The King against The Bishop of Ely
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1794 |
| Date | 23 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 267
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
the king against the bishop OF ely. Thursday, Jan. 23d, 1794. If the visitor of a college in one of the universities refuse to exercise his visitatorial power by receiving and hearing an appeal, this Court will grant a mandamus to compel him : but if he has heard and decided on it, this Court has no authority to examine the le'gality of the judgment. The visitor need not hear parol evidence (c) Vide Watts v. Millard, post, 598. (a) Ante, 4 vol. 664. 268 THE KING V. TELE BISHOP OF ELY 5 T. R. 476. on such an appeal; it is sufficient if he receive the grounds of the appeal and the answer to it in writing. [Distinguished, E. v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 1859, 1 El. & El. 560.] Raine moved, and was supported by Gibbs, for rule calling on the Bishop of Ely to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, directed to him, commanding him as visitor of Jesus College, Cambridge, to hear and determine an appeal of the Eeverend W. Frend, late a fellow of that college, against a sentence of amotion. It appeared from the affidavit of Mr. Frend, that in April last he was "removed from his college" by a sentence of the master and fellows, on a charge of having written a seditious pamphlet. That the defendant appealed against this sentence to the Bishop of Ely, as visitor, on the grounds that no exceptionable passages in the pamphlet had been produced; that no laws of the college, against which the appellant had offended, were pointed out; that the appellant had no opportunity of vindicating himself; that there was not a majority of all the fellows of the college concurring in the sentence, as the statutes required ; and, that the punishment was not statutable. That in answer to this appeal the master and five of the fellows asserted to the visitor, that they had examined evidence relating to the publishing of the pamphlet, by which they were [476] convinced that Mr. Frend was the publisher; that the appellant had three distinct opportunities given him to defend himself; and that the sentence, which they had taken upon themselves to inflict, was virtually passed by a majority of the fellows. That to this answer the defendant replied that the evidence was false ; that, with respect to the opportunities offered to him of making a defence, the master and five fellows had misrepresented the case to the visitor, and that three other fellows had protested against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page
...the statutes (Bentley v. Bishop of Ely [1729] 1 Barn 192 or if the Visitor acts in breach of natural justice (R. v. Bishop of Ely [1794] 5 TR 475) but not, prior to this case, for a mere error of construction not going to jurisdiction. … (vi) The jurisdiction judicially to review for errors......
-
R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page
...to do so since if he does not, no one else can. 64 In R. v. The Bishop of Ely (1788) 2 T.R. 290, and again in R. v. The Bishop of Ely (1794) 5 T.R. 475, the Court recognised this principle. In the latter case Grose J. said at p. 477: "If the Bishop had not exercised his judgment at all, we ......