The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-05-08 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGEYCE,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—WEDNESDAY.
( Sittings in Banco.)
DEMURRERS.-NORRIS V. SEED.-PRIVATE LUNATIC

ASYLUMS

This was an action of trespass on the case against the
keeper of a private lunatic asylum in Lancashire for taking
the plaintiff's wife from him by force, and imprisoning
her and depriving him of her company, &c. The defen-
dant pleaded that Elizabeth Dewry was committed to his
custody and confined in his asylum as a lunatic, in con-
formity with the statutes in that case made and provided ;
that she, while still a lunatic, escaped from the asylum,
and that lie re-took her within 14 days, as he lawfully
might. The plea set out the various warrants and docu-
ments under which the defendant acted, and identified
the Elizabeth Dewry, the lunatic, with the plaintiff's wife
Elizabeth Norris. The plaintiff demurred to this plea—
and the main question on demurrer was, whether the
warrants against her in her maiden name justified the
defendant in retaking her from the plaintiff after the mar-
riage. It was assumed throughout the argument that she
married the plaintiff during her escape.
The Lord Chief Baron said they were all unanimous
that the plea was good in form and substance, and that
no matter whether the alleged lunatic were married be-
fore or after her committal, the husband could not rnsin,_
tain this action against the defendant.

Judgment for the defendant.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—FRIDAY
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

This was a proceeding by way of quare impedit, brought
by the Crown against the Bishop of Exeter, for refusing
to induct the Rev. Mr. Gorham into the living of Speke,
to which he had been presented by the Crown. The
bishop had pleaded pleas setting up for his defence that
Mr. Gorham held doctrines inconsistent with those of the
Church of England. The Attorney-General had filed five
several replications to these pleas, in which he tendered
several issues, some of them only capable of being tried
by the certificate of the archbishop, and others triable as
matters of fact before a jury. The defendant had applied
for and obtained a rule calling on the Attorney-General
to shew cause why he should not select one of these re-
plications as that by which he would abide.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Greenwood, and Mr. Cow-
ling shewed cause, and contended that the Crown had, by
prerogative, the right to put on the record several repli-
cations. The Court would not decide this case on mo-
tion, but would leave the other side to demur.
Mr. A. J. Stephens, Mr. Baddeley. and Mr. Kerslake,
in support of the rule. insisted that this rule in favour of
prerogative only applied to cases where the Crown was
proceeding in its public capacity, but where, as in the
case of quare impedit, the Crown was proceeding in re-
spect of its private rights, it had no privilege of the sort
here contended for.

The Court took time to consider the question

Capt. Charitie, who, with some other parties was lately
found guilty of conspiring to sell a cadetship in the East
India Company's service, was on Thursday brought up in
the Court of Queen's Bench, and sentenced to be im-
prisoned in the Queen's Prison for one year, to be treated
as a first-class misdemeanant; and further, that he pay a
penalty of £BOO, and to be imprisoned until the fine was
paid.
Turn LIBELS ON LORD LEIGH.—THE QUEEN V.
ROBERT AXTILL.—In the Court of Queen's Bench, on
Thursday, the defendant was called upon to receive judg-
ment. He had printed a libel on Lord Leigh, imputing
the commission of murder to him upwards of thirty years
ago, and had suffered judgment to go by default. The
plaintiff said that he did not indite the bill, he was merely
the printer; he was a poor man with a wife and six
children, and having apologised to Lord Leigh he trusted
the court would be lenient with him. He was sentenced
to be imprisoned for three months in Warwick gaol as
a first-class misdemeanant.

CANALS.—A most important case is now under discus-
sion in the itolls Court before Lord Langdale. The case
is that of the Grand Junction Canal Company v. Dimes.
The subject matter of the suit related to the ownership of
about a half mile of the land along and in the Grand
Junction Canal main line : and the question at issue was
in effect whether the right to the possession and the bene-
ficial ownership was in the company or in the defendant.
Lord Cottenham decided in favour of the company, though
it is stated six or seven of the judges at Nisi Prius, &c.,
had previously given their opinion in favour of Dimes. It
was shortly after discovered that Lord Cottenham was a
large holder of the canal shares, and hence was one of the
plaintiffs. Mr. Dimes appealed, and the matter was re-
ferred to Lord Langdale, who will shortly give judgment
in the case ;—it being contended that the judge being inte-
rested, is a fatal objection to any decision he may come to.
In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Monday, Judges
Patteson, Coleridge, and Erle, gave judgment in a case of
a person named John Crawford, who had been committed
to prison by the Hon. Charles Hope, the Lieutenant-Go-
vernor of the Isle of Man, for a contempt of the Court of
Chancery in that island, of which the Lieutenant-Gover-
nor was the judge. It appeared that an article had been
published in the Mona's Herald and Fargher's Isle of
Man Advertiser, headed " Court of Chancery," the pub-
lication of which that court had decided to be a contempt.
In the first instance, the publisher of the newspaper had
been committed to prison for a contempt in publishing the
article ; but Mr. Crawford, who was a Scotch solicitor
travelling in the island, being at the time in court, ad-
mitted that he was the author of it, and upon making this
avowal, was committed to prison, where he had been de-
tained nearly three months. An application to have the
warrant quashed was opposed, and the Judges declared
they could not interfere, as every court was the proper
judge of what constituted a contempt, and had power to
vindicate its authority.