The King against The Bishop of Ely
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1828 |
| Date | 09 May 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 985
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. (sub nom. Finch v. Bishop of Ely) 2 Man. & Ry. 127; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 223.
THE KING.-V. THE BISHOP OF ELY 985 [112] the king against the bishop or ely. Friday, May 9th, 1828. Mandamus granted to compel a bishop to allow inspection of his register of presentations and institutions to a living in his diocese, by a person claiming the right of patronage, although the bishop also claimed that right. [S. C. (sub nom. Finch v. Bishop of Ely) 2 Man. & Ey. 127; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 223.] A rule had been granted, calling upon the Bishop of Ely to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to allow Finch, clerk, to inspect his registry of presentations and institutions to the living of Cottenham, in the diocese of Ely, from the time of the dissolution of monasteries, and to take copies of them. It appeared by the affidavits that Finch and the Bishop of Ely were adverse claimants of the right of patronage of this benefice. Storks Serjt. and Patteson shewed cause. In The Mayor of Southampton v. Graves (8 T. E. 590), the Court refused to compel a corporation aggregate to allow an inspection of their books; and Lord Kenyon said, there was no difference in that respect between corporations aggregate and sole. And again in May v. Gwynne (4 B. & A. 301), the Court would not compel the plaintiff, who was a vestry clerk, to exhibit to the defendant, a parishioner, certain parish papers in his possession; but it must be admitted that the Court intimated that they would have granted the rule had the documents been wanted for any ordinary parish purpose. So, also, in Cox v. Copping (1 Ld. Eaym. 337), where a person claimed adversely to the parish, the Court would not compel the parish to grant him an inspection of their books. Now the bishop is not obliged to keep a register of presentations and institutions; and, [113] therefore, if he does it, the book is of a private nature for his own information. The presentations themselves are the proper evidence; the copies kept by the bishop would not be evidence for him, although they might be evidence against him, being kept by himself. The Courts have never compelled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Justices of Staffordshire
...v. Jones (7 B. & C. 732), was the case of an order for inspection, made as between parties to a cause. So in Rex v. The Bishop of Ely (8 B. & C. 112), the documents called for related to a claim which was under litigation between the bishop and the party demanding inspection. A similar obse......
-
Hannah Foster against The Governor and Company of the Bank of England
...the rights of many, appears also from Warriner v. Giles (2 Stra. 954), Rex v. Tower (4 M. & S. 162), and Rex v. The Bishop of Ely (8 B. & C. 112). The object of this motion is to obtain examined copies of the books, which copies are the legitimate evidence of their contents ; Breton v. Cope......
-
The Honorable The Irish Society of London v The Lord Bishop of Derry and Raphoe an Another
...v. The Marquis of Winchester 10 Bligh, N. R. 440. Arnold v. The Bishop of Bath and WellsENR 5 Bing. 825. The King v. The Bishop of ElyENR 8 B. & C. 112. Parsons v. Bellamy 4 Prico, 108. The Bank of EnglandENR 2 Ves. sen. 43. Roe v. RawlingsENR 7 East, 290. Gufford v. WoodgateENR 11 East, 29......
-
The King against The Churchwardens and Overseers of Westoe
...but whether the officers of Westoe are entitled to withhold it. The ground upon which a mandamus was granted in Bex v. The Bishop of Ely (8 B. & C. 112), was that the register was a public document, and ought to be open for the use of all persons claiming title to livings in the diocese. Th......