The Express.
London, England, 1865-12-23 00:00:00

(Bofors the Lords Justioes.)

•
ATTORNWT.OVIIHRAL r. HOSPITAL 01 ST. JOHN, BATH.
was a miter of groat Importance in the City of
Bata, waste leases of property, of the value of 12,000/. a
year ere impeached by the dadaist.
The Hospital of St. John, Bath, is a very ancient charity,
friwarled in the year 1172, for the benefit of a master and
eartain poor brethren and sisters. Little or nothing is
Imown of the charity until the year 1716, when an informs.-
..Soo was hied so impeach the leases then granted. The
natter was compromised, and referred to Sir J. Trevor,
Master of the Rolls, who made an sward in 1716, reciting
that the brethren and sisters were then very poor, and
stetting aside a hem to one Clements, awarding him 1,500/.
for compensation, and directing new leases to be given to
ether lessees, they paying 3,001 M. and upwards. The
award then prescribed the new form of lease, giving
power to the master, brethren, and sisters to grant leases for
a term not exceeding three lives, at a fine not exceeding ono
year's rent. all tines to be paid to the muter. two-thirds
being received by him and one-third by the brethren and
sisters. The award also directed how the rents were to be
applied. Under this system the charity had since been
managed, some leases having been approved of by the
Court of Chancery on petition.
An information was filed in 1863, praying that the
master, brethren, and sisters might be restrained from
granting inch lames, and that a new scheme might be made
for the management of the estate. Some of the lessees also
petitioned for the confirmation of their lames, and the two
came us together and were argued last term.
Sir R. Palmer, Attomey..General, Mr. Betsy, Q.C.. and
Mr. T. H. Tyrrell, for the Information ; Mr. Glasse, Q.C.,
sad Mr. Bird, for the master, brethren, and sisters ; Sir H.
Coiras, Mr. Osborne, Q.C., and Mr. C. Hall. for the
biases • and Mr. Jonas for the corporation of Bath.
The Lord Justice Turner now delivered judgment. After
stating the facts of the case, and that for 100 years these
lessee had been sold, mortgaged, and settled, sod that large
sums had been laid out in building on theland, he said that
there were three questions-1. Whether it was within the
power of the court to alter a scheme which had been so
long established? 2. Whether the mart ought to do so!
3. How wee any alteration to be carried into effect? As to
abe first point, it was not contended that the mere fact of
bag continued renewals gave the lessees any claim ; but
their argument was that, as the deed of foundation was not
forthcoming, the charity must be taken on the footing of
the statements in the Information of 1711 and of the award.
His lordship then commented on the allegations in the
formation, and said that they were too vague, and as to the
award, it was only a scheme for the management of a
charity, and could always be altered by the court. Is none
of the orders for leans made by the court was there any
allegation of right; in fact the terms were sometimes
altered. Then came the question what was to be done.
It appeared that the present value of the property was
12,000/. a year, but under the existing system it did not give
store than 471. a year to each poor brother and sister. There
must be a new scheme for the management and letting, but
as to the existing lessees some of them may not have received
imough to compensate them for what they had spent upon
the property. The present petitioners had not satisfied the
court that such was the case as to them, but others must
bare leave to assert their equity, and to have compensation.

This was as appeal from an order of the Master of the
Rollo, who had dismissed a bill for en injunction to order
certain buildings in Rathbone•place, Oxfordetreet, to be
palled down u interfering with ancient rights and other
eneseasate.
Beggallay, Q.C., and ?dr. Hardy, for the plaintiff,
the appellant ; Mr. Selwyn and Mr. T. Stevens for the
defeedset.
The case was argued a few days ago.
The Lord Justice Turner delivered judgment. The
plaintiff complained of three thiogs—l. An obstruction of
his night of way ; 2. An obstruction of his right to turn in
a mews ;3. An obetenction of light. The Master of the
Rolls had dismissed the bill on the ground that the build-
ings complained of had been completed, and that the court
would not under these circumstances order them to be palled
down. On this point his lordship could not agree with the
Master of the Rolls, and thought that the cases did not
go to that extent. There wee no rule against granting a
mandatory injunction when a building had been completed,
but each case must depend on the circumstances. Then
ought relief to be granted? His lordship thought not.
As to the obstruction of the right of way and of the ease-
ment, the damage wee not such as would justify the inter-
ference of the court ; and as to the diminution of light it
was not proved to be so great aa to call for an injunction.
Theo, u to demagog claimed uoder Mr. Bolt's Act, there
wee nothioghere for which a court of common law could not
give !adequate relief. If this court g►ve damages where
there was no equity, all these cases would be brought to
this court with a view to obtain damages, though the court
refined to interfere by injunction. Then as to Mr. Cairn's
Ask that left it in the discretion of the court, which in this
instance thought the matter best left to a court of law.
The appeal would be dismissed, but under the circuru-
names without coats.
The Lord duties) K. Brace coneurred.
THE te;:t. CR HARRINGTON o. TRZ IIITROPOLITAR DISTRICT