The Express.
London, England, 1859-04-21 00:00:00

(Bess the Master of the Rolls.)

BRADBURY AND IVANA V. DIMING AND WILLA.
Mr. Jean] applied at parte for leave to serve notice of mo-
tion for to-morrow to advance the lsarMg of this muss on
estomint of the depredation which thsesop rlj gbt of a work like
Bow&Id Words weal undergo if the saki were delayed for
say considerable time.
The Master of the Rolls made the order for service of the
lake of motion for to-morrow, bet on the understanding
that the defeatism wets to be at literty to urge any objec-
tas they might be advised to take to the &Maas of the
notice.

rko-Clisacellor Sir I. Stuart.)
PIULIT W. IMIPWAT.

Mr. Mouse, Q.C., and Mr. F. J. Terre appeared for the
plaintiffs in support of a motion for en injunction to restrain
the defendant Shipway from offideting s minister in the
chapel belonging to the maturation of Particteler or Cal-
'deistic Baptists at Bible- lied ins ham, in Essex.
The plaintiffs was a majority of the Minter of the chapel,
the remaining trustees (who oempoeed the minority, mad who
ware partner of the defendant Shipway) were made defend-
ants. The plaistiffs aleo asked that three of the defendants
(Boggles. Bandit, and Finch) might be restrained from aid-
ing or permitting the defendant Shipway from oil=
mach minister. It appeared that the chapel at Sire-
ham was in the year 1808 purchased by a congregation of
Particular or Calvinirie 1.1 getout, and by an Indenture dated
the 21st of September, 1808, the chapel was vested in true-
tees, uppso attain trade, for the use sod beret of the eon-
gregatica &rambling in the raid meeting-house; and among
cola r trusts to convey the chapel sad premier touch per-
sons as the communiesata of the congregation from time to
time should in their church meeting daly serrobled, or the
major part of them so usezabled, by any deed or instrument
in writing, direct or appoint. It appeared that it is the
curets the Particular or Calvinistic Beptisis
beim finally a minister to invite him to officiate fcr
a eves time by way of probation, and La 1867 the deisadeet
Shipway was Melted by the congregation to officiate by way
of probation in their chapel for twelve menthe, frees Christ-
ms, 18.57. On the 10th of April, 1868, the trustees and
deacons of the chapel, is constuner.ce of reports which bad
teen circulated with regard to the chimer? of Shipway,
served a notice on him th.t they had agreed that the chapel
should be closed sgainst hits. Os the 27th of April, 1868,
the defendant Shipway (Shipway having been charged with
an indecent result) was convicted of a common assault upon
the wife of a member of hie congregation by the totem late.
of Castle Medi:l4lmm. At a church meeting held In May,
18.58, the congtegaton espreased its listisfaction that the
defendant Shinier bad bees kept out of the pulpit, and
resod • resolution that he should never preach in the chapel
'gain. The chapel wee consequently closed for several Sun-
dam and was not opened again for Divbse Service till Sunday,
the 4th of July, 1858, when at the corteges tithe afternoon
service, which had been conducted by Mr. Pleat, the chapel
was taken forcible preseriin of by Shipway and his par-
tizans, who remained in the chapel the whole night
drinking and =Ain. The keys of the chapel
were &eased, and Shipway kept poseirsion of the
chapel from that time. Voluminous evidence sas entered
into as to the immoral conduct of the defendant Shipway,
wbe dented that an mach chums were well founded.
C Mr. Bacon, Q ~ Mr. Craig, Q.C., and Mr. Graham
Hastier appeared foe thedefendris.
• • •

The Vice-Chancellor said that the bill was filed by a ma-
lan the treater of the chapel In query", is whom the
egal estate of the chalet was vested In trust foe the use sad
benefit of the congregation. It was the duty at these tree-
tees to see that the legal estate eo vested Is them wee need
for the purposes end in moordance with the trusts declared
by this deed. Without the haervention of the trustees of a
body of perms such as the 0011ffil !cation of this chapel the
trust propel ty could not be properly managed ; and it wee
the duty of the trustees to disc urge the dit-
ties crinneeted with their ti mt. One of thredutiee was to sr
that the p ...won of the chapel so vested in there was sot
improperly disturbed, and the wrest quirks was whether
the peocetdings of the defendants smossted to an improper
dhow-bear of their legal estate. It wen ptinciple r.cegniesid
both at law and in equ that where • tenet of a general or
public nature wee created, the minerity of the truster should
be tear by the r jority. That peinciple wee recognised
fa the case of " Wdlineoa v. Malin," repotted in 3 Tyr.
Req. Rep. 671, where Lord Lysdhurst is delivering jag-
meat sad, " Ibis a a trot of • public nature, end we are
elf 'Wren that where truster are appointed fur the purpose
of perfonamg a trust of a public and general nature like
this, the act of the asjeeity is the mot of the whole." And
Chid Justice Byre said, la the ere of "Grindley v.
Barker," reported is 1 800. sad Pet., p. 166, that when
prams see harseled with pewees of a garret nature, and
they all meet foe the peeper of perbeming their dry, the
set of the majority is the ad of the whole." The majority
of the trustees dram must decide the way in which the
lira mate sad preassionre to be exercised. It was aterted,
however, by the defendant Illtipeay Urns he lied a right as
Beet sa the majority of the Omar M continue to perform
Divine Service Is this chapel. Where, however, the
legal *state of a chapel, was vested in tauter,
the mieletar, although duly elected, wee oely Meant
at will to tta trustees. That was leaded in the
case of "Doe IL fore v. dem " (10 B. and C 7111),
when • order et • diessetieg magregation der his deo-
Con wee paced Is pension of the chapel and a drilla,-
bones by earls prow in whom the Ira estate wee vested
Is treat, le permit end outfir the chapel to be used der the
of estleriese worship, and the Court of Kieg's BeenhePTritat the esislater was a mere tenant at will te the
trustees, sod that his interest was deterersirsable by a demand
of peeetneion wither any pervious notice to quit ; end Lard
TOSSIWAIS I Oak it le perfectly city that Qs *pi

estate in the premises was In the barer cl the *nil" In
the care of " Doe and Melton v. WlLely" (10 B. and C.
721), the some point was decided, eel Lard Teatertien add,
"This was en ejectmeat bras& to mem h&c thsas
fondant, who sou ateleter of a dismal* meg a
wchapel and dwelling-henft whi bech res pat is
by the hams of the OltsM, ta gaud tha bed Mete
oe vested in trot,, te pewit the chepal to mike
poss of religious worship The damisat woe Mint at
to them. It was mallefted that • demand of pemention
was not sufficient la die pee ta deteendft the Mimi, but
that a reasonable thenalgid Is him been allowed the to.
fendsnt for the VIM= of samweleg ids goods. Wean
find no authaft Or taw for each a pad-
non. The penal sida to Oat where an estate Is
held nimbi wi II
wall. 1t
a demand by that
other tip wIIL Ilia Ibis case we me to bell
otherwise we alwall IMO= a new rule not to be Isuld
the beaks, all& Elea be peedaedve of rest Inessessdeeek
far thee la wry sees it night be a question, whit is • ear
assahle We to mars* geode ;" sad be ecaoleded-0 We
ses el *aka WI Ile adedster a tenant at will, hie
obis me iftembed by a Amami and ma'-
am* bat ths holm ef the ens entitled teen
gear. heweren to he,lnebtee, des Mat" as the
=ld Inwesea ass bailel tie easpei The
less fa
opcmir....arthir leek wed at law he
was • leeepeace ca their liambea. deendwe.le
eft shetbEingon he le Ibliesert ewpieseilat
et tbe • of lad yaw dlemellw.
beds cue
It was ea wheats
the MI epphostiou to him to Mod a seedlai ask week
commit was maim Witheat pkg late the
of the selbees, sawed that the Lausisee. 11 tre1:1181ITC1;
of the duty, saW soft as ha, be Tice-Chancftar,
believed, honestly, , to their own disentios,
Mod Ws chapel be emend Sundays. II this ram bed hen
esambined at by the oftgramion, it should bevelled, desk
whit la thermos way. On the last Sunday of May, 1860,
• Weft nisethig was laskl, at which It was resolved by the
ceagreptlee thatßhlpwashodd net officiate. It was said
the melba was frregularly held, end was held under
dreanntantes which could not bind the whole society. The
material titbit was to see what took place sitar this meeting.
It wee plain that a church meeting might have been regularly
convened for oneness any disputes that had arisen among
the members of the &arch as betwesa them and the trusters,
but what took pima an the 4th of July, ea appeared from
the evidence, was • highly Irregular and improper proceeding
—a pr reading of OM a Waserier as to deprive the de-
, fondants of any sight to mablein their ma fie this ogee.
'oa the meseles d the 4th of July, 1868, the
volliftlaieramite Shope gaol der Divine Service, which
&ChM tif the name of " Plane," z
=la ft Millar. It was no petted the
't Ism soling otherwise this=
Es pmemeed swede la the morning old
When ibe Amen webs was easieled, sad ebe
weft hereedeeellait =psi doors. Mop was =an.
80 dein by the ay, SIMMS hn
fore the mart as a miniebrehrhe Gospel, and who k
comeliest with his duty he Mar the pulpit, keep pftsmien
cd the sl, and keep perms in the chapel drintiag
liqese for by Ulmer .11 ngbt, against the will of the
Immo% and who now appeared in court te
MI jai* thft perssediag attar changing the looks
et Se egg ism, sal saabeg- the treaters m whom the
1601@state we. woad. There was no argument and no
authority to kW* tbet muse of proceeding, or to jtiatglf
the smut in Mei( the injunction payed for by the bill.
The peeper cedar wftid he to deism that the proceedings of
Shipersy, Ruggles, Bartell, sad Finch, in
...peeeserlea of the okapi on the 4th of July, 1868, end
elE="mines Witham, were • violation of the traits
talsment of the Wad of 1808, and there
went he en Warmth@ to 111112/i iblpway from ofbnaliss
=el the otagregatica, mad from preaching min-
with the eertme performed in the chapel. There
would Ws le en intestine restraining the defendable
Raabe, Barren, and Finch ham pernig the deftftest
Slipway's preaching is the thqeL The seta ot the elk
except the., of the defendant Goes (se to where mete then
would be no order), to be paktiguthe four defendants, Slip-
way, Buggies, Bartell, and
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Arau. 20.
Billings at NW Prim In bliddleem.—(Betore tldr. Janke
Williams and a Commoa Jury.)

010 ROE V. WILSON..

The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained in
oossageenos of falling overall obstruction in the public way,
sad the plea was not guilty.
Mr. 1. J. Powell appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. T.
Jean for the defendant.

The plaintiff-hi this 'Mee was an articled clerk to an at-
torney, and at the Um* in question he was reading pram
eatery to paring his examination. Mr. Wilson was • builder
sad eatanater in a large way of business, in the Borough.
On the 1611 t January fret, the plaintiff with his brother had
be to visit • friend in Southampton-street, Blooreebary-
, quart, and about 11 at sight he was returning slung Orford.
street, ea his way home to Mereeidence in Yorkotreet, Baker-
street. Illhappmedthatketweendiaad4B, Oxford-stmtZemes
beams hid be. pulled down sad rebuilt by the dehesdaat.
Thu plaintiff's deseriptloa of the footway was that the paver
meat had been taken up, end he gipped over some brakes
earth or • atom, and in acekiag to recover himself he stench
Ids* sealed something and cot it, and he struck his cheat
with fora garnet a pole, which projected hom • window
over the footway. He war taken home in • cab, and his leg
fomented; bat Boding that hie cheat got bad, he sent for •
medical mambo attended him float the 17th January to the '
26th Fetes:try, and ordeeed him to go to Brighton. The
plaintiff wen prevented from attending to his businere, end
this isocieveatenos was felt more from the feet that ho was
just about pasabig his culmination.
For the &Godard it war suggested that the accident bad
arisen in consequence of Moderate in the pavement ; and if
that were so it was raid that the defendant was not liable,
inasmuch as the scaffolding which he had put op for building
the home bid beau taken down, sad the parish authorities
had themselves taken the pavement in hand in order that
they might restore it to a proper state. If the accident woes
from the projecting pole, then it was said that the small
scaffolding of which it formed part had been put up by a
Mr. Parson', to enable him to do some p`asterieg work under
• sob-contract entered into with the defendant. It was ad-
mitted that the materials of which the scaffolding was made
to the defendant. Another breach of the dehisce
lesase if the plaintiff had himself been careful the sod-
dent would sot have happened.
Mr. Judie, Williams was of opinion that for any defect
la the pavement the defendant was not liable, and as to the
polo he lett it to the jury to say whether the pole had been
placed where it was by the defendant or by some one acting
ander his authority.
The jury found a verdict for tha defendant.