The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-09 00:00:00

STMOOD.—NOT. 6. An..-
DI. NOEL—Nov. 5. Deaths--
Deaths—Cholera, 6.
NIORPF.III.—Noe..". Death—Cholera, 1.
F.►VLR+ll,►i.—Noe. 5. Death—Cholera.

S ; Nov. 6.

°ATM:MD.—Nov. 5. loath—Cholera, 1; Nov.
E. Death—Choler, i.

Law Entelligence.
EQUITY CO U IS.—YEsTKRDAY.

1111/01111 Tll.

Hie lordship was eagageol umd • little after two o'clock
in hearing ■ c.v. in hta private room; and then left to
attend a Cabinet Council,

THR TRUPTILES OP THII RIRILINHEAD DOCKS V. LAIRD

•PIL) Till lilltlitNliZAD LOCK COYPANY.
The company reprewsted by the plaintiff* in this ease
were empowered by their ant of parliament to make docks
end construct other works at Wallasey Pool, adjoining the
Mersey, at Birkenhead. The defendant company were
empowered, by a subsequent act of parliament, to embank
eertain portions of the pool, and to construct • floating
duck therein with tidal basins, and they, having isased •
portion of their find situate on the south side of the pool
to the defendant Laird, the latter commenced certain open-
ings in Wallasey wall, on the south side of the pool, adjoin.
ing the land leased to hint. The plaintiffs thereupon tiled
their bill to restrain the &rendes,' company and
their lessee from making such opening. without the plain-
tiffs' consent, on the ground that the absolute ownership of
the wall in question was vested in the plaintiffs by their act
of puliement. Upon the motion for en injunction bting
made before the Muter of the Rolls, his llonotir made a
declaration that the defendants were not justified in taking
down, lowering, or altering the wharf wall in trout of the
land leased by the defendant company to Laird on the
soot's side of Wallasey Pool, unless by making an opening
or navigable gate or gates, under the superintendence of
the engineer of the plaintiff., or with the sanction of the
toe tor of the River Mersey. To this qualified prohi-
bition the plaintiffs objected, and therefore appealed against
his Honour's declaration.

Kr. rellett, Q.C., eag Mr. Gob:timid appeared to support
thr appeal.
The S ,licitor•General and 'Mr. Siorlake appeared for
the defrudants (the Birkenhead Dock Company), and
. .

tsh
coutewled that the works authorised by their act of parlia-
ment requited thorn to interfere a its the wall in question,
and that this was in fact a repeal pro Mato of the absolute
power over the wall in question given to the plaintiffs by
the prior act of parliiunent by which the plaintiffs' company
was constituted. . _

Mr. Role, Q C., and Mr. Cairns appeared on behalf of the
def.adant Laud.
Their Lordships were of opinion that the plaintiffs were,
by the term. of their act of parliament, constituted the
owners of the we I in question ; sad that, as this provision
was not to any *Meat repealed in ezpreu terms by tte
defendants' act, neither the defendant company, nor their
:emu were or was entitled to interfere with the wall with-
out the consent of the plaintiffs. An order was, therefore,
made for an injuusti is against the defendants iu the terms
of the prayer of the plsiuttlfs' bill, ►nd without the qualifi-
cation contained in the order at the Roth.s

THE BIRSTALL CHAPEL CASE.
vue ATTUUN IT•UZMIkAL O. C1.41'11.01.

His Honour gave judgment in this ease, which was ar-
gued at very great length on the 8. h of July last, and several
succeeding days. It arose upon an information filed on the
relation of Middlebrook and Beaumont, of Birstall, and
prayed that it might be declared that this several deeds re-
latieg to the Diemen chapel did not sufficiently declare or
adequately provide for the objects of the foundation, sod
that the premises ought to be held upon such a scheme as
will best effectuate the objects of the foundation. That the
trustees who had ceased to be members of the methodist
body might be removed, and the other trustees confirmed io
their position, and that new trustees might be appointed,
and the premises declared vested in each trastees upon the
trusts of a certain deed known as the "model deed;' or if
the court should not approve of that deed that it might ap-
prove and settle a scheme.
The whole of the facts and arguments are fully gone into
in the judgment.
The Vice-Chancellor said the principal question which
arises in this taw relates to the effect of a deed executed a
hundred years ago, and more particularly with reference to
that part of it by which the nomination of ministers or
preachers at Birstall was to be regulated. This question
seems to bare excited considerable attention in the life time
of John Wesley, but the opposition was at that time from
his good sense completely silenced, and it is much to be re-
gretted that it should not have been the same aow, so so
to have prevented the litigation which has at
present arisen. But from the information having
been now filed, it becomes neesseary to give a
construction to the original deed of 1751, both with
respect to the particular premises conveyed by it, and
also with respect to three other pieces of land purchased
afterwards. The principal poiats may he stated as follows.
It is contended by the informants that, under the circum-
stances of this case, the chapel at Birstall having beta built
some short time before the deed of 1751, that deed ought
not to be considered as effective to declare the trust, of it,
but that the whole must be treated as if no such deed had
existed, and that it mast be taken to be a chapel built for
the benefit of the methodists; and that a scheme should
now be settled. And, secondly, that as to this and the
after-acquired property, as to which the same question
arises (namely, that the died declaring :he trust was not
emensporaneous), that the deeds which hare been executed
did not adequately declare the trusts at that time. And
that if they did, there has been such a change in the body
that it is now necessary to have some new regulation under
the direction of the court; and that as it stands at present,
the trust, to appoint ministers, is wholly inconsistent with
methodists as established by Wesley. and that a scheme
must be carried into effect under the decree of the court.
In opposition to this it was contended by the defendants
that the trusts were duly created by parties who had
power to create them. Secondly, that those trusts are ade-
quately expressed in the deed itself, or at least that those
deeds are sufficiently clear to enable the trusts to be ascer-
tained, regard being had to the circumstances, without the
intervention of the court. Thirdly, that whatever con-
struction be given to the deed, the trusts must be adminis-
tered by those who represent the old triste,s, on the ground
that at the time the chapel was built the society of Wesley,
•hough forming one body, was so arranged that the local
government was always left to the particular society,
and no interference with that local body was allowed,
and therefore it was quite consistent with the scheme of
Wesley that the management should be leR with them, and
that they should hare the election of timeline. And they
say that that is not inconsistent with the regulations of Me-
thodism, and that there have been at all times similar
trusts. These are the principal points ; but, a seconilar7
point raised was, that, looking to the circumstances of this
ease, the five dissentient trustees who take a different view
from the ten others ought to be removed from the offices of
trustee; and they urge this on two grounds : first, that they
wen properly trustees, because, in the year 1782, a
new mode of appointing trustees was introduced, which
was not in the original deed; and therefore these trustees
were not any of them duly appointed, and therefore it is ne-
canary to re-appoint the whole of the trustees. And, secondly,
even if duly appointed, theless, these disseatient trusters
having taken a view hostile to the body of methodist', are
no longer proper persons to be continued ia the trust.
' After entering at length upon the various points, his
' honour concluded as follows: —lt appearing to the
. court that at the date of the indenture of the 3rd
. of December, 17.51, a building called the New Meet-
, ing-house, at Birstal, was erected by and to- the use
of the society originally formed ander the ministry of John
' Nelson, and that at the date of the said indenture such
society had been united to, and formed part of a larger
; association organised by the Rev. John Wesley, and by him
styl• d " the people galled methodists," and that such larger
association consisted of societies several of which were
respectively united together in circuits, and travelling
preachers were from time to time appointed to minister in
' the chapels of the circuit (oue of which preachers was
styled the assistant, and was appointed to take charge of
the societies in the circuit, and of the other preachers
therein), and that such travelling preachers alone per-
formed the regular ministration and services in the said
chapels of the circuits ; and it further appearing that at the
date of the said indenture such society at Bintal was united
with several other societies in the circuit called the Siestal
circuit, declare that according to the true intent and
meaning of such indenture, the preacher or minister therein
referred to and directed to be appointed as therein men-
tioned was intended and ought a: all times to be one of the
preachers of the circuit of which the Society of Birstal may
form part; and it further appearing to the court that the
said circuit preachers (and in particular of the Birstal
circuit) were at and before the date of the said indenture,
and at all times thereafter during the lifetime of the said
John Wesley, appointed either by him, with the advice of
the conference, or by the, said conference presided over by
*is said John Wesley, and that since the death of the said
John Wesley, the appointment of all such circuit preachers
(and in particular of the preachers of the said Birstal
circuit) ha, been made, and that according to the rules and
regulations of the said people called methodists, such ap-
pointment ought to be made by the said confe-
rence only, declare that the trusts of the said in-
denture with reference to the appointment of a
preacher in the said chapel after the decease
of the survivor of John We-ley, Charles Wesley, and Wil-
liam Grimahaw, therein mentioned by the senior psrt of
the trustees for the time being of the said indenture, cannot
be carried into 'II et consistently with the due appoint-
, mentor such preacher or minister as by the said indenture
was intended to be provided for the said chapel, and that
I the said trust pr. raises ought at all times to be hi Id by the
trustees for the time being, acting under the said indenture
upon trust to permit and suffer such persons respectively to
be preachers or moisten of the said Simsl circuit as shall
f..om time to time be duly appointed by the said conference
far that purpose, and to have and enjoy the free use and
beiletit of the said trust premises; declare that the inden-
ture of the Bth of May. 1782, in the pleadings mentioned,
so tot as it purports in any way to vary the trusts of the
indenture of De,ember, 1751, with reference to the
nomin. ition and appointment of trustees under such
indenture, or with reference to the nomination
or appoothosent of the minister or preacher, or so far as it
purports to confer upon the persons therein named or de-
scribed the' power bestowed upon any peracher 10 minister
is raid and of no effect ; declare that the hrreditiments
comprised in and conveyed by the several Indentures of the
4th and sth of December, 18i/J, and the llth and 12th of
August, 1812, in the pleadings mentioned, and 21.11 the
hereditament' comprised in and conveyed by the inden:ure
of the 25th of April, 1813, in the pleadings montioneci,
having been respectively purchased by or for the several I
members of the said society of /firsts!, and annexed to the
said premise,' comprised in the said indenture of the 3rd of
'Meer:ll,er, 1751, became subject to toe same trusts as are
declared of the said premises comprised in the said last-
mentioned indenture ; declare that the indenture of the
Bth September, 18111, end the indenture of the 23411 April,