« AnteriorContinuar »
chiamenta de placitis Coronæ vel wards heard in reply, and urged aliis prædictis, aut aliquod aliud that this charter ought to be conofficium ibidem faciendum, nisi in strued strictly, as it went to dedefectum ipsius comitis et ballivo- prive the Crown of a prerogative rum ac ministrorum suorum in which at that time existed, though terris et feodis suis predictis.” Ad- the right of electing coroners was ded to this was the subsequent afterwards, by the statute 25 Edpassage called the “ne intromit- ward 3rd, declared to belong to the tant clause which was in the freeholders, "saving all franchises following terms:~"Ita quod idem not previously granted.” There comes, per se vel per ballivos ac had been a similar statute passed ministros suos, fines, amerciamenta, in a preceding reign with the same exitus, et foris facturos hujusmodi intent, so that it might be well hominum et tenentium suorum doubted whether the Crown had prædictorum, et omnia quæ ad nos the power of granting to the Earl et hæredes nostros pertinere pote- of Lancaster such a right as was now runt de anno, die, et vasto sive sought to be founded upon this charstreppo, et murdris prædictis le ter. Where the Crown was supvare, percipere, et habere possint, posed to grant such rights, however, sine occasione vel impedimento it was submitted that the words nostri vel heredum nostrorum, jus- ought to be clear and express. ticiariorum, exactorum, vicecomi- Great stress had been laid upon tum, coronatorum, aut aliorum bal. the grant of attachiamenta de plalivorum, seu ministrorum nostro citis Coronæ ; but it was not nerum quorumcunque." It would cessary to have a coroner in order appear, therefore, that all other to hold such pleas, for there were coroners were inhibited from en many instances known where shetering the Duchy, and if so, the riffs held them. Besides, if such former passage must be taken to was the force of those words, the have included the grant of that effect of a grant of retorna brevia office. The learned gentleman um, in the same clause, must be, then entered upon an elaborate by implication, a grant of a right examination of various ancient to appoint sheriffs, whose duty it documents and charters with the was to return all writs, and that view of showing, that there was was not contended at all. This no difference between a grant of exposed the fallacy of the argu. attachiamenta de placitis Coronæ ment which advanced this as a and that of altachiamenta placito- grant by necessary implication. As rum, which were said to be used for the indifferent use of the two indifferently. The latter was fre- expressions, it was well known quently construed to include the that the one included the other, so office of coroner, which need not that it might well be that both be granted co nomine, for it was might appear in the same instruenough that its duties were exer ment. There is, however, a discised, though under another name. tinction between them, and the
Mr. Ellis, Mr. Martin, and Mr. question is, whether attachiamenta Robinson followed on the same de placitis Coronæ mean side.
than the attachments arising out Mr. Wortley, Mr. Watson, and of pleas of the Crown of a similar Mr. Hardy were a few days after nature to the writs previously
granted to the Earl. As for the This turned upon the meaning of charter of Richard 2nd on his dis- the charter creating that Duchy, possessing Henry of Bolingbroke and particularly upon the sense to of his father's property, it is noto be attached to the words “alta. rious that the charters granted to chiamenta de placilis Coronæ,” bethe favourites of that monarch were tween which and “ailachiamenta in blank forms, which were filled placilorum” it had been conup at the pleasure of the grantees, tended by the defendant, that so that their contents are no valid there was a distinction favourable proof of the construction put upon to his rights. The former, howthe original charter in those days, ever, of the two terms was the and of this a strong instance is to more comprehensive, and as far as be found in the fact that these two the argument went which was charters actually do confer a right founded on the distinction, it was of “cognizance of pleas” as having favourable to the plaintiff's claim. been already granted to the Duchy, The point first argued was, that which is not once mentioned in it. the words of this charter were The whole case, therefore, must not sufficient to convey a right to turn upon the mere words of the the Earl of Lancaster to appoint charter, and these are not enough a coroner within the Duchy; but to grant the right claimed eo no I am of opinion that, taking into mine, while, if it be sought to be consideration the subsequent clause inferred by implication, it must be prohibiting the interference of any a necessary implication alone which bailiff or other officer of the Crown can confer the right. Here the in the Duchy, they are amply sufimplication is too general, for the ficient for that purpose, especially duties really granted may attach as the grant is to hold all attachto other offices as well as that of ments of pleas of the Crown cum coroner, and when that is so, the quibuscunque aliis. It was next courts will always construe charters contended that, whatever might and grants by the Crown strictly, be the implication arising from the for the Crown cannot be allowed words of this charter, yet that it to divest itself of any rights, ex
could not be construed into a grant cept upon the very clearest lan- of the nature claimed by the plainguage.
tiff, inasmuch as the right of ape At the sitting of the court to pointing to the office of coroner day judgment was pronounced in was one which could not be granted favour of the plaintiff.
except by express terms, and co Lord Abinger said, that though nomine, In aid of this it was the argument had been put for argued that the coroner's was a ward by the counsel on both sides, judicial office, and therefore one especially for the defendant, as which the Crown could not grant involving very important conse the appointment of to a subject. quences, yet to his mind, the case There was manifestly a contradicinvolved itself into the simple tion, therefore, in the arguments question between the two coroners of the defendant, for if the coroner as to the right to the fees conse- be a judicial officer, and for that quent upon holding inquests with reason the right to appoint him be in that portion of the Duchy com- inalienable by the Crown, what prised in the honour of Pontefract. does it signify what the implica,
tion may be of the contested pas- extent, the charter might well be sages ? or why should the defend- held to convey a right to the apant argue that the Crown could pointment of that officer. The only grant such a right eo nomine? court is not called on to say, that As to the judicial character of the such a right was conveyed by this coroner, he (Lord Abinger) would charter eo nomine, for if attachby no means admit that his duties ments of the pleas of the Crown were of so solemn a nature. At have been held in the Duchy unall events, he discharged duties der this grant, it is clear that all ministerial as well as those which others are prohibited by the latter were so called judicial, and it was clause from interfering with that enough for the construction of this privilege. The fact, however, is charter in favour of the plaintiff, so; the county coroner has, through when there appeared to have been the negligence of the plainti's
continuous appointment in the predecessors, interfered and Duchy to this office from the reign sumed the discharge of duties peof Elizabeth, and the capability of culiar to the officer of the Duchy, some officer, whether a bailiff or to whom such duties appertain feodary, to discharge the duties under this charter. I therefore included under the terms used by think that the rule must be disthe charter. The jury had found charged." that the duties of coroner had been Rule discharged accordingly. used and exercised by the officer of the Duchy; and that finding, ARCHES COURT. coupled with the general clauses relied on in the argument of the
January 29. plaintiff, was enough to warrant The OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROthe court in holding that the right
MOTED BY SANDERS AGAINST to appoint an officer to hold pleas Head. of the Crown, i, e., to take in. quests super visum corporis with. This was a proceeding under in the honour of Pontefract and the late statute, 3rd & 4th of Vic., other parts of the Duchy, to the c. 86, against the Rev. Henry exclusion of all other officers what. Erskine Head, Rector of Feniton, ever, was granted by the charter Devon, for being the author and in question. The rule, therefore, publisher of a letter which apfor a new trial must be discharged. peared in the Western Times of
Mr. Baron Parke had only heard August 21, 1841, addressed to his a portion of the case, but, in so parishioners, entitled "A View of far as he was able to form an opin- the Duplicity of the present Sysion from that portion, he was in tem of Episcopal Ministration, duced to agree in the judgment of occasioned by the Bishop of Exethe Chief Baron.
ter's Circular on Confirmation, by Mr. Baron Alderson.-"It is Henry Erskine Head,” in which it enough for us to say, that this is openly affirmed and maintained, charter granted a power to the that the catechism, the order of grantee to appoint an officer of baptism, and the order of confirsome sort, who could hold ulta- mation, contained in the “Book chiamenta de placitis Coronæ, and of Common Prayer, and adminise if the coroner's duty was to that tration of the sacraments, and
other rites and ceremonies of the of Exeter and in this court. The Church of England,"contain erro. act providing that the bishop may neous and strange doctrines, and send the case by letters of request wherein are also openly affirmed to the court of appeal, "in the and maintained other positions in first instance," or after the report derogation and depravation of the of the commissioners, by “ the first said book, contrary to the statutes instance” could not mean after the and to the constitutions and ca- bishop had issued a notice of his nons of the church. The Bishop intention to proceed by a commisof Exeter, in conformity with the sion of inquiry. act referred to (entitled “ An Act Dr. Harding followed on the for the better enforcing of Church
same side. Discipline"), served Mr. Head Dr. Adams, against the protest, with notice of his intention to asked cui bono this objection? If issue a commission of inquiry, in the bishop issued a commission, order to the institution, if need be, there was every probability that of further proceedings against him. the commissioners would report The act contains a provision, that that there was a primâ facie case, the bishop may, if he think fit, and then letters of request could “either in the first instance, or bring the cause here in the course after the commissioners shall have of four or five months, at further reported that there is sufficient expence. The service of the notice primd facie ground for instituting was not a commencement of the proceedings, and before the filing proceedings; it merely announced of the articles, but not afterwards, the bishop's intention to proceed. send the case by letters of request Dr. Robinson followed on the to the court of appeal of the pro
same side. vince. The Bishop of Exeter, Sir H. Jenner Fust said, that after serving this notice upon Mr. with respect to the form of the Head, sent letters of request to letters of request, he found no this court, whence a citation issued, provision in the statute requiring to which Mr. Head appeared un the names of parties to be inserted, der protest to the jurisdiction of nor did it contain any schedule of the court. That protest now came forms. It had not been alleged on for argument.
that the omission was in any way The Queen's Advocate, in sup- prejudicial to the party proceeded port of the protest, contended that against. The statute altered the the notice served upon Mr. Head old law, by authorizing the bishop, was a commencement of the pro. if he saw fit, without the agency ceeding, and equivalent to a cita- of any other person, to send the tion in this court ; that it not being case to this court. He was, thererevoked or annulled, a proceeding fore, of opinion that the letters of was actually pending before the request were in the form and manbishop, and might be enforced ; ner required by the act.
With and by the suit being entertained regard to the notice, he was not in this court, Mr. Head might be satisfied that it was equivalent to subjected to two prosecutions for a citation; it was a notice of an the same alleged offence, and might intention to proceed, but it was no be cited to appear on the very part of the proceedings; it was a same day and hour in the diocese preliminary step warning the party
to prepare to defend himself. He Thomas Campbell.” The defendwas of opinion, that the notice ants soon after published their was not such a commencement of “Book of the Poets,” in the second the proceeding as to bar the bishop volume of which, containing the from sending the case to this court, modern poets of the nineteenth and it was not to be supposed that century, they were alleged to have the notice, after the letters of re. pirated entire from the edition quest, could be a valid and sub published by Mr. Moxon several of sisting notice, so as to prejudice the most popular and characteristic Mr. Head. The court must, there. of Mr. Campbell's productions, infore, overrule the protest and as- cluding “Ye Mariners of Eng. sign the party to appear abso- land," "Lord Ullen's Daughter," lutely.
“Glenara," "Song of the Greeks," The Queen's Advocate.--I am and “ The Turkish Lady," and instructed to pray that you will also to have made copious extracts grant Mr. Head permission to ap from other poems without the perpeal to the Judicial Committee, mission of the author. The de
Dr. Adams could not see what fendants admitted the charge of end this could answer but that of taking the matter complained of, delay.
but justified the act on the ground Sir H. Jenner Fust thought of the custom of the trade and the that, as it was a question as to the bona fide character of the selections jurisdiction of the court, he ought of matter they had made. They had to grant permission to appeal. some time before published a work
entitled “The Book of the Poets,
from Chaucer to Beattie,” consistVICE-CHANCELLORS
ing of an essay on English poetry COURT.
from its commencement until the February 8.
end of the eighteenth century,
with biographical notices of various A motion was made to-day on poets, and extracts from their behalf of Mr. T. Campbell, the works, to illustrate the progress
of poet, for an injunction to restrain English poetry, and the genius Messrs. Scott and Geary, the book and characteristics of each of the sellers of Charter-house- square, poets of that period. The second from selling any more copies of the volume was intended as a compasecond volume of a work called nion to the former, and, in exe“ The Book of the Poets, contain- cuting the grand design of publishing the Modern Poets of the Nine ing a book of the poets of the teenth Century," on the ground nineteenth century, they had made of piracy: The entire copyright selections from the plaintiff's poeof the original poems, published at try, 'in common with the rest of various times for Mr. Campbell's the modern poets of eminence. own benefit, was alleged by the The defendants further alleged it bill to be vested in himself in the to be the custom of the trade to year 1840, and, having that right, publish works of a similar nature, he agreed, upon certain terms, to containing quotations from authors permit Mr. Moxon to print and whose works were copyright, and publish a new edition, under the mentioned as instances the" Elegant title of " The Poetical Works of Extracts in poetry" selected by Dr.