The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-16 00:00:00

ATTORNEY-GRDTRRAL V. HARMAN.

This was an information, filed by the Attorney-Gene-
ral, the object of it being to obtain a new scheme for
the administration of a charity at Wickham, in Buck-
inghamshire. By a charter of Queen Elizabeth certain
lands were granted on trust to found a grammar' school
at Wickhatn, and also for the maintenance of four poor
persons. A subsequent charter was granted by King
James, by which it was declared that the trusts should
extend also to the relief of ether poor and needy men
of the said borough. The present revenue was 4001. a.
year, and it was admitted, in the answer, that it would.
shortly be increased by 1501. a sear. The- trustees are
the mayor, aldermen, and council, of the corporation of
the borough, and now and for sonic time past the dis-
position of the funds has been that 70/. is allotted to
the support of the school, and the remainder has been
applied practically in 'diminution of the parochial rates.
All that was asked for by the information was that litre
should be a new ::cheme on the subject of the
and that the usual accounts may be taken of whet the
charity estate consists.
Mr. Loyd, with whom was Mr. White, who appeared
for the defendants, submitted that the suit was wholly
unnecessary. Now rules and ordinances were made-for
the school in 1852, and ho did not understand that they
were questioned.
Mr. Terrell said a serious-question arose whether the
second charter, so far as it varied the trusts of the first
charter by including in them relief to the poor infinitely,
ers
~ notT been ugiulniteyr.al
principle on
b His Honour said he would consider a scheme in chain-
poor rate, wbhuitohthtehreecowausrtg:preraQt•
ceeded is these cases was not to allow charity funds to
be applied in aid of the
difficulty in carrying that principle oat.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MOOR.

This suit was instituted for the purpose of procuring
the removal of a trustee of a charity in Middlesmore, in
the county of York, and to have proper trustees ap-
pointed. It appeared that for the last hundred' years
there has been a grammar school at Netherdale, *called
the Lofthouse School, at which ten boys were instructed.
The charity was founded by the will of John Lazenby,
made iu 1743, who gave certain lands to three trustees,
the trusts being to support a grammar school. The de-
fendant is a descendant of the surviving trustee, and the
logal estate is vested in him. The custom has been that
the schoolmaster has been appointed by the trustee, with
the concurrences pf the churchwardens, and that the
schoolmaster has had possession of the charity lands
which are only of a small value, The defendant,. how-
ever, in 1851, dismissed the master, and then allowed him
to retain his situation on paying him 101. a-year as rent
for the land, which rent defendant had converted to his
own use. Defendant, when applied to to remedy this
abuse, gave no other answer than a recommendation to
the applicants to mind their own business. The defiance
set up was, that the will was not enrolled, and was void
under the Mortmain Act, and that therefore defendant
was entitled.

His Honour said, when he found that a clarity had
been administered for 100 years in a particular manner,
he required any pershn who contested it to prove that
he was entitled, and the burden of proof lay upon him.
This defendaot -said the will was void under the
statute of mortmain. There cadre many other
modes by which it might be made a good charity,
and defendant hal not proved that these were not
adopted. He had no evidence, however, that the
will was not duly enrolled. He would assume that it
was not, and that the heir-at-law being aware of this
devise disclaimed all interest in it, and wished the
trust to be carried out,, and that every successive heir-at-
law had done the same thing, would this court at this
.distsince of time allow the heir-at-law to claim the pro-
perty I It certainly would not, nor would it allow the
bolder of this property to say, that the performance of
this trust was a mere matter of grace and favour on his
part, and that he should perform or not as he thought

fit. He should make a decree declaring that the whole
of the income of the charity property was applicable,
subject to any necessary outgoings, to the payment of
the schoolmaster, and for the appointment of new true
tees. He should give costs if they were asked.

Mr. Roupell said he believed Moor, the defendant,
was in poor circumstances, and costs were not asked for
against him. The costs- of the relators were provided
for by subscription.
His Honour—Very well. I shall not give the defen-
dant costs, he must pay his own.
ALLAN V. BUTPENAIR.
The plaintiff in this case is the inventor of certain ins-
provements in the electric telegraph, for which he ob-
tained a patent for this country in November, 1850, and
in the same year he obtained a patent in Holland. He
also, in 1851, obtained, at his own expense, a private
Act of Parliament for the formation of a company, to be
called the Utited Kingdom Telegraph Company, One
object of the proposed company was to work a sub-
marine Holland. As a
preliminaryt elegrtaop hth
ifsr,ofrom the Dutch Go-
am thiscou
concessionntry t
fr
Go-
vernment was requisite, and, in order to obtain this con-
cession, plaintiff; as was alleged on his behalf, entered
into an agreement with the defendant, who is a native
of Holland, and had influence with the Dutch Govern-
ment, that he should obtain the concession, and that
he and the plaintiff should share the profits of it.
Ruypenaer obtained the concession in May, 1852 ; but,
previous to doing so, plaintiff exhibited models of his
invention which, in defendant's letters to the plaintiff,
he said had been of considerable service in inducing
the Government to grant defendant the concession.
After he had obtained the concession, defendant earns
over to this country, and, after some negotiation with
the plaintiff and the persons who were about to form the
United Kingdom Telegraph Company, he sold the con-
cession to Mr. Ricardo, who acted on behalf of the
Submarine and European Telegraph Company—the
Price being 1,0001., and a royalty in the shape of a share
of tha profits. Plaintiff had thereupon filed this bill,
e'aiming a participation of the profits which defendant
had, and would derive, from the sale of the concession.
Mr. Ffooks, who appeared for the defendant, con-
tenied that she concession was the absolute property of
tie defendant, and that plaintiff had nothing whatever
to do with it. Moreover, that the United Kingdom
Company was, in fact, never formed, and that defendant
was justified in disposing of it to responsible parties,
who would relieve him from the conditions attached to
the concession.
His Honour raid he would hear Mr. Palmer on the
question of evidence before delivering his decision, and
he was not sure whether he should not require the inter
Tention of a jury to determine as to the Acts