Mr. Tooth is trying to hoist his foes with their
owa petard. The Queen's Bench Division has granted at his instance a rule calling on Lord Penzance to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue against him. Mr. Tooth contends that the judgment by which he was , inhibited ,frem officiating at St. James's is null, because the complaint against .him was heard by Lord Penzance at Lambeth, instead of in Loodon or 'West- minster, or within the diocese of Rochester. The point is purely technical, but it brings into the field the important prin- ciple that the Queen's Bench Jndges may review the decision of an eecleaiaetical Court. Sotne lawyers think that the Queen's Bench may decline to be bound, by the Itidadale judgment ; and Mr. Tooth's attempt to checkmate the , so-called .ecclesiastical Court by means of the undoubtedly secular tribunal is an interesting. experiment.
Previous page
