The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENI,E.
COURT OF CHANCERY, May 8.

DROWN V. BAMFORD.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied the
Court the whole morning.

ROLLS' COURT, May 8.

This being the last day of Easter term the Court took motions,
but nothing of particular interest came before the Court.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, May 8.

The Vice• Chancellor of England took motions to.day, it being
the last day of Easter Term, It is generally understood that his
Honour will not sit after to.day till the first day of Trinity Term.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour took motions of bankrupt petitions to.day.
(Before Vice Chancellor WIGRAM.)
W♦RREN V. RUSSELL AND OTHERS.

His Ho Nona gave judgment in this case to-day, which was argued
before him a short time since. The sill was filed by the widow of
the late Mr. Warren, the eminent blacking-maker in the Strand,
against the defendants, Russell and Wright, his surviving partners,
for the purpose of obtaining an account of the partnership's estate
and effects, and also for a sale of the premises in the Strand and
the good.will of the business. flis Honour, after going at some
length i..to the facts of the case, stated that he would if the
parties desired it, direct a reference to the Master; he doubted,
however, the policy of such a proceeding, as it would have the effect
of disclosing the secrets of the trade. He thought that some ar-
rangement might be conic to between the parties, by which the
surviving partners, with benefit to all, might purchase the con-
cern, and be would, therefore, direct the case to stand over
for a short time, in order to afford all parties an opportunity to
come to some arrangement.
The Court then proceeded with motions, it being the last day of
Easter term.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 7.
(Sittings in Banco.)
EX2ARTE W. 0. WARD.

Mr. Ket.tv (with whom was Mr. Baddeley) moved for a rule to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue directed to the
Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford, to
command them to restore the Rev. W. O. Ward, late a Fellow of
Balliol College, to the degree of Bachelor of Arts and M ester of
Arta in the said University, of which degree he had been deprived
by the House of Convocation of that University. The affidavits
on which the motion was made stated that the applicant matricu-
lated in 1830 ; that he proceeded in 1834 to the degree of
Bachelor of Arts, and in 1837 to that of Master of Arts ; and
subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,
and three articles in the 36th Canon, and continued to enjoy the
said degree until the month of February, 1845. In 1844 he pub.
lished a book, called "The Ideal of a Christian Church Consi-
dered," to which the attention of the University was called, and
the authorities there, after certain preliminary proceedings had
been adopted, held a convocation upon the 13th of February last,
and then by two several resolutions degraded the applicant
from his degree. He had since applied to the University to be
allowed to exercise the rights which the degree of Master of Arts
conferred upon him, and had been refused. Ile was, therefore,
compelled to apply for the mandamus. The first ground on which
this application rested was, that the applicant had not committed
any offence which could lawfully justify the loss of his degree, ac-
cording either to the laws of England or the statutes of the Uni-
versity. The next ground was, that even if it should appear that
the publication of the book referred to was a violation of the sta-
tutes of the University, it was submitted that he was not punishable
in the manner in which punishment had now been inflicted. But
thirdly, even if the publication of the book was punishable at the
University, and if that punishment was degradation. still the ap.
plicant was not liable to that punishment until after he had been
tried in the University, according to the proper forms in the Court of
the Chancellor of the University. In this instance he had not had
an opportunity of making his defence in any judicial proceeding,
as the Chancellor's Court was the only place in the University
'O'pere such proceedings could be held. By the arbitrary act
of 'the convocation he had been, without any trial whatever,
degraoled from his degree, and deprived of all the rights and
benefits thereto attached. In the first place, it was clear that the
publication •of this book was not any offence, and if it was, then it
was cognisabli? as such in the Chancellor's Court. The proceed-
ing by the Conctocation alone,:without such preliminary trial, was
illegal and void, &end yet by such a proceeding the applicant had
been deprived of a freehold interest of such a nature, that he was
entitled to a mandamus to restore him to his rights. The statute
showed that all that might done by the Chancellor in his Court
might also be done in the Vice:.,Chancellor's Court; but, in order
at all to justify the exercise of thi
~,urisdiction of the Court, the
offence proceeded against must clearly iir..shown to be within that
jurisdiction. Among the general powers of' .the Vice-Chancellor
was that of preventing heresy. Now, here the al;`,..,.licant had sub-
scribed the .Articles of the Church when he first recei'ved his de-
grees, and, as he stated in his affidavit, he had not done any,..hing
in violation of that subscription. If a person was not consistent
in maintaining the Thirty-nine Articles, he might be called
upon again to subscribe them, and it; after being three times
required to do so, he still refused, and was found so to have
refused, he might be punished, but his punishment would
be by exile, by banishment from the university, and not by
degradation. In 1834 and 1837 the applicant subscribed these
articles; he might have chonged his opinion since then, but if
he hal, or if he had done anything which was inconsistent with the
articles, he ought to have been called on again to subscribe the
articles, and had he then rettuied to do so he might have been tried
for the offence of refusal, and, en conviction, might have been
banished from the University, but could not be degraded from his
degree. As the case now stood, no offence had been committed
which could be the subject of trial and punishment in the Uni.
versity, and the proceedings taken were not warranted by the
statutes of the University. The publication of the applicant's
book was net a violation of the University statutes, nor of the
aw of England. It was purely a matter of ecclesiastical cogni.

sauce. But, even supposing it to be an offence apinst these sta
tutes, the only proper course would have been to send Mr Ward
before the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and to subject him to a
regular trial. After that he might, upon conviction, have been
sentenced to whatever punishment the statutes allowed. But even
the statutes would not have allowed the punishment now inflicted,
for that punishment was only capq,ble of being applied to a par-
ticular class of offences, of which this was not one. The act of
Convocation was illegal, and, therefore, void. The only remaining
question was, whether this was a case in which the Coqrt would
interfere by way of mandamus ? There was no doubt it would do
so. The rights belonging to the degree of master of arts were
those of a freehold interest. The degree was necessary to qualify
its possessor to take holy orders to obtain certain advantages in
the University, and to vote for the Members sent to Parliament to
represent the University.
Lord DENMAN asked whether anything was said in the affi-
davits of the visitatorial power ?
Mr. KELLY answered in the affirmative. The existence of that
power was denied in a case of this kind.
Lord DENMAN—You may take a rule.

BAIL CHU RT, May 8.
,Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice CoLEßlncrt.)
out Tam ACTIONS —HOBBS V. HARVEY.

Mr. PEACOCK said he was instructed, on behalf of the defendant,
to move for a rule to show cause why the plaintiff should not give
security for costs, and the proceedings be stayed in the meantime.
He moved on the affidavits of Alexander Dobie, the defendant's
attorney; of Da, id Smith, of Edinburgh, writer to the Signet ;
and of Augustus George Lyon, clerk to Mr. Dobie,
who stated that this action was brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant, to recover penalties from the Globe news.
paper, by virtue of the 6th and 7th Wm. IV., entitled," An Act to
prevent the advertising of foreign anti other illegal lotteries.' The
affidavit of Mr. Dobie stated, that the declaration in the cause con-
tained 73 counts, each claiming a distinct penalty, amounting
in the whole to 3,650/. was delivered to the deponent about the
28th of April last--that the plaintiff had served several processes
in a similar norm against John George Chapman, John Ebenezer
Eve, Charles Baldwin, Muni° Young, Thomas Payne, Charles
Reynell, Miller, Innett, and others, but had not yet declared
therein. Anti David Smith in his affidavit stated that a similar
action was brought under the said statute by the
present plaintiff, which was at present pending in the
Court of Session of Scotland, against Thomas Allan and Co., and
others, for whom deponent acted as attorney—that he applied to
the Court of Session to compel the present plaintiff to give secu-
rity for costs in that action, on the ground that the plaintiff was
residing out of Scotland, and was then domiciled in England—
that such application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that
he was then domiciled in Scotland, and that it was afterwards
stated in his behalf that he was a Scotchman, a native
of Brechin, where he was brought up, anti served his apprentice-
ship with Messrs. Speed and Nile, writers; that he afterwards
came to Edinburgh, and was employed as a writer by Mr. A. Ste-
venson, writer to the Signet; and Mr. W. Muir, solicitor, in the
Supreme Court for about flee years, and that he was never out of
Scotland till the 28th of September, 1844, when he sailed from
Granton Pier, and that he arrived in London on Sept. 30, but that he
never intended to reside in England ; that he was in no situation
there, but was merely engaged in attending some private affairs
of his own ; that he did not anticipate being detained there but a very
few days, and lived in furnished lodgings, taken and paid for from
week to week. The same deponent also stated that the plaintiff was
married on the 16th of March, 1843, to a daughter of Mr. Patrick
Hutchinson, a writer in Edinburgh ; that he and his wife re-
sided at his mother-in.law's, and that they afterwards re.
moved to Stockbridge, near Edinburgh ; that they afterwards
went back to Mrs. Hutchinson's, where a considerable portion of
their furniture still remained ; that they always had, and now had,
a constant residence in Scotland—that on the 2d of March he re-
turned to London. Mr. Smith also stated that such statement in
writing of the plaintiff was binding on the party on whose behalf it
was made, according to the practice of the Court of Session,
just as if the same had been sworn to according to the practice of
the courts of England, and that the above statement was truces he
was informed and believed.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Take a rule.
Mr. PEACOCK said he wanted to show that the permanent resi-
dence of the plaintiff was in Scotland, and that it was no answer
to the application to say that he was in this country when the ac-
tion was commenced, unless the affidavit stated that he resided and
intended to continue to reside in the country.
Mr. Justice Coeentooc—You may take a rule, but without a
stay of proceedings.
Mr. PEACOCK said he made the application for security for costs,
and they had given the other party notice.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—You know you can have no stay of pro.
ceedings on the last day of term.
Mr. PEACOCK said that perhaps his Lordship would allow him to
take the rule in this way—a rule to show cause why in tie mean-
time the proceedings should not he stayed,
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said he collet not do that, or that
would, in effect, be staying the proceedings altogether. They
could only-be stayed during the pendency of the rule.
Mr. PEACOCK did not ask to make the pending a stay of pro•
ceedings, but merely why security should not be given, and in the
meantime proceedings stayed.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—When cause is shown it becomes part
of the rule, which upon the rule being made absolute the proceed.
ings should not be stayed.

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 8.
(Before Mr. Under. Sheriff Buncnrsa.)
CHITTY V. HARMAN.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 91. la.
the balance of an account for work and labour done as a builder.
The plaintiff is a builder at Richmond, and the defendant a
gentleman residing at the same place.
Mr. THOMAS stated the case, and called witnesses, who proved
that the whole of the work done was worth 241. 16s. 7d., of
which 161. 19s. 10d. had been paid.
For the defendant it was urged that the plaintiff had, by this
evidence, only proved a balance due of 71. 16s. 91,1. That de-
fendant had tendered 61. 55. 2d., leaving a difference of I/. 11s. 7d.
to be cut down. The work had only been valued at 211. 13s. by
competent surveyors, therefore the defendant was fully entitled to a
♦erdict. One of the witnesses said that although twenty one days
were charged for it was only twelve days work, as it. was " stop and
go on again time "—(Laughter)—that was, that the men left off
whenever they chose, to go to a public-house.
A long technical inquiry was gone into as to the work done.
The UNDER-Sueutrie in summing up said, that the question was
whether the amount tendered covered the sum due, the defendant
had tendered more than the plaintiff's witness proved to be due. It
was a matter of figures, which the jury could understand without
his comment, but the difference, whichever way it was, was so
trifling, that it was a great pity it had not been split by the parties
themselves; there had been a good deal of conversation between the
jury and the witnesses, as to whether four three quarter inch
" quarterings" could be cut out of a three-inch board, and no loss
by the sawing, or cutting them " feather edge." If the question
in the minds of the jury rested on the saw-dust lost he could not
help them in their calculations, it was, however, very elose
shaving."—(Laughter.) Then there was another question as to
time, it was said that the 21 days were in fact only 12 days work;
that had been explained, and although the account ran over 11
days only, the working hours in 12 were charged.
The jury, afler considering for above ten minutes, gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for li. 16s, 1 lid, above the amount of the
tender.