The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-21 00:00:00

BRRE AND PYLE V. JACOB.

This was a case of appeal from the Court of the
Sub-Dean Of Sarum, The question was, whether
the appeal was-properly made to the Arches' Court
of Canterbury.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, on behalf of the appellant, con-
tended that the Court of the Sub-Dean of Sarum
was a court of exempt and peculiar jurisdiction, and
that the appeal necessarily lay to the superior court.
He admitted that in ordinary cases the appeal was to
the Chancellor of the Diocese; but in this case the
judge of the Court of the Sub-Dean of Sarum and
the Chancellor of the Diocese happened to be the
same person. The Rev. Matthew Marsh was the
judge of the Court of the Sub-Dean of Sarum, and
was also the Chancelle, of the Diocese. Under
those circumstances an appeal to him would be pre-
posterous—it would be an appeal from one judge to
the same.

Dr. J. ADDAMS followed on the same side, and
quoted a variety of cases, which he contended sup-
ported the appeal.
Dr. Donsos, on the other side, contended that
the personal objection to the Judge was not made in
sufficient time, and that it did not follow because the
Judge of the Court of the Sub-Dean and the Chan-
cellor of the diocese were the same person, the ap-
peal should be heard before the same Judge. The
Bishop himself might preside, or appoint a surro-
gate; and, therefore, he contended that the objec-
tion to the Judge was unavailing, and that the ap-
peal was to the Chancellor of the diocese of Sarum,
and not to the Arches' Court.
Sir J. NICHOLL said that the Court of the Sub-
Dean of Sarum was clearly a subordinate jurisdic-
tion, and that in ordinary cases the appeal would
be to the Court of the diocese. It appeared, how-
ever, that in this case the Judge of the Court of the
Sub-Dean and the Chancellor of the diocese was the
same person. The Registrar of the two Courts was
also the same persoe ; and, therefore, the Court was
disposed to think that both Courts, were consoli-
dated, and that one merged in the other. The Judge
of the Sub-Dean's Court had already decided this
case, arid the Chancellor of the Diocese might,
therefore, have been said to have decided it. To con-
tend that the appeal ought not to be mad; to the
Arches' Court, therefore, was, in effect, to de-
prive the suitors of the right of appeal. So far,
therefore, he considered that the appeal had been
properly made. It appeared, however, that the
true grounds of the appeal were not stated in the
inhibition which had issued. That document con-
tained a misnomer. It stated that the Court of the
Sub-dean of Sarum was a court of exempt and pe-
culiar jurisdiction as a ground for passing over the
intermediate court. As this document was a pub-
lic record, and might hereafter affect the jurisdic-
tion of the intermediate court, this Court could not
pronounce for the appeal ; but, being unwilling to
dismiss the cause upon this objection, ordered the
case to stand os er until the next conrt day, to give
the Counsel for the appellant an opportunity of con-
sidering whether any mode could be adopted by
which the appeal could be admitted, and the juris-
diction of the Consistorial Court of Salisbniy pro-
tected.