The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. CHURCHWARDENS OF MANCHESTER.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL applied for a rule to show
cause why a mandamus should not issue directed to the
churchwardens of Manchester commanding them to give
notice and call a meeting for the election of church
wardens and siscmen of the parish of Manchester. At
Easter, 1849, certain gentlemen were appointed church-
warilens and rise men of the parish of Manchester, and
previous to the termination of their legal year of office
in the present year they gave notice icr a meeting to
appoint their successors. This proceed;ng was adopted
under the 15th Geo. 111., c. 69, commonly called " Stur-
ges Bourne's Act," which provided that in case there
should be an opposition the matter was to I:c4 decided by
a poll, if either party should demand one. At the meet-
ing in question a Mr. Willis was called to the chair,
and two distinct sets of churchwardens were prop96ed,
one of whom was declared, upon a show of
hands, to be elected. A poll was demanded, but Mr.
Willis, entertaining the opinion that a party having a
right to double votes, as some had under the Act, was
contrary to common sense and justice, refused to appoint
one. The result was that the defeated party held a poll
themselves, and elected their nominees, and now there
were two sets of churchwardens having a legal claim to
the office.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE asked if there was any pro•
cedent for the application.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the affirmative.
There was the case of the Queen v. the Rector of Bir
mingham, where precisely the same difficulty arose.
Rule granted.

ARCHES COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FIT ST, Knight.)
GORHAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

This day having been fixed for the hearing of any ob-
jections to the monition issued out of this court, directed
to the Bishop of Exeter, calling upon him to send in the
letters of institution to the vicarage of Bamptord Speke,
in order that Mr. Gorham might be inducted, a large
number of clergy and laymen attended in the hops of
hearing the final decision on this celebrated case.

Shortly after the Learned Judge tock his scat thil
morning,
Mr. BOWDLER (of the firm of Bawdier and Bathurst,
proctors for the Rev. Mr. Gorham) addressing the Court,
said—Sir, Mr. Teller', who is the representative of the
Bishop of Exeter, is present, but I understand that he is
not prepared to do anything in the matter. I hove,
therefore, that the Court will—

The JUDGE—I can't compel Mr. Tollen to say any-
thing.
Mr. BOWDLER—I am aware of that, Sir, but I
thought, perhsps, the Court would inquire of Mr. Tollen.
The JUDGE—The monition has been personally ac rued,
has it not? Mr. BOWDLER—IL has, Sir.
The JUDGE—And no return has been made? Mr.
BowDLER—No, Sir.
The JUDGE—WeII, then, you have the matter in
your own hands. You must move the Court in the
proper way by affidavit. Mr. BOWDLER—Yes,
Sir, I am aware of that, but I thought
perhaps if yca were to ask Mr. Tonal we should know
what he intended to do.
The JUDGE—I can't ask Mr. Tollen. Mr. Tollen is
perfectly at liberty to make any statement if he feels
disposed to do so. but the Coon cannot force him V)
speak. You can give notice of your intention to move
in the matter, and compel the Bishop of Exeter to
answer the monition. That is your proper courbe.
Mr. BOWDLER—WeII, Sir, I have no alternative, and I
now give notice that I stall at once take the necessary
proceedings for compelling the Bishop of Exeter to
answer the monition.

The JUDGE—Very well, let that be done.
Dr. ADDAMa here rose, and addressing the Judge, said
—I can assure you, Sir, that there is net the slightest
intention on the Fart of the Bishop of Exeter to resist
this matter, but he has particular reasons at present why
he Las not answered the monition. I mean there is no
idea on the part of the Bishop to resist the monition, but
there are 'very urgent reasons why be does not comply
at present.
Here the matter dropfed.