The King against The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the Univeresity of Cambridge, or Doctor Bentley's Case
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1748 |
| Date | 01 January 1748 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 92 E.R. 818
IN THE KINGS BENCH.
S. C. 8 Mod. 148; 2 Ld. Raym. 1334; Str. 557. Referred to, Bonaker v. Evans, 1850, 16 Q. B. 171; Marquis of Abergavenny v. Bishop of Llandaff, 1888, 20 Q B. D. 472.
[202] de term. sanct. mich. 10 georgii I. in the king's bench. the king against the chancellor, masters and scholars or the university of cambridge, or doctor bentley's case. [S. C. 8 Mod. 148; 2 Ld. Eaym. 1334; Str. 557. Referred to, Smoker v. Evans, 1850, 16 Q. B. 171; Marquis of Abergavenny v. Bishop of Llandaff, 1888, 20 Q. B. D. 472.1 Mandamus to restore to degrees in the university. This case is stated pretty much at large from the record, 2 Lord Raymond 1334, &c. but in substance was as follows. This was a mandamus granted to restore Richard Bentley to his degree of doctor of divinity, who was degraded by the vice-chancellor's court in the University of Cambridge for a contumacy in a civil suit, for four pounds and six shillings, at the suit of Doctor Middleton, without having been heard in any Court. To this mandamus the university made a return, in which they did not say that they had a visitor, which would have put an end to the dispute in B. R. but they returned a power in the congregation or vice-chancellor's court to deprive any member for contumacy, and that Bentley was guilty of a contempt in speaking opprobrious words of the vice-chancellor, and that he said in this case quod stulte egit, &c. and that the congregation or vice-chancellor's court had deprived him, but did not return that he was summoned, as in fact and truth he was never summoned. There were several objections made to this return. As First, it does not say that the depositions (of his contempt) were upon oath, but only says the depoai-[203]-tions of the beadle were read : nor does it appear before whom the depositions were taken; and one may depose by word without oath. Second objection, it is said, that the said depositions were exhibited de contemptu praad', which is uncertain; for they might swear de contemptu, and yet might swear him out of contempt, so that this return might be true, and yet the evidence might be he was not guilty; so it may be he was degraded for not being in contempt: and FORTBSODB.iM. IN THE KING'S BENCH 819 so is the case of conviction, King and Green, Mich. 12 Annae, B. R. this was a conviction for selling bread...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Merck KGaA v Leno Marketing (M) Sdn Bhd; Registrar of Trade Marks (Interested Party)
-
R v Life Assurance Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation Ltd, ex parte Ross
... ... 1 This is an appeal against a decision of the Divisional Court (Mann L.J. and ... 25 In the present case LAUTRO is a recognised SRO. Norwich Union is an ... ...
-
Ex parte Thomas Kinning
...of payment,-at the appointed time or times. 614 SHABLAND V. LEIFCHILD 4 C. B. 528. him,-as is said in Dr. Bentley's case (1 Stra. 557, Fort. 202. 8 Mod. 148, 2 Lord Eaym. 1334). Capel v. Child (2 Tyrwh. 689, 2 Cr. & J. 558) [528] shews that the rule applies to the case of inquiries before e......
-
Whiston v The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Rochester
...or suspended (Manchester College case (1 Barnard. 52; 1 W. Bl. 22)), or is not pleaded in proceedings for a mandamus (Dr. Bentley's case (Fortescue, 202)), the Court of Queen's Bench may be the proper Court to redress the wrong. Atten tion to these distinctions will reconcile with the law a......