, 1869-07-29

il st,oEd FfCtton 2aid that tho H!ahoa or Stand
IL 10 & shGsd so ..a q IL n,ss 81 s5
poaspone the srsal- Thai nid not mean ID the
manner In which he did IT the ether dar-t nc mt
G1al-noW could the accused know whether hp de-
Rrtd to postpone at A!l uutI he know the natnle
Of The charges a@aln11 hlu7
~ assessor who whs relation OF the accused, or
Eho vas OF The parties to lnc rsrscnitnen:- Was
y to 10 surpo.cd that provision would be nade IN
= us same s,no no no 'Tight, at ii
te saved to the sccuxed1 The canon cut o1 h.
eusnt from hAsi3g as one OF bis 13dscs mas.
0AsAnk felAuon ~ marriage and would 1t AZ tee
kane umc depr!ve him Of Ill right Of chRl]euEc1
Mcre ptcabJselB qualified simply because theI had
seate In tho conytnuon7 It WIS Esfd II he neg
Standing Committee would do.is for nlnl. But tic
| Lad uercr received any orlctal nottce that the
committee Lad d. Nc that Tha complainant do
not corcedc thnfEe had neglected Or refused to
make tie selection, since the tim had not coCe
to MAKE It. 1t wu ulto alleged thas the eosu?11tc-
SON until aT,er the sth Of JulJ, and II tseJ had
been aWare E1c4 could not have urged them uuIl
th 81 anr yss n 'aae fss il ,ses ses
eight suspected members courE. without the
knowledge cf the nrubed. Which Was TO try hin.
il ~aS MePostc-o1A
The rith Eection EaAd that nil testimony should
le IN writing. taxi Oh tte nttee 10 llc patiter,
TIC Inlr iu CIV! cnseA wus Lat no dupuaitIops
could le tahen unil the case rns at tasar. and il
WaA i!aln thAfs sttEuy tR.sktng, until that was
nofc u wcCI1 ELI be lGown Whit evidence 10
lake. He dcAlTcd to lake tua1y Jrposltong and
Waited ihc Projection Of the lava Of tho coon:ry
even i1 that 80 iaE rs could be glyen 10 them ii
iccce!afiru CoEHE. Ills also khon cd that the H.
tho tn,c and r:1cc Of TIM }iaa never been Ecrrd.
and th1i tho Intention u the citation waa simply
oFfosidc for Tho settlement OF tho Issues and iuc
ftfuc before the commencement Of The tftnl saJd
mo canon should confess. tbs Bishop might DO
20 and no. l!ut the lhtne ought 10 bo settled
hC1atc that right could tG exercised, u 1t was
dchlred to catrcl~e L. Had NOT Tho complainant
nGAt 70 ocuand that tho Erescntueat ahpuld 10
eosa L. eG ~ ecs Thfn
q confession. wcrc 1hcy 10 te cut u1 from IT.
Waa That The law u d court Ctr1Auou! The sec.
nil thoae several things To Ec srtt!cd upon thr
rcturn Of tic citation Concct kLated TINT after
The citation u niJear, unu aftcF tito preliminary
matter rad 1esn go,s Through win, =, had bt:ra
claimed On the ut1l, therc should To IN n4i-
3ouFnmeIA PRIOR to proceeding TO trial.
post mnsn .n ysnes ne sscona unocl'o0k 70 impose
oprotcd to Il They pctltioued him, lcmolstrat-
.n1 asMnst by deelitation OF indulgence, and
posc OF ndm!ltitg tbclr signatures. he asked them
In The WAY Of naInopiuon whether lhcy did or did
rot syn ne retl'lon- 1heJ replied That y ~ hsd
aueaa j asa al nSSos s5sy hsa
tiensa Z Thcy atso asid, . i Joar Majesty ID
~ sss nton ~ ansxe, without rIsiaaiee to
1gatuat VI, We will RnsMez;' s1h no n7id, "fcs,
sIsNc1t" and THY admitted TINT they signed il.
ttoD Of a malicious scdlropk libel In MldQcscy,
The signatures could rot be proved. Tho CLERK OF
The prtt5 council was called, and on czuss e1-
signatures only In obedience 70 Tho royal con-
mand md without prejudice 1t wa sllcgrl IN
we're a.ed npon m ns aesea IN Hn ae
ne cs.c Ls IND just catcd and 1u4laed
upon n.a legal rchl 1Ie h.d a .Eghi II the |
orenee mas daiJ ehas2cd 70 coufess but tnas Eight
tsed-unlH ho Incw IN q proper fus7n thai whlch |
10 naz dkupcuy md specifically cha.Eel with. |
70 bishop had c!tirned IN The Iasrr case th1t on
considered, tecarsc The canon uucer which he |
acted said ihe p1csbjtcrs Iou1t lecetrs evidence.
md therefore they could DO pcth!ss else, II thii
were So tGcB his 1rGEment Ers 6.1pucIr. Tho |
cauon showed that oil preIiutn61ies were to he ID
justed prior TO the time and piste ol trial: and
nI1 fe1 q n ca4ou IN T6ea no CONT ne
rcculI1te rnubeE Of prethytcsr, all i.tues being |
settled, nj challenges allowed or disa1lowed-,hs
eelye such evidence ns might be advnuccd 10 ac-
cHeance Will The prostst tone Of tie canon IN What
part Of the canon ms !: llc down that CHALLENGES
were net to bt allowed. and that tho preshJ ter
charged With en oGcnce should not be c2Ntled TO
thc ordlFoIy comMnu Law r1Hht47 on the coprfal1,
the sa11o kna5an1eed@ HIN HIN these aud vas not n.
nLHber Of 4rntl1e1 pScstIera. Tie argument Of
The opposite eide Tas, that d uial could be con
quoted with biased board u Abscssors and that
the necuaed Ind no rshtto object 10 them. SONG
very good authority Wuu!d have u be produced to
htrpoii such m arslnicnt. TIE Eli alleged that
pressed m opinion thar the COMPLAINANT was
guilty. no denial Of thas in the form Of Ell answer
70 b!ll 10 chancerJ would avail It would not do
Tor MI Snyder 70 come Into court aud say TINT he
had not formed or entrusted at opinion. That
VAS lot Lie way challenge WIZ tried he WIS
challenged, hut The respondcn,n = counsel were cut
Oh fFum lAA DEpErfuE1fr II n