The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-01-23 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-MONDAY

THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, IN
THE MATTER OF GORIIAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

The Attorney-General moved for a rule to show cause
why a writ of mandamus should not issue to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, as Primate and Metropolitan, com-
manding him to try an issue raised upon a qutere impedit,
directed to the Bishop of Exeter, requiring him to show
why he refused to institute a gentleman, named Gorham,
to a living in that diocese. The bishop had pleaded to
the quEere impedit that Mr. Gorham " held unsound doc-
trines, contrary to the true Christian faith, and to the doc-
trines of the United Church of England and Ireland—to
wit, that spiritual regeneration is not given or conferred
by baptism, and that infants were not thereby regene-
rated." The chief doubt upon the proceeding was. whe-
ther this rule ought to be a rule nisi or a rule absolute in
the first instance. On this point of practice the learned
counsel cited some authorities.

The Court, after some discussion on this point, granted
a rule, which, not being mentioned to the Court on
Wednesday, was then made absolute.

The Observer, with all that mysterious inuendo per-
taining to scandal, announces that an action for criminal
conversation has been commenced against a noble duke,
the damages being laid at several thousand pounds.
IMPORTANT POINT OF PRACTICE.—Tt is important to
the profession to know that it has been decided that in
all cases where any affidavit states a date so as to make it
necessary to refer to the jurat for the year of our Lord, or
otherwise, it is insufficient, as the jurat cannot be referred
to ; therefore care should be taken to insert the year in
the body of the affidavit itself, instead of the word " in-
stant" or last," as has been the practice.
THE SPRING CIRCUITS.—On. Thursday the judges
assembled in the Exchequer Chamber for the purpose of
selecting their respective circuits. The following is the
result :
WESTERN.—Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Williams.
MIDLAND.—Lord Chief Justice Wilde & Mr. Justice Manic.
NORFOLK.—The Lord Chief Baron and I'lr. Baron Rolfe.
HOME.—Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Justice Wightman.
NORTHERN.—Mr. Baron Alderson and Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge.

axFoao.—Mr. Justice Coltman and Mr. Baron Platt.
NORTH WALES.—Mr. Justice Cresswell.

SOUTH WALES.—Mr. Justice Erie.

A CONTRACT TO PAY FORTY PER CENT. INTEREST
BINDING.—The case of Lee v. Clarke came on in the
Bail Court, on Thursday, before Mr. Justice Erle and a
common jury. The plaintiff was an attorney, and the de-
fendant an officer in the army. The action was brought
to recover a sum of money which was due to plaintiff, and
an agreement had been entered into by the parties, which
was to the following effect :—" I, Clarke, admit that
you have given me value as agreed on my bill on my bro-
ther, Sir Simon Clarke, for £5OO, at three months ; and
in consideration that you have discounted the bill, I agree
that, if the same be not paid at maturity, I will pay you
interest on the amount at and after the rate of forty per
cent. per annum, from the time it shall have become due,
until the day of payment : and, if you sue me thereon,l
antlioi
ise Mr. Robson to enter an appearance for me, in
order to obtain a judgment against me in-the Court of
Queen's Bench." The bill mentioned was discounted by
the plaintiff. It became due in September, 1844, and
was dishonoured ; but on the 6th of July, 1846, the
amount of the bill was paid, together with £4B 18s. 11d.
for interest, at the rate of five per cent., and expenses,
and the present action was brought to recover the sum of
£327 18s. 5d., being the interest at forty per cent., which
the defendant had agreed to pay, or rather, the difference
between that amount and that which the defendant had
already paid. Mr. Justice Erle said that he had a very
strong opinion relative to contracts or agreements that
were in writing. Persons were at liberty to make or
enter into any agreements or contracts they chose ; but,
having done so, they had no right to complain that it was
a hard case that they should be called upon to perform
such contract or agreement, and ask a jury to discharge
them from the obligation into which they had entered.
The jury ought not to be called on to decide in such cases
how much the defendant ought to pay : their duty was
simply to enforce the agreement into which the defendant
had entered.—The jury returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff for the full amount claimed, £327 18s. sd.
Loss OF THE OCEAN MONARCH.—IMPORTANT DECI-
SION.—In the County Court of Yorkshire, before T. H.
Marshall, Esq., at Leeds, on Wednesday last, an impor-
tant case, "Neesom v. Blaymire," was tried. Mr. John
Everard Upton, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff, and
stated that the action was brought by the plaintiff, as the
father and next friend of his son, Mr. Edwin Neesom, for
Edwin Neisom's share of the subscription money entered
into by the public for the benefit of the survivors who
were on the " Ocean Monarch" ship at the melancholy
burning of that vessel in August last. It appeared that
the defendant, Mrs. Blaymire (who is the aunt of
Edwin Neesom). Mrs. Summersgill, and a son and daugh-
ter of the plaintiff, were all passengers by the Ocean
Monarch, and were going from Liverpool to Boston in
August last, to set up business as fancy flower manufac-
turers, in Australia, and they were on board when the fire
took place. A subscription amounting to above £2OOO
was raised for the sufferers, and the share of all the four
persons had been paid by Mr. Neilson, the treasurer, to
the defendant. The defendant paid about £5 each to the
plaintiff and Mrs. Summersgill, but refused to pay the
plaintiff any more, and £2O 4s. Gd. was now due to the
plaintiff. In order to enable Mr. -Upton to prove his