Charters university of Cambridge for the time being, shall be incorpogranted to the rated and have perpetual succession, by the name of the chanconfirmed by cellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Cambridge. Universities Statute. "And the letters patents of the queen's highness most noble father King Henry the Eighth, made and granted to the chancellor and scholars of the said university of Oxford, bearing date the 1st day of April, in the 14th year of his reign, and the letters patents of the queen's majesty that now is, made and granted unto the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Cambridge, bearing date the 26th day of April, in the 3rd year of her reign; and also all other letters patents by any of the progenitors or predecessors of our said sovereign lady, made to either of the said corporated bodies severally, [433] or to any of their predecessors, or either of the said universities, by whatsoever name or names the said chancellor, masters, and scholars of either of the said universities, in any of the said letters patents have been heretofore named, shall from henceforth be good, effectual, and available in the law to all intents, constructions, and purposes, to the foresaid now chancellor, masters, and scholars of either of the said universities, and to their successors for evermore, after and according to the form, words, sentences and true meaning of every of the same letters patents, as amply, fully and largely as if the same letters patents were recited verbatim in this present act of parliament. "And the chancellor, masters, and scholars of either of the said universities, severally, and their successors for ever, by the same name of chancellor, masters, and scholars of either of the said universities of Oxford and Cambridge, shall and may severally have, hold, possess, enjoy and use, to them and to their successors for evermore, all manner of manors, lordships, rectories, parsonages, lands, tenements, rents, services, annuities, advowsons of churches, possessions, pensions, portions, and hereditaments, and all manner of liberties, franchises, immunities, quietances, and privileges, view of frankpledge, law days, and other things whatsoever they be, which either of the said corporated bodies of either of the said universities had held, occupied, or enjoyed, or of right ought to have had, used, occupied, and enjoyed at any time before the making of this act, according to the true intent and meaning as well of the said letters patents made by the said noble prince King Henry the Eighth, and granted to the chancellor and scholars of the university of Oxford, bearing date as is aforesaid, as of the letters patents of the queen's majesty, made and granted unto the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university of Cambridge, bearing date as aforesaid; and according to the true intent and meaning of all the other aforesaid letters patents whatsoever; and the same are hereby confirmed to them. "Provided that this act shall not extend to the prejudice or hurt of the liberties and privileges of right belonging to the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of the town of Cambridge and city of Oxford; but that they the said mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, and every of them, and their successors, shall be and continue free in such sort and degree, and enjoy such liberties, freedoms, and immunities as they lawfully might have done before the making of this act," By which blessed act (as Lord Coke calls it (m)) all the courts, franchises, privileges, and immunities mentioned in any letters. patents, to either of the said universities, that they might [ 434 ] prosper in their study with quietness, are established and made good and effectual in the law, against any quo warranto, scire facias, or other suits, or any quarrel, concealment, or other opposition whatsoever (n). where one of the Parties is the Univer But they have no jurisdiction unless the plaintiff or de- Jurisdiction fendant is a scholar or servant of the university, or of some college; but if either of them is a scholar, it is then a matter a Member of within their jurisdiction; but yet, if either of them is entered sity. into a college by collusion, to avoid a suit in the King's Bench, or to excuse himself from town offices, his privilege shall not be allowed. Thus (o) in the case of The City of Oxford, M., 1 Will. (p), on an action of debt against the defendant, a townsman in Oxford, for refusing to execute an office in the corporation, it was moved, that he being a servant of Dr. Irish, might have the (m) 4 Inst. 227; Hale's Hist. Com. Law, 33. (n) [Besides the Colleges and Halls which belong to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the following institutions have at various times been established as corporate bodies, bearing a similar title, in this kingdom :King's College, London, incorporated by royal charter; patron, the Queen; visitor, the Archbishop of Canterbury: University College, London, founded 1826:-Durham University, founded 1832, incorporated by royal charter 1837; visitor, the Bishop of Durham; governors, the Dean and Chapter of Durham. See 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 19; and ss. 37, 44 of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, under title Beans and Chapters; and s. 13 of 4 & 5 Vict. c. 39, under Deans and Chapters.Sion College, founded 1630; visitor, the Bishop of London:-St. Bees' College, founded 1817, for the education of candidates for holy orders in the four northern dioceses. See -- s. 24 of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 77, under title Schools.-St. David's College, Lampeter, Cardigan, incorporated by royal charter in 1822, for the education of candidates for orders in the diocese of St. David's, &c.; visitor, Lord In the German work Con- (o) [See Ayliffe's Hist. of Univ, of Oxf. vol. ii. part ii, ch. 2. small 8vo. ed.] (p) 2 Ventr. 106. Jurisdiction privilege of the university; and a charter was produced, by where one of which it was granted that the members and servants of the a Member of university should be sued in the vice chancellor's court, and the Parties is the Univer sity. not elsewhere; and a certificate from the chancellor, directed to the chief justice, that the defendant was matriculated and registered in the university; but it appearing to the court that this was done two days and no more before he was chosen to this office, and that he was a painter by trade, and had lived several years in the corporation, and no servant attending Dr. Irish, the privilege of the university was not allowed. [Conusance must be claimed by the university either in the first instance or at the first day (p).—ED.] T., 3 Car., Wilcocks v. Bradell (q). Prohibition by Wilcocks against Jane Bradell, the wife of John Bradell, principal of St. Mary Hall in Oxford, and Christian, the daughter of the said John Bradell, to stay their suits in the vice chancellor's court of Oxford: for that whereas Jane Bradell had libelled against him in the vice chancellor's court of Oxford, for calling her bawd and old bawd (which is termed the action of injury); and Christian the daughter had libelled against him for these words, scurvy whore and jade, and that he did strike her. For staying of these suits, sentence being given against him in both, Wilcocks prays to have prohibitions. And now the agent for the university moved for a consultation, and showed the charters of the university in the 14 Rich. 2 and 14 Hen. 8, whereby is granted unto them, that they may inquire of all trespasses, injuries, and of all pleas and quarrels, and of all other crimes and matters (except pleas of frank-tenement), where a scholar or their servants or ministers is one of the parties, and that they shall have cognizance and correction [435] therefore according to their statutes and customs, or according to the law of England, at the discretion of the chancellor; so as the justices of the King's Bench or of the Common Bench, or justices of assize, se non intromittant; and if the same justices shall take in hand to inquire, or in any wise to take cognizance or intromit, then upon certificate or notification of the chancellor of the university or his commissary, they shall supersede such inquiry or cognizance, and shall not put the party to answer before them, but the said party shall be corrected and punished before the chancellor or his commissary only, in form aforesaid: and that these charters were confirmed by act of parliament in the 13 Eliz. And because Wilcocks was a scholar and master of arts of the said university, it was prayed that the cause might be remanded. And it was much debated at the bar and bench, for that the parties were women, which were not any persons privileged there; and the defen (p) [Rex v. Agar, 5 Burr. 2820. For the manner in which claim of conusance by the Chancellor of Ox ford is to be made, see Kendrick v. the Parties is the Univer dant, who is the scholar, doth not desire that privilege, but Jurisdiction would oppose it, and prayeth these prohibitions. But the where one of court agreed, forasmuch as the charters are, that the university a Member of shall have cognizance of those pleas, where one of the parties sity. is a scholar, and so the plaintiffs being thereby inforced to sue there, therefore the cause should be remanded. But if an action be brought against a scholar and another who is not one, in this case the scholar (another being joined with him) shall not have the privilege or benefit of the charter. As in the case of White v. William and Robert Lowgher, 18 & 19 Eliz. (r). William Lowgher appeared and answered, but Robert Lowgher claimed the privilege of the university of Oxford. But because the said Robert was joined with William in the bill, who was not subject to the same jurisdiction, therefore the court ordered process to be awarded against him, to show other cause why he should not answer. And in order to be entitled to this privilege, it must appear, that the person claiming it is resident in the university at the time. As in the case of Mary Hayes v. Samuel Long, clerk, T., 6 Geo. 3, in the Common Pleas (s):—The plaintiff, having been prosecuted upon an indictment for keeping a bawdy house at Benson in the county of Oxford, and upon trial acquitted, brought an action against the prosecutor of the indictment. The university claimed cognizance, and the defendant makes affidavit that he is and for twenty-one years past has been a [436] member and student of the college of Christ Church, and that he is now resident there. Whereupon the court made a rule to show cause why the claim of cognizance should not be allowed. Upon showing cause, an affidavit was produced by the plaintiff, which swears, that the defendant generally resides, and is obliged to reside, at Benson, where he has a college living and though his name remains upon the books of the college, and he is still a member thereof, yet he has no room or chamber there to reside in. Thereupon it was insisted for the plaintiff, that cognizance of pleas ought not to be allowed. to the university, for two reasons: first, because the cause of action arose at Benson, out of the university; secondly, for that the defendant had no right to the privilege of the university, he having ceased to reside there as a student and member thereof, and being obliged to reside upon his living at Benson; like the case of an attorney, after he has left off practising, and no longer attends this court, he shall not be entitled to privilege, notwithstanding his name remains upon the roll of attornies. By Lord Camden, Chief Justice: The charter extends to actions arising in any part of England, but surely it could never intend that scholars as plaintiffs should have the privilege of suing in the university in causes of actions arising in any part of England; but when they are defendants, this pri(r) Cary, 79. (s) 2 Wils. 310. Jurisdiction Where one of Parties a Member of the University. vilege extends all over England. The superior courts construe this privilege very strictly, therefore it ought to be made to appear clearly to the court, that the defendant is a scholar residing. Great numbers of persons remain on the books long after they have left the university, on purpose to vote for members, and the like; many who are fellows of colleges never go thither at all; but it would be strange, if this court should allow cognizance in cases where such persons are defendants; it is therefore absolutely necessary that residence should be proved to the court. And the claim of cognizance was disallowed. [But a college barber has been held to be entitled to the privilege of the university, though he resided in the city out of college (t). [Thornton v. Ford (u). Claim of conusance by the university of Oxford was allowed in an action of trespass against a proctor, pro-proctor, and the marshal of the university, though the affidavit of the latter, describing him as of a parish in the suburbs of Oxford, only verified that he then was and had been for the last fourteen years a common servant of the university, called marshal of the university; and that he was sued for an act done by him in discharge of his duty, and in obedience to the orders of the other two defendants, without stating that he resided within the university, or was matriculated. [Brown v. Renourd (x). Conusance of a plea of trespass sued against a resident member of the university of Cambridge, for a cause of action verified by affidavit to have arisen within the town and suburbs of Cambridge, over which the university court had jurisdiction, was allowed upon the claim of the vicechancellor on behalf of the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university, entered on the roll in due form, setting out their jurisdiction under charters confirmed by act of parliament, and averring the cause of action to have arisen within such jurisdiction. [Williams v. Brickenden (y). A claim of conusance made by the vice-chancellor of the university of Oxford, in the vacancy of the office of chancellor by death, on behalf of the university, allowed in a plea of trespass. [In Perrin v. West (z), it was held that a member of the university of Oxford cannot be arrested by civil process out of the court of the chancellor of the university, unless such process issue in a suit commenced against him while resident within the precincts of the university, and a defendant will be discharged by habeas corpus unless it appear distinctly, and not merely by inference, that the defendant was resident within (t) [Rex v. Routledge, 2 Doug. 531.J (u) [15 East, 634.] (*) [12 East, 12; and see the objections to the claim fully stated.] (y) [11 East, 543.] (2) [5 Nev. & M. 291; 4 Ad. & Ell. 405; 1 Har. & Woll. 401 (1834); and see above, Thornton v. Ford, 15 East, 634.] |