The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-18 00:00:00

LA, lArthiLiczNat

VICE CRANrELLOR'S COURT,
SATUOVAT, No'aims& IC

PETERSFIELD COLLEGE.
tits ati'ottuar-nenaust. e. IoWIPP2 AND
0!111[t!.
This was an information tiled by his ligatest)ba
Attliroey-tlenerul against the Defendants. Milton
,119Ilifre, Wllltam Julliffr. John Jolliffe, and fade
others, the trusters of • college founded at Peters-
Geld, praying the Court to discharge them from
their offices as trustees, for misimmagentent. and to
coinlirl them to ,ender in an recount of their trust.

Mr. WitTHERICI.I. suited the and Mr, HILL
oprin•d the pleadiogs. From the information, it
spreared that, in 1744, Richard Churcher, a retir-
ed East India mercl►ant, Bequeathed three thousand
pounds to endow I college at Peteratield, at which
ten or twelve boys belmignig to that town were to
be boarded, clothed, and educated, until they were
of Liu age to be apprenticed. when the testator
directed they shuold he bound as mariners to some
East India Captain; 500/. was left by the testator
for the erection of a proper edifice, anti the 8,000/.
was directed to be invested in Bank stock. He sp.
'soloed seven trustees to manage the College, with
powers to tiomitiate their successors, to choose the
boys frog► the children of the townsmen, to appoint
the schoolmaster at a salary of 40/. per annum,
awl to punish or &am as them for misconduct.
The intentions of the testator were at first fully
executed ; but it was at length found extremely
difficult to apprentice the boys as mariners, and,
from the tlecrea.e of the value of money, the sum
bequeathed was found. or stated to have been
found, inadequate to the purpose, and an Act of
Parliament was obtained, enabling the trustees to
bind out the boys to other trades than that of ma-
ruler., and to reduce the nuinbe► of scholar*, as
lung as they found the funds inadequate for the
support of the windier provided for by the founder.
The offices of trustees and treasurers fell at length
mostly into the hatids of the family of the Jol-
litres, at Petersfield. In 1804, Win. Judas-, the
father of the present Defendant, 11. Jnlliffe, and
who was a trustee sod the treasurer of the College,
died, leaving a balance to the amount of 1,5521.
due to the charity. Hilton Julliffe was his execu-
tor, and was chosen trustee and treasurer after
the deceaseof his father. As treasurer it became
his duty to have paid the Ulmer due from his
father into the fund■ of the charity. This, how-
ever, he had not done; and had, with the other
trustees, been guilty of gross breaches of trust. He
had permitted dividend. to he in the hands of the
bankers unproductive ; and, during 15 years, hid
held improperly balances smousittug to 19,0001.
They had admitted boys ou the charity, who were
not, as required by the founder, children of the
townsmen of Petersfield; and, of these bops so
improperly admitted, no less than thirty•five had
been brought up at the expense of the charity.
The boys were not now, however, boarded at the
College, but obliged to live out, whilst the achupl-
master appointed had been allowed to take in
private boarders, to whom superior accommoda-
tions were given. The College itself had beets let
out io lodgings, and some of the trustees them-
selves had token up their residence there. The in-
formation alleged various acts of misconduct, on
the part of the ten-tees, in the choice of the school-
masters. There *roe how thirteen boys maintain-
ed upon the charity. lowed of twelve, as required
by the fuoinder; and of the thirteen merittosied,
but nine were the children of townsmen. The in-
formation further stated, that the feuds of the
College were sufficient, if properly managed, to
board, clothe, and educate the boys, and execute
all the intentions of the founder.

Mr. E. SICIRIOW read the answer made by the
Defendants to the information. Mr. Hilton Julliffe
there made a declaration, which, if true (the Lea►nerl
Counsel raid), was highly creditable to lino. He
stated that his father did not leave sufficient moos
to pay his debts; tieve-thelers, he (Hilton Jelliffe),
was willing to pay all allowaitce that the Court
might find to be due from his father to the charity.
Tile answer of the trustees deuced generally any
wilful mismanagement of the funds, end declared
that they had never admitted, with► their knowledge,
any but the sons of townsmen. They declared
that the funds of the i,stitution were inadequate to
carry into effect the intention of the founder, and that
the same number of scholars could nut be boarded
us heretofore. The s.daty for the master was so
small that no competent person could be found who
would undertake for it to instruct the buys. A
master of skill had. therefore, been permitted
to take in private borders, in order to make up
a competency; and the college boys had greatly
benefited by the change in their educat►uu.
The trustees admitted having refused to shew Mr.
Atcheson, the relator, their accounts, as they con-
ceived they were not bound to shew them, alders
upon an order from the Coutt.
The VICE•CtIANCELLOR said. he would hear
the argument upon the cause on a future day.
He thought it nec rrrrr y, however, to state that he
could only enter into art inquiry as to the constrict
of the present trustees, Ind nut as to any lormer
management. It would be of much iinportance that
it should be shewn whether the father of the pre-
sent Defendant, Hilton Jolliffe. did or did uot
leave a sufficiency to pay the balance due from
him lathe charity. It was a serious charge against
the Defendant, 11. Jolliffe, that he had, as trea-
surer, omitted to hand over the property in his
hands as executor to the charity. It would also
be important to shew whether the funds really were
or were not sufficient to fulfil all the ituronoin of
the testator. He did not consider that the circum-
stance of allowing the introduction of boarders was
sufficient to disqualify the trusteesof it were prov-
ed that the other scholars had nut been injured by
it. His Honour directed the particular attention of
the parties to these points.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wiarramente,
SATUILDAY, N.vuslLa 16.

TUE ZING V. I.IIICIII, aims, wit i.xce, MIN, LED

EIGHT OTHERS.

This was an indictment fora ;lot. The Defeu-
dants had suffered judgment to go by default, and
were this day brought up to receive the judgment
of the Court. From the affidavits put in on the
part a the prosecution it appeared that there exists
amongst the ribund-we.uvers of Coventry, of w Iluch

4

=

ARCHES COURT,
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10.

- •

4. -44 at

664 the bat-nil:ride
hylimeel worthy 1/**11•11) s
combination, or ussort.* regulating therm.,
at which the journeymen pare to be remun
This Sotiety bud (ands, sod one of its rules we-,
I•mt any iollyneffnan *he siteeld presume to work
for less wages than fixed by the Society, or any
master whe should be knowu to pay lower ..agev,
should be liable to the fallowing penalty ;
to be placed on an ass, with his Lace towards the
anirmslb. tail; and, in this degrading situation, to
1* paraded through all the principal street* of the
town. it ja*roryman. named Amos Carver, httd
presemed to Week under price, and bec.tme the
object Of the liesociatiou's vengeance. He was
taken per forte frost his Vesidente, placed in the
prescribed position ore the animal, and carrttd
through all the News of Coventry, aceoutitsoletl
by a numerous rabble ; and, as it appesied, the
Defendants were the parties actively emplo,eit tr
carrying the whole crtemoisy into effect. They
hail baler made their peace with Carver. by giving
him 61., but the Prosecutor bad persisted in the
prosecution.

Those facts tieing established by the affidaritg.
tile Prisoner►' Come'," sddrrs►ed the Court in mi•
tigniion. and the Sohcitur•Orueral is aggravation.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY proceeded to pronounce the
judgment of the Court, and ru doing so commented
in strong terms 011 ihe mischievous tendency of
three combiiiiiiions, tell of which were illegal. He
reminded the Defendants, that had Carver received
any personal hurt of whicch he had died wiihio the
year, they would, every one of them, have been
liable to br tried for murder. As to their having
made compensation to Career, that might be satis-
factory to the individual ; but public peace was
puhlic property, and. Carver could have as power
to stop the prosecution. which had been very prop
per!), persisted in. The Court had taken the
favourable circumstances of the case into their can.
sideration and Kim) the Defendants the advantage
of them—namely, that Since the transaction now
under investigation. the association had not attempt-
ed to repeat the improper conduct here complained
of. The Defendaiits had also suffered judgement
to go by default, and some of them had already suf.
feted several month.' imprisonment. The judgment
oldie Court therefore »1110111dr *eh of the Defendants
should pay a fine of 20/. to the King, and enter into
securities for five year., themselves in 401. and two
sureties in 20/. eoch; that nine of them should be im-
prisoned nii.e months ; two seven mouths ; and one
siz months, in Warwick Castle ; and that they
should he further itopriroued till security was found
mud fine paid.

SANDER V. DAVIS. CLERK.
This was a criminal suit promoted against the
Defendant, who is licensed curate of the parish of
Charlton, and of two chapels. in the county of
Oxford, fur immoral and indecent conduct. The
allegation on the Plaintiff's part charged, that.the
Defendant was guilq of habitual draiikenneas, of
using profane and obscene language on various oc.
casio..s, of gross ind.coruin in the performance of
his clerical clutie:, aid also of conniving at and
openly witne►sing ihe adultery of his wife. In
one of the articles it was stated, Chet the con.
sequence of his ill character and behaviour had
been to bring scandal on the church, end to induce
many of its zealous members to frequent in prefer.
coca the meeting-houses of Dissenters iu that
neighbourhood.

Dr. Putwatoult read several of the affidavit,.
•nd submitted that the charges were clea►ly sod
fully established. Of the frequent and habitual in.
toxication there could be, be !bought, no doubt;
the hide, rut and prid•.,ne expressions were sworn to
by witnesses whose credit was unimpeuched; and
though there was a slight difference among theft as
to his being sometimes under the influence of
liquor, when actually engaged in the dotter, of hie
profession, yet the cliff relict respected the degree
rather than the fact. With regard to the adultery
of his wife, sod his privity to it, it rested on the
testimony of no fewer ilia° three witnesies, female
servants in the house, who hail beheld scenes and
transactions, into all the details of which it was
unneces.ary to enter ; but which left nut a sha-
dow of doubt that he wry a party to her p►nstitu-
tton. Under all !hese circum.toacea, and conceir-
Mg that the Cuurt had full jurisdiction, he pmv-
ed that it would exercise its authority to tile
extent of depriving and deposing this indivi-
dual from all his ecclesia►tical functions. Thete
was a case (ilre only one ce►taittly that he had'
found) in 1659, in which the Dran of the ArchW.
had proceeded to that extent, and had sentenced 'ir
clergyman, Dr. Rich, to deprivation. It was the
well-known opinion of Dr. Swain., that every Sc.
clesiastical Judge had the power of depriving ; ind•
it did not appear to him that the words of the de-.
non. which made it necessary th■t the Bishop
should be present at the act of deprivation. would
affect the jurisdiction of that Cod►t.
The Defendant appeared neither in person nor
by Counsel. His Proctor, however. consented !bat
the evidence should be Olen as read.
Dr. ADAM was Fiend chiefly on the point re-
specting the original authority of the Court—that
being the Court of the Archbishop, but which, be
maintained, was not excluded by the canon from 4
complete jurisdictio.! over Ruch offences as were ia
this ease iinpaired to the Defendant.
Sir Joni, NICHOL, a• Dean of the Arches, thee
pronounced his opinion on the case submitted to
him. He observed, that he had most carefully
read any examined all the affidavits, as was the
duly of a Judge in every criminal proceeding, bet
peculiarly au whea the D, fondant was unassisted by
counsel, whose vigilance so point that could serve
his interests was Lhely so map,. The first article
of this allegation. (bagging a minister of the esti.
Wished church with the grossest misconduct, *as
not denied. said, indeed, the Ave tor•reediutg artl•
cles were 'digitise admitted. The seventh com-
menced the criminal part of the cha►ger, and de-
scribed Ilia person, air using very indecent Pah-
guage, and as falling obicewe stories—behavieste
that must be considered 'Senate, and criminal
is oily permit, but still move as in a clergy-
man. Itiabsuces of Ili* that's conducting hilreetf
*Cr! swots to by sweets eleaseseit, by tradestilko
isi his pariah, clerk, awii by hie okiwahre. O eft
occasion, at a public iiiisairt.'• be Ode refnesentediat
say tug, •• That his live 44111100- he Oiled Mkt.
Hr 11, and face the Dna." His ordinary discourse

' -