construction of the Act for Better Enforcing Church
Discipline (the 3d and 4th of Victoria, chap. 86), and
did not involve any question as to the merits of the
case. The quesion simply was, whether a., appeal
was given by the statute to toe court of the arch-
bish p, for if sda there was a legal right involved,
and a mandamus ougfa to issue. The learned c.on-
sal said it wa, important to hear in mind the state of
the proceedings which bad been instituted against the
Rev. Mr. Denison, the Archbishop of Taunton. A com-
mission bad been issued ty the Archbishop of Canter.
bury, directed to five persons, under the third section of
the Church Discipline Act, two of whom were rural
deans in the case of Bata and Wells. In the month of
January, 1855, they reported that there were sufficient
prima facie grounds for instituting proceedings against
the archdeacon. Upon that report the Rev. Mr. Dit-
cher, the party complaining, caused articles to be tiled
against the archdeacon, under the 7th section, and he
then called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to take
such proper steps as the act required, in order that the
case again-t the archdeacon might be heard. The arch-
bishop, conceiving that he had a discretion to exercise in
the matter, decAned to take such steps • and in conse-
quence an application was made to this dourt for a man-
damus to compel him, and eventually the judgment of
this Court was pronounced in Easter Term,lBs6,award-
ing a peremptory mandamus. The next step was most
important to be noticed. Oa the sth of May, 1856, the
archbishop cited the archdeacon to appear before him
in Doctors'-commons on the 27th of May, to answer the
articles exhibited against him by the Rev. Mr. Ditcher.
The archbishop was then ruled by Mr. Ditcher to return
the writ, and the archbishop returned that he had cited
the archdeacon to appear in Doctors'-commons. A. mo-
tion was then made to this Court to quash the return,
on the ground that the archbishop was only acting in
the place of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was
the patron of the preferment held by the archdeacon,
and that the case ought therefore to be heard in the dio-
ease of Bath and Wets.
Lord Campbell—The archbishop was acting as the
judge of a diocesan and not of a provincial court.
air. Hill—On that ground the Court of Queen's Bench
quashed the return. The archdeacon attended according
to the summons in Doctors'-commons, when he re-
ceived notice from the archbishop of what had taken
place the day before in this court. The archbishop then
gave notice to the archdeacon to appear before him (the
archbishop) and his assessors. The 11th section of the
act pointed out who those assessors were to be. They
were to be three in number, and appointed by the bishop
(or in this case oy the archbishop) ; and one was to be
an advocate who had practised not less than five years
in toe court of the archbishop of the province, or ser-
geant at law, or a barrister of not less than seven years'
standing ; and another was to be the dean of his cathe-
dral church, or of one of his cathedral churches, or of
one of his archdeacons, or his cbanceilor. In this
case the archbishop appointed the Jit ige of the Admi-
ralty Court (Dr. Lushington), the Dean of the Cathedral
Cnurch of Wells, and the Professor of Divinity at Ox-
ford, to act as his assessors. The case was heard before
them, and finally sentence of deprivation was pronounced
against the archdeacon upon the charge of impugning
certain doctrines of the Cuurch of England, contrary
to the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, chap. 12. The
sentence of deprivation was made imperative by the
statute, there being no discretion allowed in the matter.
An appeal was tnen made to the court of appeal o: the
province, but it was there argued that no appeal
lay to that court ; and Sir John Dod,on, the
judge, being of that opinion, he declined to receive the
libel, or to hear the appeal. The learned counsel stated
that the question now was, whether the learned judge
was right in refusing to hear the appeal, and proceeded
to contend, upon an examination ot the several sections
of the act of Parliament, that the learned judge had mis-
taken the law upon that point, and that this Court
would set him right by grafting the writ of mandamus.
The substance ot the learned gentleman's argument was
that the appeal now sought to be enforced was not an
appeal !rum the archbishop to his own judge (Sir John
Dodson), but from the archbishop sitting in the stead of
the Bishop of Bath and Wells to tki court of the arch-
bishop, in which Sir John Dodson ac ed as judge. When
acting as diocesan in his own diocese the archbishop was
in the habit of sending cases by letters of request to the
judge of his own court, and according to the form of let-
ters of request long in use they were addressed, not to
the archbishop, but to the judge of his court.
Loru Campbell—The appeal is notab eodemab sunder/4
Mr. Hill—The 16th section threw great light on the
subject, for it enacted, among other things, that any
archbishop who had sent any case by letters of request
to the c,.•ult of appeadotntne province shouid not sit as a
member of the Judicial Committee on an appeal in that
case. The learned counsel concluded by saying that the
question was of the highest importance to Archdeacon
Denison as well as to the public in general, and the more
so because it had been argued before Sir John Dodson
that no appeal at all lay in this case.
Lord Campbell said the learned counsel was entitled
to a rule to show cause.
Rule nisi granted.
HENDERSON V. THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.