The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-05 00:00:00

LIAM OU'G =OP rit,rileltiC.LlT.
On the w'nolt., a moderate buidnesJ is doing in most
kinds of hops, at full prices. The duty is called
150,000!.

MTI3 IT E C 13.11 P L.

Our market to-day has ruled very inactivr, and late
rates a:e with difficulty supported. Beef, from 23 to
3s; Mutton, 23 61 to 3s 8d ; Lamb, 33 10d to 4s 10d;
Veal, 23 Si to 3s 4d; and Pork, 3s 10d to 4s per 81bp,
by the carcase.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco. bviore Lord CAMPBELL znd Justices
PATTESON, COLERIDGE, and ERLE.)

THE QUEEN U. 'THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF CHESTER.

Lord CAMPBELL this morning delivered the judgment
of ihe Court in this case. His L rdship said, on account
of the general importance of the question the Court took
time to consider their decision in this case, and they
now continued to be of the same opinion which they
fortntd during the argument, that the return to the
mandamus was sufficient. The mandamus alleged that
Joseph Humphreys was in due manner nominated, by
tho Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of
Chester, a chorister, lay clerk, and singing an of the
said cathedral church, and until his removal had per-
formed the duties cf the office ; and that it was a free-
hold (Bee, conferring a right to vote for Members of
Parliament for the county of Chester; yet that the
Dean and Chapter had unjustly removed the said
Joseph Humphreys from the said office. The return set
forth the foundation of the cathedral church of Chester
by letters patent and statutes passed in the 33d year of
the reign of Henry VIII. By there statutes power was
given of admonishing and punishing at discretion, and
of expelling the officers of the cathedral, including the
choristers. Then came the appointment of a visitor,
who was to be the Bishop of Chester for the time being,
and who was to see that the statutes were inviolably ob-
served. The return further alleged that the choristers
were nominated and governed under the said statutes,
and that at the time in question Dr. Sumner was the
Bishop of Chester, and visitor of the Dean tad Chapter,
under the powers and provisions of the said letters pa-
tent and the said statutes. And it was said that the said
Joseph Humphreys had not appealed against his removal
to the visitor, as he might and could have done. Mr.
' Welsby, who supported this demurrer, did not deny the
proposition that where there was an eleemosynary foun-
dation the visitor had exclusive jurisdiction over
the matters with respect to which he was
appointed visitor, but contended that this Court
were compelled by mandamus to bring the removal of
Humphreys within the cognizance of a court of common
law. The first objection was that the mandamus showed
a motion to the visitor, and that where there was a mo-
tion the visitor had no jurisdiction; but Appleford's
case was an express authority that after motion the
visitor's jurisdiction continued, and that when he had
jurisdiction this Court would not interfere. The next
objection was placed on the alleged limited powers of the
visitor in this case, and on the want of an allegation in
the return of the offence imputed, to show that the
visitor had jurisdiction over him. But the Court were
of opinion that by the letters patent ret out the powers
of the Bishop of Chester, were not confined to cases in
which ho had a jurisdiction ordinarily, but that he was
constituted a special visitor to see that the statutes were
enforced. The Court could see no reason why the
return should specify the offence on which
the motion took place, if the legality of the
motion was to be determined by the visitor.
The Court was then told that the mandamus ought to
go, because this was a spiritual and not an eleemosynary
foundation; but no authority was cited to show that this
distinction was material where there was a special visi-
tor appointed by the Crown. Although there was a dif-
ference with respect to the acts of a visitor merely in the
capacity of an ordinary, the office here was a lay office
belonging to a spiritual foundation, and in principle
there was nothing to show that it was to he viewed
differently from the fellowship of a college with special
powers of visitation. With respect to the a:legation
that this was a freehold office, when Mr. Humphreys
accepted the cffice he knew the conditions on which it
was offered to him, one of which was, that in ease of dis-
putes arising, such disputes were to be determined by
the visitor, and not by a court of common law.
Lastly, it was contended that although Mr. Hum-
phrey:: might have appealed to the visitor ;
ho was not hound to do so, and might
apply for relief to this Court. But this notion of a con-
current jurisdiction was expressly contradicted by the
language of Lord Hale in Appleford's case. For those
reasons the Court were of opinion that there ought to be
judgment for the defendants, and it was very satisfactory
for the Court to think that their judgment might be
questioned in another place.

THE QUEEN V. THE TITHE COMMISSIONERS OF ENGLAND

AND WALES.

The Court pronounced judgment for the defendants.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, and Baron* ALDERSON,
ROLFE, and PLATT.)
BIRKEN SHAW V. THE BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD
RAILWAY.

The LORD CHIEF BARON delivered the judgment of
the Court in this case. It was an action brought to re-
cover the sum of 4,500/. for three houses, and other pro-
perty belonging to the plaintiff, which were required for
the purposes of the railway. Upon notice being received
from the defendants that the property would be required,
the plaintiff demanded payment of 4,500/., and it that
were not given that a jury should be summoned to
assess the damages. The question which the Court had
to decide %as, whatwas the meaning of the words in the
Act of Parliament, " lands taken for the execution of
the works." The Court had carefully examined the
Act of Parliament, and had referred to several decisions
of Lord Cottenham on the point, and they wore of opi-
nion that the verdict should be entered for the de-
featiants.—Judgment for the defendants.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,
and Justices MAULE, CRESSWELL, and TALFOORD.)
The Court was occupied this morning with demurrers,
which presented no features of general interest.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Mr. Justice Wightman sat in ly,nco this morning, but
nothing came before the Court to justify a report.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondsry Port'En.)
FISHER AND ANOTHER V. HICKMAN AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiffs in this action are timber-merchants, at
Plaistow, Essex; and defendants are undertakers in
Cannon-street rot.d. The action was brought to recover
the sum of 121. Os. 2d.
Several witnesses were called to prove the order and
delivery of the goods, and an .attorney appeared fer
defendants, who made no defence, but intimated that ho
should move the Court to enter a suggestion to deprive
plaintiffs of ccsts.
Pl/intias' solicitor sairi, that although there was no
defot,co. it was nueissary for him to call witnesses to
prove the case. •
The jury gave a verdict fur the amount.
7*`l9 t honly case in tbr. Two,.

Mr. A. Balfour had MD interview with Earl Grey yes-
terday, at the Colonial-„lice.