The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 2.

THL X 1 14G V. DR. W. BALL.

This, it will be recollected, was an. application fat a writ of
prohibition,to the Vice-Chancellor of Oxiord, to restrain him
from further proceedings in the Vice-ChanCellor's Court of that
apainSt'llr Robert. Speakman, a master tailor of
Oxford ; and also calling upon him to rescind a sentence of ex-
commonition, pronounced against Mr. Speakman for suing in a
,Court'of Law one-of the Members of C,onvoeation.

The So LICITOR-JENERAL; Mr. Serjeanilios;NQuET , and
Mr. G. Cross, now showed cause against the rule. . .
It will be.. recollected, that the case laid 'before the Court on
the orisoinA Motion was in substance this:--A Gentleman named
Case; -.Master of ArtS,• of Brazen Nose College, had left the
University in Mr. Speakman's. debt, for -clothes, and went
to reside at Liverpool. Repeated applications were made to
him for the money, but without effect, when Mr. Speakman
sued -Out- a writ in this Court, and held him to bail, and in the
result the money was paid. •In consequence of this proceeding
Mr: Speakman was cited as a matriculated tradesman of
Oa-
ford, to appear in the Vice-Chancellor's Court for his contumacy
in suing a member of convocation in. a court of common law,
in violation of the statutes and by laws of the University.. A.
day was given for his appearance, Init liming neglected tnat-
tend, the Vice-Chancellor pronounced sentence of excommona-
tion-against him, which sentence-was
,promulgated through the
University—the effect of which was to forbid any member
thereof from holding any communication or dealings with him,
under the penalty of being called upon to answer for such con-
duct. This was attended with- injurious consequences to Mr.
Speakman's trade. Cause was now shown against the rule on
two grounds 1. That no prohibition could issue, the suit hav-
ing completely terminated in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, and
consequently no proceedings could be stayed by the writ, and, •
2. Supposing the sentence of -excommonation not sustainable,
it was competent for Mr. Speakman to appeal to another tribu-
nal, and not to this Court, for the King's Bench was not a
Court of appeal, having jurisdiction in such matters.
Mr.l3 no u .1.1.1,Mr.DE N mArr,and blr.Cn IT TY,contended,
on the other hand, that Mr. Case being a non-resident member
of convocation, it was perfectly, competent to Mr. Speakman to
sue him in a court of law for a edit contracted in. the University;
and that it was contrary to law for the Vice Chancellor's• Court
tb punish him for such a-proceeding. But supposing this were
not so, it had not been sheen by the Vice Chancellor's, sentence
of excommonation, that he had conusance of the matter ftr
which Mr. Speakman had been ex commonated. As to the ob-
jection that the proceeding in the Court below was completely
at-an end, and therefore that a prohibition would be of no use;
that was not so, because the sentence, which was in the nature
of a continuing and perpetual sentence, which might yet be set
-aside; and supposing there was a Court of A ppeal, -to which,the
.party might resort,. still this Court, as. the highest Court in the
kingdom, • might, by its superintending authority, annul pro-
ceedings which were in violation of law, and even of the statutes
upon which-the University
professed to act.' • ,• •
The COURT..were inclined to think the prohibition ought not
to go,-because upon general .principlet it was essential; for the
purposes of education, that the University should have exclu-
sive conusance of matters arising within its bounds, in order
that the members might not be liable to be brought within the
process of a foreign jurisdiction- but as the question was of
general importance, they would take time to deliberate on their
judgment.