The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-27 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DIY.)
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, and Barons ALDER-
SON, ROLFE, and PLATT.)
BENGEREAU V. BRETT.
This ;vas an action on a foreign bill of exchange,
dra
..,,rzatilic,nd accepted in France, and made payable in
in which a verdict was found fur the plaintiff.
an application was made for a rule for a new trial on the
Fround that the bill was invalid according to the French
?w, by which, it was contended, it ought to be go-
.erned, but the Court intimated on Saturday last that it
mita,llo reason fur granting a rule, which was accordingly
refused.
LT he LORD CHIEF BARON, on taking his seat on the
rnch this morning, said the bill of exchange had since
beep
furnished to the Court, and it appeared that the ac-
derine° in point of form was general. The bill was
eetnA to the defendant at 2 Hatiover•squsre, London,
. virando seemed to be drawn by 'Christopher Blunt, of 37,
th burn-place, Bussell-square, so that on the face of
,rie, bill both the drawer and acceptor were Englishmen.
BntertealPai elPteyeeapr:.oahnni cctehl;
cot a he had said, was general, and did
the face of the bill with that degree of
the Court had anticipated from the
atement of the junior counsel for the defendant, who
stated there was a memorandum on the bill which clearly
fade
ade it payable at 2, Hanover-square. Whatever might
the effect of the mode of drawing the bill would be a
wetter fur the after consideration of the Court, but the
ta,ece?t,ance being of such a general nature, the Court
gat the defendant was entitled to a rule to show
Case why there should not be a new trial.
Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.—('PHIS DAY.)
cit°ssi.E (Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
Mr
- V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY.
u MARTIN applied to the Court for a rule calling
aclloLthe Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
o"ery cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue,
the ancling them to summon a special jury, and assess
of damages which the plaintiff had sustained by reason
their acts. By the original Leeds and Manchester
it)crirt the 6th and 7th William IV., the company in clues-
f were empowered to take land sad alter the course
-arlY river which might be necessary for the Aurapurpose
nstructing the works of the proposed railway. In
uanee of that power, and shortly after the grantingth tht, e Act, the company proceeded to alter the course of
river Calder immediately in the neighbourhood of
?i,eciditincien. Now, Mr. Crossley had a mill upon the
er near to this very spot, called Heywood-mill, and
po:°43equence of the diversion of the river the water
the"eri of this mill had been almost destroyed. When
lettke"teratien was first made the mill was held under
pir2, by another party, but the lease had recently 'm-
ole, and the property reverted to the original owner,
wimgeatletnan on whose behalf the present application
corn
emade. The injury complained of was
e—izticed before the passing of the Clauses
strtniolidation Acts, but in the Act authorising the con-
"than of the Leeds' and Manchester line there was a
Rouse
empowering parties who were injured by the
tt.l" to recover compensation in the manner now sug-
gested.
mkt Justice ERLE asked if that power was limited to
fill'articular period after the injury was done?
blusfr.MAßTix said the clause provided that the claims
jtt; be made within six months after the supposed in-
had been sustained, but in this case it would be
eatended that the injury did not accrue to Mr.
f e.""lay till the lease expired, which occurred only a
reeks ago'
Ur Justice ERLE—I think you have stated enough to
~liow cause.
. ,t
rtnib:4„,r e.rci b
MeARyTIN thought it right to mention to the Court
eat at first it was supposed that compensation must be
a common action at law, and a suit had Be-
th%llY been instituted, but on consideration it was thought
()fat the action would not lie, since the injury complained
was done under and by virtue of an Act of Puha-
' I,Treotntg, which gave the injured party a remedy for his
iir• Justice ERLE was rather inclined to think that
m
'action could be maintained, but that would be a
'ter.for discussion whoa the rule came on for argu-
taent.
tat MARTIN said the only difficulty he had felt in
wh lug this application was the abseuce of any case
it,; e eenapensation had been sought so long after the
Bars; was committed. It was between eight and nine
Irt% age since the river was diverted.
COERLE—Yon cause:
Justi may take a rule to show
tale nisi accordingly.

,
PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
Irtiogs in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice WILDE,
and Justices MAIILE, CREISWELL, and TALFOURD.)
GORHAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
this"lB being the day appointed for giving judgment in
at ease, the Court was densely crowded with spectators
bierearly hour. The galleries of the court were also
", chiefly with clergymen.
jAt, the sitting of the Court the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
s7eeded to deliver judgment. The Court, he said,
of ~,terta had been roved for a writ to probit the Dean
Ili,'" Court of Arches from issuing an order to the
ofil°P of Exeter to induct Mr. Gorham into the living
tie?, 'tnpford-Speke, in the county of Devon. This rao-
'-es.; , the Ras founded upon an affidavit which stated that
14.10. Queen was the patron of this living, and that
bi,),"d presented Mr. Gorham to it, and that the
1.-O"°P of Exeter proceeded to examine Mr. Gorham
after re instituting him to the living, and that
r, such examination ho determined that Mr.
triperuaro was of unsound faith, and held doe-
Ldta, inconsistent with the Thirty-nine Articles
whe the Book of Common Prayer, as by law established ;
ne„re,llPon Mr. Gorham instituted a suit of duplex
Si in the Court of Arches, and it was decided by
Herbert Jenner Fust, the Judge of that court, that
r',Gorham did hold doctrines contrary to the Articles
or
eJtaa Church. Mr. Gorham then appealed to her
estY l •
e -a Council, who referred the matter to the
kuitilrlam,ittee of her Council, and that tribunal, after exa-
eetipften, reported that the judgment of,hae Dean of the
)3 -h.' of Arches should be set asid nd that the
P (f Exeter should be directed to institute Mr.
(I"am into the living. The affidavit stated, as the
prew-und of e present application, that the Queen had no
bare" t° make an order in Council to order Mr. Gor•
h to be instituted into this living; that the Council
ha e
, 0 right to set aside the judgment of the Court of
tochues, and that there was no appeal from the
16;4 of Arches to the Queen in Council; but
of." the proper appeal was from the Dean
Of pthe Court of Arches to the Upper House
e%,-°nvocation. This question depended upon the
, 19 °, action to be put upon the 25th Henry VIII., cap.
svei
eh was contended to be an extension of the sta-
N, tete Passed in the previous year of the same reign, by
' totedilell,aPeeals in certain ecclesiastical cases were rohi-
-11. it, l'etog made to Rome, but were ord.ered to be made
14 ue tribunals of this country, and particularly in mat-
' 3 touching the King an appeal was given to the U
T,
12, .uouse of Convocation. By the 25th Henry VIII., cap.
fade Was enacted that no manner of appeal should be
be made to Rome, but that all manner of appeals should
has mentioned
in the same manner, form, and condition, as
Qo -„toentioned in the statute of the 24th Henry VIII.
this certain cases were to be referred to the King in
I :eneerY, such as cases touching abbots, priors, and
help °I houses. But the preF.ent application did not
25trg to any of these. It belonged to the statute of
tie, °I Henry VIII., and depended upon the construe-
Ile;,t° be net up two queitions—Whether the 24th of
ites-rY VIII., sec was to be deemed as controlled by or
tiiclPerated in the e 25th of Henry Vlll.,—and whether
1101571,ere a matter touching the Queen. In consineting
stet
24th of Henry VIII., cap. 9, was affected by the
ietoe of the following year, it was necessary to take
etmsideration the meaning and limitation of the
Words .
the In the same manner, form, and condition. By
Of firBl statute appeals were given from the Archdeacon
41.4 diocese to the Bishop, and from the Bishop to the
theentiloP, and from the Archdeacon of a province to
the7eurt of Arches, and thence to the Archbishop,
Ishi:Lto be decided. The 9th section of that statute, upon
„,,1 mainly this application rested, enacted that
ha st" matters touching the King the appeal should
the
to the
Upper House of Convocation. It was contended
ti,:„ ,le words, " in the same manner, form and condi-
, te ,;'e' Which were found in the 25th Henry VIII., were
Peel. ;e°llstrued as re-enacting all these modes of Bp-
' thet-,:n general terms, but the Court could not think
Ley-,,kTiotta affecting the authority of the King would
tete; been left so lightly to be disposed of by general
stm-8. They were more disposed to think that the
speei
Qtereferredall manner of suits except where
ke 4,141 to Y
mentioned, and the section which followed re-
ti all reasonable doubt on the subject, which men-
There specifically specifically appeals to the King in Chancery.
tfonre, Were some other considerations which threw addi-
it,tlight upon this point. The appeals in matters touch-
, tre 1.:40ts and priors was expressly laid down to be to
the - true in Chancery. The Court was of opinion that
cat,:ruo construetion of the statute of 25th Henry VIII.,
tlae i,19, Was to give appeals in all cases to
right."4"en in Council. They had thought it
Pre,' ln a case of so much importance as the
t,t"uent, to ascertain the manner in which appeals of this
found had always been made, and it had been
the v.. on all occasions appeals had be en
.made to
In 'lng in Council, and no case had been discovered
tear an an appeal had been made, neither had the
I:rid Counsel, in making the application, pointed out
40 Instance in which appeal had been made to the Upper
e I:3e of Convocation. The Learned Judge then cited
a. ivseesqion of cases, the King v. Pigeon, 1677, the King
arid VII% the King v. Weedon and Shales, 1697, Waller
v,h,roreith V. Hazeltine and Burge, 1792, in each of
haci In though in matters touching the King, the appeal
•, never been made to the Upper House of Convoca-
ela, brit always to the Court of Delegates. There was
alee,,etrt° case of Waldron v. Potter, which had
Geo"d'Y been mentioned, as in this ease, as
rpr rijan's case, where the validity of acts done by two
1' th al e
appeal
had been impugned, and in which case also
ttihoe,virtteeppeoarltehdaielalsz made to the Court of Delegates. All
beginning from the 10th Elizabeth
Praeti to 1792, were cases which showed the general
mast °f appeal to be to the Court of Delegates, and it
Whiee e observed that all these were testamentary cases,
the 2" was one of the classes of causes provided for by
p 0,,, 4,01
Henry VIII., and it was reasonable to sup-
i • if the practice of appeal bad lain to the Upper
ua of
gete,
tt Convocation and not to the Court of Dele-
Deete'e "It would have been the course pursued in the ro-
t/0u cases; as this was at a time, too, when the Upper
at praeutiO Convocation was in much greater action than
Praeticeen •t They must, therefore, consider that the
ocetio„ °f appeal to the Upper House of Con-
Neale was entirely unknown, or that it had
tnee,u Rronounded by some judicial authority to be
tt h.rin'ted• In support of the present application,
°eon Stated bythe Learned Counsel eaten of that a sue-
attitehe, authorities, to which great weight was to be
to the d, unanimous in support of the law of appeal
11111414 `J.PPer souse of Convocation. After careful
11104 9t thus mitlapriOap, the court had found