Free, D. D. against Burgoyne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1826 |
| Date | 08 November 1826 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 149
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 8 D. & R. 179; and in H. L. 2 Bligh. N. S. 65; 4 E. R. 1055; 1 Dow. & Cl. 115; 6 E. R. 468 (with note).
fkee, D.D. against burgoyne. Friday, May 6th, 1826. The stat. 27 G. 3, c. 44, does not limit the time for proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court against clerks upon a charge of fornication, if deprivation be the object of the suit; and, therefore, where a suit was instituted in that Court against a clerk, charging (amongst other things) fornication committed more than eight months before the commencement of the suit: Held, that a prohibition should go as to proceeding upon that charge for reformation of manners, but that a consultation should be awarded as to proceeding for deprivation. [S. C. 8 D. & E. 179; and in H. L. 2 Bligh. N. S. 65; 4 E. R. 1055; 1 Dow. & Cl. 115; 6 E. E. 468 (with note).] Prohibition. The declaration alleged, that by a statute of the 27 G. 3 (c. 44, s. 2), it was (amongst other things) enacted, that no suit should be commenced in any Ecclesiastical Court for fornication or incontinence, after the expiration of eight calendar months from the time when such offence should have been committed; yet the defendant, contriving, &c, had lately, to wit, in October 1824, against the form of the statute, drawn the plaintiff into a plea in the Spiritual Court, touching and concerning the crime of fornication and incontinence alleged to have been committed by him, the plaintiff, with divers females in the several and respective years 1810,, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 22, by wickedly and subtilly, in and by a certain libel of articles, objecting, [401] articling and libelling against the plaintiff in the said Spiritual Court in manner following. (The libel was then set out, by which it appeared that the present plaintiff was charged with various offences.) The first-article alleged, that by the ecclesiastical laws, canons and constitutions of the Church, 150 FREE V, BURGOYNE 5 B. &C.402. of England, all clerks and ministers in holy orders are particularly enjoined and required to be grave, decent, reverend, and orderly in their general deportment, and to abstain from fornication or incontinence, profaneness, &c. under pain of deprivation of their ecclesiastical benefices, suspension from the exercise of their clerical functions, or such other ecclesiastical punishment or censures, as the exigency of the case and the law thereupon may require and authorise. The second article alleged that Dr. Free was a clerk in holy orders. The libel then proceeded to state the various acts of fornication and incontinence alluded to in the plaintiff's declaration, and many other instances of misconduct. The declaration concluded in the usual form, that the defendant continued to prosecute the plea in the Ecclesiastical Court, notwithstanding the King's writ of prohibition. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Tallis against Frederick Tallis
...mentioned, carried on the trade or business of publishers of books and other publications in copartnership, (a) Free v. Burgoyne, 5 B. & C. 400 ; 6 B. & C. 538. lfL.HK.tn. TALLIS V. TALLIS 483 and, among other parts and branches of the said trade or business, a certain part or branch thereo......
-
R (Kailash Shanker) v The General Medical Council
... ... His strongly held belief is that a rival doctor there conducted a vendetta against him. The vendetta led to the involvement of the defendant, which I shall refer to as “the GMC” ... ...
-
The Visitation of the Archbishop of York of the Dean and Chapter of York
...in his province. A prohibition issued in that case, but as to one part of the proceeding only, as in the modern case of Free v. Burgoyne (5 B. & C. 400); and the Bishop of St. David's was deprived before the archbishop. He appealed to the Delegates, and then, finding that they were about to......
-
A Suit in the Arches Court of Canterbury, Entitled "Arches. The Office of the Judge Promoted by Barnes against Shore."
...3 Bro. P. C. 465, 8Q. B.6M. BARNES V. SHORE 1023 damnation in coats, but not deprivation (c). [Patteson J. referred to Free v. Burgoyne (5 B. & C. 400).] The charge on which this suit proceeds is, essentially, nonconformity, within the meaning of the remedial statutes. The supposed offence ......