Arches' Court, Tuesday, N...
The Times, 1824-11-10T00:00:00

In tils case articles had been exhibited against Mllr. Williams, a parishioner of Tring, in Hertfordshire, for having, on a certain day in the month of Augu3t, 1823, during the celebration of divive ser- vice, stood ap in the p;arish church of 'frring, and read aloud a paper, being a nummons of a vestrv to consider oF the propriety of dlisplacing the then churchieardens annd substituting others. n their stead. To these articles, an allegation, in the way of i defensive plea, was offered on behalf of Axr. Williams. On the qu(estion of its admissi. bility, Sir JOHiN NICIIOLT. said, this suit had been brought against Air. WVilliams for the creation of a disturbance in the church durirg di- vine service, and for having therehy committed the offi6nce of brawl- ing. The articles had been already admitted, under the op?nion of this Court that a private parishioner ha-d no right to read such a notice as the one in question in such a place during the solemnization of public worship. Now this allegation admitted the facts charged, but went into some statement of circumstances that justified, as the partyconceived, themeastrebe had talen. Then itbecameaquestion whetilerthe effect of this allegation imounote either to a completejusti- fication, or to such an extentation of the offence as might bear on the questidn of costs In the ultimate judgmeutofthe Court * costs being a considerationofnoimmaterialcharacterin acriminal suit. TIhelearned Judge then stated,that the minister bad been applied to by Mtr. Wil- lams, to read the holice, out of whic;h thiq atut arose ; that the mi. I nister had refused to read it; and yet that, in defiance, as it were, of his refusal, AIr. Williams had proceeded to do thit vhich no private person was empowered to do; for that tlae uilMister alone was; the hude oof what was proner to be done in such a matterin the church. The Court WfLS ttherefoce of opinion, that the allegajion tendedl rather to aggravate than either to justifv or even to extenuate the offence, wlhicl it was not attemptect to be denied that Air. Williams had com- mitted. In reiectingtie allegation, the Court could 'not forbear suggesting to lMlr. Wlliams, that af'ter the admissions he ha(t made, it was obviously his interest to close the suit tvith as little delay as possible. As long as it eontinued, it was impos'ible to avoid ery heavy additionall expenses, which it was mach better at once to shorten. GREGG V. GREGG. This is a suit for restitution of coniigal rights, promoted by a husbasd against his wife; it has been depending in the Consistory Court of London ever since 1819; and now comes up to this juris- dliction on- an appeal from a grievance-naraely, that the Judge of thie Court below had refused to rescind the cQnclusion of -the cause, and to hear a certain affidavit read, at the prayer of MArs. Gregg's proctor. On behalf of Air. Gregg, his proctor appeared under protest, eomplaining that the prarsertiva of the other party's apipeal related to an act of the Court below, subsequently to which act the party had repeatedly complied with assignations andl orders of that Coutti, and conseqacntly that this appeal could not be entertained. After a long discussion on this question of practice' Sir Joexw NICIHOLL observed, there was strong indieation, at present, of designed delays on Alrs. Gregg's part; but upon this point he could at present offer no decided opinion. In consequence of not having had laid berore him the process of the Court below, the learned .Judge conplained that he proceeded under some difficuilty and much uncertair,ty. He entertavined the appeal, however; over. ruled the. protest; and declared that this Court would retain the principal cause. ARCHIES' COIRT. TtrESnAv. Nov. 9. THE OFFICE OF TIEr JUDGE .PfOXOTED BY DAWE AND NOCKOLTS A"AIWsT WfLLrAMS.