The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-23 00:00:00

DENISON

AIIC,dES COI:RV—THIS DAY.
DENISON V. DITCH ..R.

Sir John Dption this morning gave hi decision upon
the point raked by Dr. Pnillituore. It will be recol-
lected t.at in the court bel9cv the learned advocate

tendered a protest against the repor,p of the commission
that hal sat at Cleveland in this case, which document
contained five pleas, of which the following is the sub-
stance That the proceedings of the commi•,sionsrs
were null and void by reason of the rejection of
a plea tendered before them, and called recusatio ju-
dicuns. 2. That the commissioners had refused

to hear the defendant either by himself or by
his agent upon the subject on which he stood
charged. 3. Because the requisitions of the statute
with respect to the filing of the depositions, proceedings,
and report of the commissioners had not been complied
with, the documents baying been filed in the diocese of
London instead of in the diocese of Bath and Wells.
4. That the archbishop having summoned the de-
fendant to appear before him at Doctors'-commons, the
archdeacon duly attended ; and, as no charges had
been proceeded with against him, he was en'itled to be
dismissed. 5. That more than two years bad elapsed
between the alleged commission of the last offence
charged, and the day on which the archdeacon
was cited to appear before the archbishop at Bath.
The fifth point was the one most relied or, as upon the
validity of which the whole case rested, and according
to an arrangement it was decided that the learned judge
should give his decision on the subject before the argu-
ments were folly gone into. The learned judge, in his
opening remarks, said this was an appeal from the des
cision of the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting at Bath
as pro-diocesan in the matter of certain articles adminis-
tered at the instance of the Rev. Joseph Ditcher, vicar
of South Brent, in the county of Somerset, to the
Venerable George Anthony Denison, vicar of East
Brent, and Archdeacon of Taunton. The proceed-
ings had been instituted under the 13th of Eiizsbetht
intituled " An Act for the Ministers of the Church to
he of Sound Religion," under the provisions of which
the latter gentleman bad been sentenced to deprivation
of all his ecclesiastical promotions for an alleged infrac-
tion of the 28th and 29th Articles. The point which
he was called upon to, decide was whether the suit or
proceeding, or whatever it might be called, was com-
menced within the terms of the Act 3 and 4 Vic., chap.
86, known as the Church Discipline Act. On one side
it was contended that the commencement of the proceed-
ii,gs should date from the service of the citation to ap-
pear, while on the other side it was contended that the
whole proceedings, according to the terms of the pro-
test, were null and;void in consequence of more than two
years having elapsed between the alleged commission
of the offence, and the citation to appear before the
archbishop, at Bath. Having alluded to the date of the
opening of the commission, and the service of the cita-
tion to appear at Bath, the learned judge said that cer-
tainly could not be looked upon as the commencement
of the proceedings, as the commission had no power to
punish. The articles were merely filed against the-
party. He was not called upon to appear before any
judge ; he need not take any notice of the proceedings
unless he choose to do so, and, therefore, such proceed.
ings could not be binding upon him. The learned judge
next proceeded to read a number of cases that bad been
decided by, his predecessor, Sir Herbert Jenner
Fust, all of which bore upon the point in qaes-
tion, namely, whether the 2Nli section of the
Church Discipline Act had been complied with.
Under all the circumstances, and looking to the cases
he had just read, be thought the present proceedings
were not in accordance with the act, and unless any
error had been committed, or any decision of a superior
court could be produced, be did not think be was at
liberty to depart from the doctrine of the court. He
therefore came to the conclusion that more than two
years bad elapsed since the commission of the alleged
offence, and therefore be dismissed the appeal.
Dr. Phil imore (counsel for Archdeacon Denison) ap-
plied for costs.

Sir J. Dodson said he would make no order as to the
costs in the case.

Dr. Bathurst, on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Ditcher, gave
notice of appeal.

The case will therefore now have to be submitted to
;he Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE TPEE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.—RE GREIG.— TENDER
OF PROOF oN THE PART OF THE OFFICIAL MANAGER,
AND DITTO ON THE PART OF THE ASSIGNEES OF THE

BANI IN THE SAME CASE.
This bankrupt, Greig, was described as of Bartlett's-
buildings, Holborn, cabinet maker, and his bankruptcy
was occasioned', in consequence of the'calls made upon
him as one of the shareholders of the Royal British Bank.
Mr. Lewis appeared for Mr. R. P. Harding, the
official manager under the Winding-up Act, to prove in
respect of the shares. The affidavit set forth in form
that it had been " settled" that the bankrupt was a
contributor.

His Honour thought the word "settled" could hardly
be admitted in any proceedings in this case at present.
Mr. Lewis said it was according to farm.

His Honour—Then we will take it as a matter of form,
but it is sworn to. (A. laugh—not a very usual expres-
sion of feeling in this cape.)
His Honour sail he would take the proof in the form.
Mr. Lin Hater then said his proof was for the calls
made by the directlrs on the shares.

Mr. West, for the assignees of Greig, said that he
should oppose on the ground that the new shares had
been issued in fraud.

Mr. Linklater said that he should contest that point
Loch by inch.

His Honour said he thought that point had been
settled.

Mr. Aspinall—As much as most of these matters have
been settled it is left for argument elsewhere.
After some conversation, it being htatod that the first
case would occupy several hours, it vns arranged that
the claim of the assignees should be adjourned.
His Honour said that be would appoint an early day,
so that the judgments in both cases might follow on the
appeals, which it was understood would be made in
order to obtain a final decision.