The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-17 00:00:00

JoNER, TRI'VrEE, v. THE •I.BIOW COMPANY.

Mr. SI:011EN moved that s certain portion of tin order made by
the Vice• Chancellor in this t .e should be rescinded. The facts of
the ease were :—A Muleteer of 1•Ofil Ennisnewe was 'slurried to
Mew, Italmit-rs. 1;pon the marriage the father of the Toting lady
agreed to give a tiotune of 9,2001., 6,200/.4 which was to lie given
to Major Holders for his immediate use, and the remaining 3,00111.
were to be secured upon his estates, to which he was tenant for
life, for the benefit and advantage of his wife and children.
II) a covenant passed between the parties, Major !ladders had
restrioted himself from alienating the rents of his estates to any
person, or for any purpose, during his life; and also restricted
himself particularly from alienating a ruin equivalent to the
interest of the 3.00(11. above.mentioned. The flintier clause was a
nullity, but he would maintain the latter to be binding. Upon the
marriage, trusters were appointed fora trent of WO years, to secure
the sum of 3.000/. and its interest. Shortly after Major Balder.
granted annuities for life to the Albion Company, to whom he was
indebted, and the Company filed a bill aping the acting trustee,
v.linies, praying that lie should be set aside, and that they should
stand in his place, as creditors for the annuities palmed in their own fa.
Your. The motion was made before the Vice-Chancellor, and ac.
cording to the view of the case taken by his Honour, a reference was
made to the !Mutter, for the purpose of ascertaining what rents had
been received by the trustees, and to what purpose they had been
applied. The Master reported, that air. !ones had 5,01101. in Ex-
chequer bills in his hands : this was ordered by the Vice-Chan.
eellor to be paid into (Mutt. The pules acted upon the order, for
ale Jones, the trustee, was taken in execution for a contempt. His
objection to the course of proceedings adopted by the opposite party
was, that the BUM of 5,11001. was &general balance in the hands of
the trustees, and out of this balance the 3.ofilV. should be secured
and set aside according to the settlement. The Court thought pro.
per to act as if it was the property of Major Holders, though it was
admitted on all hands, that the trustees in possession for the pur-
pose of securing the 3,0001., had raised tto tem, and conic.
qilently bad a right to retain it. Mr. Jones, the trustee,
swore, that of this soot he had raised 2,fdeit, for the above purpose.
Ile therefore prayed that this sum of 3.015 V. out of the 6,11/101.
should not be lodged in Court, as the family to whom it belonged,
would be most seriously grens:. It was unitimputed that the Trus-
tees had a right to raise:l,ooUL and retain this sum against all parties
whatever. It was not possible to say the money was fraudulently
raised. The Vice.l3taticellor seemed to be strongly of his ( Mr. ti's)
opinion, as he had merely made an order that the matter should be
enquired into, and the sun paid into Court. It was against this
part of the order he prayed the money al Id not be tied up by
parties who bad no nglit vrhatt ver to it. The wants of the family
were most urgent ; they requited the money without delay. 'llse
object of his motion wits. that the Trustees should be murdered to
pay the monev to Mrs. !Raiders, and her children—the Major being
deed. The Albion Coinpany had no claim whatever. lip was con..
tident this fund would not be ordered Mtn Court, and the family
be obliged to abide the resul, of a long litigation for the recovery
of a suits necessary, at present, to their wants and emergencies.
Mr. IltALn argued against the motion. Ile could not conceive
how it could interest Mr. Jones; he has the money in Exchequer
Hills in his hands ; he can derive no benefit. Why not, there-
fore, as will per over the money to the Accountant-General ?
The LORD CIt•WCELLOK—Are all the infanta parties to the
suit ?

Mr. Soonest said they were.
Mr. Ilaas.o said it WAS strange of Mr. Jones In his answer, to
require that he should not pay the money into Court, until his peti-
tion in appeal wt.: heard, whilst he at the same time affirmed that
the Exchequer Ililli were it' his box in the country.
The ',nab %)10EL u—la there an unitised where the Ea.
chequer Hinson:
Mr. Suunso said then could be no question whatever as to the
money.
The LORD CHARCRLLOR—There is no doubt the Exchequer
!hill are somewhere. Are they now where they were when the
order were issued by the Vire-Chancellor ? Money paid over even
to the' • erlff may be recalled. This money is said to be In Ex.
chequer Mils, and the bills arc ordered into Court ; if a trustee
exchange these bills, or sell them, ,tending such order, he cannot
be slid to have any great claim upon the Court.
Mr. SUOMI( said the bills were exchanged for others. but
those which were procured in exchange were in the hands of Mr.
JOUR!.
The LORD ettaucurcon—bet there he an affidavii made of
this, and let the motion be again brought before the Court.
Mr. HEALD said there would be alto a question for the con.
sideration of the Court, independent of either of the Exchequer
Hills or the money, he meant the manner in which the trustees had
appropriated certain property.
The Loan CilsocEssna—There can be no possible ground
foe the qtiestion you are mooting, if the Exchequer Bills be
brought from the bog in the country.
Mr. Suonew said there could not be the slightest doubt about
the money; this motion was not made by Mr. Jones, it was the
net of laird Ennismore and the family. Mr. Jones had the money,
and was nwst Rollout to produce it.
111C111.1) had not the least intention of insinuating that Mr.
Jones had not the money: he would be as far from malting the
insinuation as the Court would be front tolerating it.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. TUESDAY, Nov. iv;.

ISAAC DAT AND SAMPBI• DAY r. Tilt covriocoloi
_ _ CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.

- ........ .....
The plaintiff's In this cause were carmen of the ray of London.
and the snit was ostensibly fur the purpose of obtaining an order
that the Governors of Clinger hospital should refund the sum of
WI!. IN. received by them during the last six yeas, and paid by
the plaintiffs for permission to work their carts within the city of
London. The amount paid on each was 17.4. 4d. annually, and
they had employed eighteen carts. Hut the great question was, as
to the right of the Governors of Christ's I fospital to grant licenses
far working earts—a right which. it appears, they have exercised
for upwards of a century, and which they clai:u by virtue of the
authority of the City of London.
file. Bessirs read the hill, which set forth that the right to
receive a tee of 17s. Jd. on everysart worked within the city had
been originally vested in the Corporation of Landon, and had been
multiforml by that hotly to the Governors of l'hrist's Ilospital, for
the use of the pow children harboured there. That the carmen
were now subject to an Act passi.:l for their regulation in lii/11,
which Act was no authority to the Governors of Christ's hospital
to demand such rent ; and that they had virtually admitted it
themselves, by applying in 1817 to the (*articulation to take into
consideration the Act of Common Council of GM, which did not
authorise their demand of the rent, and to pass a new Act, which
might legalise their future proceedings.
Mr. Pax:gas, for the I Im—rtiors of Christ's Hospital. read
their answer, which contemled that the Act of Common council
of 1681 fully authorised them in receiving the rent of 17s. 4J. fur
each cart worked, and that such Act was recognised by the statute
of the 18th George 11.
The l'ter-Cti.tuctr.tott observed, that he could not perceive
what jurisdiction he hail in the matter.
Mr. Auer a stated, that as nn action of assumpsit could be brought
arainst a body corporate, the only relief was in a Court of Equity.
line question fcir his Honour to only
was, whether the plaintiffs
were hound in pay a sum of 17s. 4cl. annually for every cart they
worked, agreeably 111 the directions of an Art of Can ...... n Council,
which Act had breve relented, and w is therefore invalid.

The Vte la we Lo n—l'o you wan to say that you have
no right to pay any one ?
Mr. AIIAII-11 tit).

The V act-rwaiscr.t.t.on —Then the Corporation of the City
of London are intereved. v alp liy-laws are provisionary, and may
be annulled to-morrow. Slow, therefre, can I interfere with the
rights of the Corporatfm. unless I hare them before me ?
Mr..to replied _They were bef.ire the Court, as the seal of
the Mayor, Aldernien, and Common Council of the City of Lon-
don. was upon the record.
Mr. limes —No. they are not here. Tour mistake has ari3en
in conserriee of the seal of Christ's Ilospi:al being under the
eliar:,eot the l'hamtwasiti of Ion:don.

:11r. Att R, on r.•frning to the document, expressed himself so.
tistied on this point.

The V ti•mlivlt .ssert tow said, that in equity every party who
ha.l an lIIICTCut lutist b. heard. It was :Lar that the **importation
of London were thus situated, and mi:rlit make a new grant of this
revenue to a ditrerent lusty. Ile emtlit not therefore impugn the
right of the grantee in the aMwree of the gnntor. When the par.
ties were properly before the your: he shualti know how to pnweeel
with the cause, oven to the tint tiny of causes
in Hilary

COURT OF KING'S TVE,DAT, Nov.