P•www.k . ,7, i" I- - I 44 %e• 262 FROM TUESDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. BANKRUPTS. n. Stevens. Soolbury, Bucks. dairyman. Solicitor, Dlr. Aubrey, Tuuk'► Court, Chancery Lime. J. Fo►ter, Liverpool, brewer. Sol►. MOWS. Blackstock and Co. Temple. J. JOllll5OB. Pontefract, master. Sol. Mr. Blakeloek, Ser geant'► Inn, Fleet Street. .1. Green. Rednall, Worcestershire, maltster. Sob. Masses. Lung and Co. Gray's Inn. J. Brooke. Liverpool, druggist. Sols. Messrs. Blackstock and Co. Temple. J. Faithearl, Creasing. Eisti, jobber. Sols. blesses. Bromley, Gray'► Inn Square. C. Baker, lionisey, Southampton, fellinonger. Sus. Messrs. Mario and Co. John Street, Bedford 'tow. T. Stubbs, Crawhortl Street. Alonutgue Square, grocer. Sots• Me►sr.. Collins and Co. Spital DIVIDENDS. Nov. 47, J. W. Cole, Peterborough, banker—Doc. 3, R. Bristow. jun. Lloyd's Coffeehouse, insurance broker-10, W . G. Peyton. Upper Thames Street, merchant-10, K. Leppingwell. Com don, mien draper-3, E. Cane, Battle, Sussex. saddler-3, IL Phillips, Ashbumhurn, Sussex, funuer-3, S. Palmer. Bout.— wit 11l Lie Water, Gloucestershire, mercer --9. D. Crickett, iMm...hetii, Kent, timber merchant--3, J. Somervill, Loudon Watt. merchant-4. J. l'ycock, Doncaster, hosier-3, J. Senols, Venel.urch Street, upholsterer-3, D. Friend, Kumquat. ship— weight-4. S. Youden, Dover; Kent. blacksmith-3, W. Prest- Laurence Potintury Lane, CUM factor-7, J. Douglas, Loughbo. rough, merchant—S. N. T. Haines. NOMOghiiIII, ttudetartter— G,.1. Textron, Skipton, Yorkshire. innkeeper. CERTIFICATES to be granted Dec. S. J. Murray, Park Head, CumbeiLmd, butter dealer—W. VI Aker. itaitilmte, butcher—R. Walwyn, Wood Suset, Cheap• side, pointer—G. Jackson, Manchester, drysalter. BISHOP OF CLOGBER. SAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE LATE SISHOF OF CLOGIILR. lIIETRoFOLITAN COURT (IF ARMAGII, OCTOBER 21. ( Concluded from out last.) The offences over which this Court has cognizance are not of a temporal nature. This Court does not &M et to exercise any ju.iodiviion over these offence.' for the purpose of corporal punishment. to authority and jurisdiction are to impair, into and reform the evil habits and propensities, and, in the quaint but terse language of my Lord Coke, •• it is to reform the in ward man." The jurisdictions are altogether distinct and dif ferent, and there are a great many instances to he foetid of cases of crime which, for these different purposes, have been 'made the subject of the jurisdiction and authority of the Tem poral and Ecclesiastical Courts. These offences were all com mitted in England, and in a country forrio in respect of its criminal law and jurisdiction. They could not be inquired into or punished by the municipal law of thin land ; and melancholy and abortive would be the law of the Church and its authorities if _crimes such as these, and cuiuntitted by a prelate of Ireland, who abou d excel all others in purity, aud he an example to others to live well and christiattly," should as unnoticed and unpunished, because that he had comma:led these oth:noes in a wrap country to the scandal of himself and his church ;" aud iu a country where they might be oommitted with impunity —mid that his wilful ahoeuce from this country, and neglect of his episcopal duties, and contempt of his superior, his Court, and his laws, shucld protect him from the punishment due to his crimes, and removal from bis sacred office. But the Ec oleoiantical Court is not so weak and incompetent, nor are its authorities so iusullieieut and abortive in the enforcement of it■ laws and ordinances. This case affords abundant ev idence to the contrary. The law mil be applied, and folly enfurced against the wilful, disobedivot, and absent man ; ■tad it is right and necessary for the maintenance of the true religion, and ►he discipline of the Church, that its law can be thus administered and ettfuresed. It will net be necessary to make separate and distinct observations upon the evidence, as it is to be applied to the case of identity. The facts herein detailed all of them contribute their due proportion to the establishment of this ma terial fact. But if further observations be necessary, be it re membered that the Bishop has been for the last three mouths wilfuliy alines* from his palace and his hishoprick, and has tlid.Jughly neglected tied deserted the great and important duties of his station, and that this has been a period of time wore his presence aud attendance *ere more than necessary and anxiously expected. This absence and neglect of duty is in itself a canonical offence, and punishable by its law. It is respect of the offences ituputed to the Bishop of small account —but it is a limit that is of some importance in the ascertain ment of his crime and identity. His absence commenced im nied.ttely before the commission of his crime, and lies since centimied. It has covered the period of the proceedings in this cause, their cointuencetueut and approaching termination. It cannot be now be presumed that lie is ignorant of their nature and purpose. One other circumstance, and decisive on this part of the case, remains to be stated. Since the institution of this suit, and the notification of its commencement and pur pose, a public ►ale by auction has been held of all the Bishop's property at the palace of Clasher. The entire stock and fur niture have been ►old, aud the palace, which should be the con►laut place of his residence and hospitality, is now bereft of every article that could contribute to its comfort or cotter nieure. He had to ask pardon for having dwelt so long in the etatement of this case ; but its importance was great. The duty imposed on his Grace and his brethren was painful ; but it was necessary and unavoidable The act required of them was the exercise of a duty %bias his Grace an.t his brethren owed to themselves and their successors to their God and their country. The evidence was then read is open Court. It was full and latisfantary in the proof of the facto adverted to by the !minted Advocate in his opening speech, and particularly the commis moo of lbw octs which formed the feutulatinn of, and consti tuted the necessity for, the primes-deep. 'Die same reason which was assigned by the teamed Advocate for itnt those facts in bin speech, will idleence our determiestion, nod justify us in withholding from the piddle eye a statement of facts su truly disgraceful and 41.0.,ding to the person accused, awl now ooneieted, and afflicting to his much respected kooky and friend•. The tentainentary evidence was read by the Proctor of Office, as called for by Dr. Staples, commencing with the Bishop of Chigher's admission iii', liu,y orders, and terminating iu the rale of his property in Clohner. and pretty nearly 141 the order sad to the purport following . The Ist Llocumenn—That the Bishop of Clogher will in holy order., and hail been held aid reputed to be "al for 20 years past ; acid 'oat 20 years ago he held a rectory, and performed the duties mereof in this arclidocess ; and sous proved by the Rev. John Benjamin Story, and Juhn Patrickson, Esq. Register. iti Hoeutnent wias the utte.ted copy of imptignant's promotion to the Sen of Ferns, bearing date the ...6th of August, Mr!. ,Lt Uusument was the evidence of his conwtation to that See, • • ' - ‘it ' l4 l lb • -4r- ' • Sft.•o6. THE NATIONAL REGISTER • in Christ Church, Dublin, by the then metropolitan of that archdiocese. 4th Document was the evidence of bis installation and enthrone ment in the Cathedral of Ferns, in September, 111011- 11th Document wee the attested copy of his tranelation to the See of Clogher. • 6th Document was his installation and enthronement in the Cathedral of Clogher. 7th Document was the attested cope of the late Primate's patent. Sib Document was the impugnant's admission of canonical obedience to the late Primate, as his metropolitan, bearing date' October, INTO. 6th Document afforded proofs that the late Primate acted as such. 10th Document was the oath of canonise! Obedience sworn by impugnant to the late Primate, as his metropolitan. litli Document was the proof of the late Primate's triennial visitation at Aionaglian, in and for the Diocese of Clogher, in August. 1040, and of t h e Bishop of Clogher having attended there as the suffragan Bishop of that diocese. 12th Document afforded proof of the impugnant having left the palace of Clogher in July last and never aim returned there. lath Document was of consider able length, and went to estah blish the criminality of the impugnant when in London, on the 19th of last July, in association with John Aloverley a private soldier in the Ist regiment of Guards ' in the public house of Edward Lee, situate in St. Alban's palace, in the city of West minster, and county of Middlesex ; and the sreiciee contained were supported by the testimony of James Clark. watchman ; John Plant, shoemaker; Hubert Gleeson, and Robert Gregg, watchuieti. 14th Document was the evidence of Jobe Latchford, the con stable of the watch, to prove the note written by the Bishop uf Clogher in the watch-house cell; and the proof of the hand writing to be that of the impugnant was testified by the Rev. Air. Storey, And At r. Patricksom 15th Document proved that the Earl of Roden is nephew to the Hon. Percy Jocelyn. 16th Document. proved by Ale Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to the Sitting Magistrate Mr. Dyer, was the arrest and bailing of the impugnant, and his acknowledgment that time of Ins name and dignity', and place of residence in London. 17th the Document proved the auction of furniture. lac. at Clogher, on the 16th of last September, and subsequent days. lath Document proved by Hugh Lyle, olOsks, in the county of Londonderry, Esq. that the person arrested in London was the then Lord Bishop of Clogher. Other documents were also read as to Wealthy, and to show that the libel charged occurred in the moiety of Middlesex. — 'f he libel contained 51 articles. When these several documents were all read and entered, Sir Henry Aleredyth stated to the Court that the evidence had closed. The evidence being thus closed, Dr. Staples, on the part of the office, observed upon it, and particularly upon the law which regulated the proceeding, and established its propriety and necessity nearly in the following terms : We have now, My Lords, gone through the evidence in this very distre sing case, and as we conceive have folly borne out by proof, the offences eborged by the articles against the uu• Intonate person accused. Some increased difficulty has been mposed mem us by the peculiar circumstance of the inpug nem not h av in g appeared. Ile is not before your Lordships either in person or by proctor, and thence has arisen the neces sity of much evidence to identify Percy, Bishop of Clogher, as the person guilty of the em retitle& alleged. That some person committed these offences at the time and place stated, is not questioned. It is now soy duty to 'hew your Lordships, by a few observations on the evidence laid before you, that that per• son was Percy, Bishop of Climber. Having spoken for mine tinie he concluded thus:— Having now, as we conceive, established the facts charged against the :individual chanted, and also the jurisdiction of the Court, it only mitains to pray for your Lordships 'sentence.— This is a duty I tun aware must be most painful to the Court ; yet, however distressing the case may be, I am coofident your Lot&hips will conscientiously and boldly pronounce that sen tence which the law demands.—You will cut off this pestilential member, and discharge your duty to your country and your God. His Grace the Lord Primate, after some conference with his brethren, requ•sted that the Court should be cleared. Sir Henry Meredyth. before he retired, tendered to his Grace a written sentence, for his perusal and approval, referring to and founded upon the evidence in the cause. The sen tence was and is, sentence of deprivation and deposition.— His Grace received and took possession of the sentence. His Grace and Brethren remained for some time in confetence. It was then announced that the Court was opened, and that the sen tence of the Advocates and Proctor of office was expected. 'Piney accordingly attended, and thereupon his Grace the Lord Primate, in the presence and hearing of ma Brethren the Lords Bishops, of his Vicar General, and of other distinguished personages, rose from his seat, and the entire of the auditory then standing, and the Bishop of Clogher being then thrice called, but not apptari• - .;, and his contumacy being accused, according to the law of the Court, his Grace proceeded to read the sentence in open Court. He read it in a MOSS impressive and dignified manner, and in a tone of voice that manifested his extreme feelings and delicacy in the discharge of this painful and important duty. When finished, he signed it in open Court, and directed it to be lodged in the Remstracy of his Diocese, where it now remains a record of these unportant proceedings, and of their perfect consummation by the absolute deprivation and deposition of Doctor Percey Jocelyn from the Biahopric of (Aught', and his Episcopal Outer and Authorities. :~ ABBEY v. C•ter. Mr. Searlett said, that this was an action against the return ing uMcer of the borough of Aldboroagb, tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the last assizes for the county of York. He bad been itiatrocted to look at the case in all its herrings, in order that be might find some ground of motion for a new trial if any 'aimed ; but he must confess that there did not appear to him to be any. Ile would not, therefore, trouble the Court on the subject. CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE COI , ATT OF BERKS. Mr. Taunton said, that he was instructed to move the Court for a new rule to shew cause why a criminal information shook not be granted against the inhabitants of the county of Berke, for the refusal to repair a bridge situated within the county.-- The bridge lay iu the direct line of the turupike road, and bad always be n used by the public. It will built across the river leis, in the road from Aston-Line, in Oxfordshire, to Ferring don, in Berksh.re. In 1778 it was erected by the trustees of the roiniq part of tLa expenee of its erection b iug defrayed out of their fends, and part by voluntary contributions. In 1779 it was taken down, and the prasent bridge was erected in its place. The 'Admits stated that this bridge war in Berk shire; that it had been completely adopted by the public; and that it had gradually fallen to decay and become even den gerous to passengers. At the Spring Sessions in list year ap plication was made to the Magistrates on the subject ; they appoiuted two gentlemen, named Blandy and Mills, to inquire of the state and local situation of the bridge ; and on their report that Me bridge was is a state of dilapidation, and situ ate within the county, they made an order for repairing the bridge, but directed that payment should not lie made until the question of liability should be decided. Some repairs, Ilierelbre, were dose, but so payment made on account of the expenses. A bill was preferred against th • county at the last Lent Assize.; and though four witnesses swore to the local situation and condition of the road, the Grand Jury threw out the bill. At the Midsummer Sessions another bill was pre erred, which shared the same fate. Again at the Michaelmas Sessions, a bill was preferred, which certain cireumelanc occurred whirl, he (Air. Taunton) would rather read from the affidavits than trust himself to detail, as they were of a roe fiar nature, sod involved individuals of high station and character. The Lord Chief Justice.--Why need you state the. at all In the evrnt, your bill was, I presume, again throwu out ? Mr. Taunto n . — Y e s , my Lord. . . . The Lord Chief Justice.—You have stated enough to en title you to a idle to chew cause. Do you propose to serve it on the Clerk of the Peace 1 Mr. Taunton.—Yes ; and on two Magistrates to whom the affidavits particularly refer. The Lord Chief Justice.—Take a rule to sbew cause. TUESDAY, NOV. 12. TIIE KING 0. HULSE. Mr. Sergeant Pell moved for a new trial in this prosecution. It was an indictment tried at the Bodmin Assizes for Ml. The plaintiff was charged with bribery at the St. Ives election. The learned Sergeant alleged as the ground of his motion, that the defendant had been taken by surprise, and obliged to go ms trial unprepared for his defence. The attorney for the prose cution had given him reason to suppose his trial would not come on, and in consequence of that representation he did not pro cure the evidence necessary for his defence. It was also urged that the principal witness for the prosecution, a person named Dunn, bad been convicted of perjury since the trial. The Court were of opinion that the aSdavit of the defendant required affidavits in answer, and upon that ground they allowed a rule to shew cause. PENN V. STAZICoTE AND OTHERS. The Common Sergeant moved to set aside the verdict in this ease, on the ground of a misdirection. It was an action to recover d-meges for false imprisonment, tried before Baron Graham, at Warwick. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. with one farthing damages. There were two pleas ; first, the general issue : the second was •jus tification under a late statute, the first of Geo. IV. which gives authority to any constable or owner of property, without the warrant of a magistrate to seize, apprehend, and take before a magistrate any person or persons commiltiag damage to pre mises, garden, fences, plants, crops, and other properly. In this use the defendant endeavoured to prove, that the plaintiff. on a Saturday night, left a public house with a loaded gun, which he fired into the window of a public house opposite.- 3 he wife of the shop-keeper and several customers were in the shop at the time, and they narrowly escaped personal injury.— Twenty-four panes of glass were broken. On the Monday fol lowing the plaintiff was taken before a magistrate, who felt some reluctance in committing him under Lord Ellenborough's Act, but recommended the parties to proceed on the Ist of Geo. IV. °flaring at the time to commit him for maliciously breaking windows. They did not adopt the magistrate's sug gestion, and the plaintiff was discharged. Ile then brought ' his action, and the defendant justified upon the Act of Pat lia anent. The plaintiff attempted to prove an alibi. Ile alleged that be was in the public house at the time the gun was fired ; but the defendant had evidence to show he was leaving the house at the time the damage was done. Notwithstanding this fact, the Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff, The misoireel two on the part of the Judge was, omitting to state to the Jury, that the defendants were justified under the Act of Parliament, ifulependent of the general inane. The Lord Chief Justice.—The question et the trial seems to bete been, whether the plaintiff was the man who fired the gas. Common Sergeant—Yes. The Lord ChtefJustice—Perhaps a constable is not justified in arresting a man, unless there is at least a etrong suspicion that a felony has been committed. Judge Bayley-1 thick you bad not proof the plaintiff was the man who did the act. • The Common Sergeant then said they had proof of that fact. A quarrel between the shopkeeper and the plaintiff had taken place previous to the injurious act. The Court granted a rule to 'thew cause. TIIE RING v. FIELDER AND asortir.n. Mr. Adolphus said, be was ready to submit his objections in favour of the defendants, and move either to enter a •erdict for the defendants, or to obtain a new trial. It was an indictment against the two defendants for keeping a gaming-house, in Bennet street, St. James's. Mr. Adolphus at the trial objected, that the house was not in the pari►h of St. James, and also that no evidence proved the defendant was the keeper of the house at the time one of the witnesses for the prosecution swore he *O.W him acting an such. —The learned counsel was asked befor.i he made bin motion, whether the defendants were in Court ? Ile snawered no. Judge Bayley-1 dont't know whether you can move if they are absent. Tha Court may wish to know whether judgment has passed on a former conviction. There is a rule in c,itunial cases which precludes counsel from moving fur a new unless the defendants are in Court. Mr. Adolphus—Will your lairdship give me leave to loca tion the application when the defendants are in Court LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. MuNDAY, NOV. it. MURRAY a. Tilt EARL Of STAIR. This was an action on a bond for 2,0001. executed by the motile defendant when be was Mr. Dalrymple. The qaestion upon the case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice at the last sittings at Westminster, and the Jury found a verdict fur the plaintiff: The bond, which arose out of a gaming triune. tiou at Paris some years ago, was given conditionally. It was not to be in operation before the death of the late Earl of Stair. That couilition, according to the evidence, was not duly observed, and the court wa. moved to set aside the ver diet, on ground that non-cornplianoe with the conditions of the instrument made it a nullity. They granted a rule to sliew Cause. TII F: KI•G C. WADDI\GTOY. - - The defendant cattle into Court as the Judges were rising, for the purpose of inoltiug a regular display of oratory. His first effort was to Me an aOidavit, which he handed up to the officer of the court. He then caught the eye of the Lord Chief Justice, who said the Court could not hear bum on that occasion. it w told be time enough to muse for a new trial when brought up for judgment. Uadclingtom—" But, my Lord, I wish to be heard ; 1 wish to tome now." The Judges left the Court, and Waddington expressed much disappointment at tiodiug another bar put to his elo quence. He did not file hiv allidavit, but **tried it away uudt r his arm. , N., II i!~'~+