OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Ecclesiastical Courts AT Doctors Commons; AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES. BY JOSEPH PHILLIMORE, LL. D. ADVOCATE IN DOCTORS' COMMONS, CHANCELLOR OF THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD, CONTAINING CASES FROM TRINITY TERM 1818, TO MICHAELMAS TERM LONDON: JOSEPH BUTTERWORTH AND SON, 43, FLEET STREET. ADVERTISEMENT. SINCE the publication of the Second Volume of this Work, the Reports of several cases decided by Lord Stowell in the Consistory Court of London, have been published by Dr. Haggard, and amongst them are five cases which had appeared in the earlier Volumes of these Reports. The Editor, therefore, feels that he owes it to himself to put the public in possession of the exact degree of authenticity to which his (the first-published) Reports of these cases are entitled. The cases are, Pouget v. Tomkins, (Vol. I. p. 499.) Waring v. Waring, (Vol. II. p. 132.) Harris v. Harris, (Vol. II. p. 111.) Wakefield v. Mackay, (Vol. I. p. 134.) Greenstreet v. Cumyns, (Vol. II. p. 110.) Of these the three first were at the particular request of Lord STOWELL, submitted to his (Lord STOWELL'S) revision before they were published, and severally underwent repeated and elaborate correction from his hand, as the manuscript and the proof sheets now in the Editor's possession most abundantly testify. The fourth, that of Wakefield v. Mackay, was read over by Lord STOWELL with the Editor after it had appeared in print, and approved of by him. The fifth, that of Greenstreet v. Cumyns, is almost a literal transcript from the judgment as it was printed in the Second Volume of this Work. In the present Volume two cases will be found which have been reported by Dr. Haggard, viz. that of Gilbert v. Buzzard and Boyer, (p. 335.) and that of Briggs v. Morgan, (p. 325.) The judgment in the former case is taken from a copy corrected by Lord STOWELL and circulated in print soon after it was delivered; and the Report has, besides, the advantage of being prefaced by the arguments of the leading counsel on each side;-the latter, from the personal share the Editor had in the cause, may be relied upon as an accurate statement, as well of the arguments of Counsel as of the decisions of the Judge. The Editor takes this opportunity of acknowledging his obligations to the learned Judge who presides over the Arches, and Prerogative Courts (Sir JOHN NICHOLL) who throughout the course of this laborious Work has been uniformly ready and willing, not only to supply the Editor with the notes of his judgments, but to render every assistance within his power which could contribute to the value and authenticity of these Reports. |