The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 18,

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Before Sir Richard Bindersley.)
ROBINS V. TIIRTON.

This was a petition for the appointment of Mr. John
Robins and Mr. Savory as trustees of Drury-lane Theatre,
in the place of Mr. G. Robins and Mr. Carpenter, de-
ceased. By the Ist of Geo. IV., which enlarged two
former acts, the sum of ls. 3d. per night was made
payable to each of the new renters of the theatre for
every night of performance there for 79 years. The two
gentlemen now proposed as trustees had been elected
unanimously at a meeting of the new renters, as had
been the case on a former occasion.
Mr. Osborne appeared for the petition.
His Honour granted the petition.
(Before Sir William Page Wood.)
COLLIN V. DEVAUX.

------• - • --
This was a motion for an injunction restraining the
defendants, Alexander Devaux, Charles Devaux, and
Matthew llzielli, from paying away, or parting with, or
otherwise applying, the sum of 651/. 75., and such other
sums received by the defendants as subscriptions to the
funds of the Soci4t4 Francaise de Bienfaisance, except
to the bankers or treasurers of the society, or under the
order of the Court. The bill upon which the motion
was founded stated that the plaintiff, Victor Collin, of
Skinner-street, Snow-hill; Francois Vouillon, of Princes-
street, Hanover-square ; Jean Sylvain Lucet, of Wey-
mouth-street, Portland-place ; Charles Grillion, of Albe.
marle-street, Piccadilly ; and Louis Castrique, of Phil-
pot-lane, in the City, were members of the friendly
society called the Soci4t4 Francaise de Bienfaisance,
holding its meetings at the Hanover-square Rooms. The
defendant was a member of the committee of the society.
The society was established in 1842, for the relief of in-
digent and old and infirm French persons resident in Eng-
land, by means of temporary and permanent pecuniary
assistance and for other benevolent purposes of a similar
nature. The rules of the society had been certified by
Mr. Tidd Pratt, by which the objects were declared to
be—first, to assist the indigent French in England ;
secondly, to procure employment, as far as practicable,
for those who sought it ; thirdly, to facilitate the return
to France of those who were in England without the
means of subsistence; fourthly, to prevent the indigent
:French becoming a burden on this country ; fifthly, to
relieve the sick, infirm, and old persons ; sixthly, in case
of illness, to assist such persons at their own houses, by
a weekly allowance, according to the resources of the
society ; seventhly, to afford to the poor French who
were aged and infirm, chosen by the society, annual
pensions. The bankers of the society were Messrs.
Scott and Co., and Messrs. Lafitte and Co., in Paris.
The defendant gave notice of his intention to move, at
the general meeting in January last, a resolution " That
in future the French Ambassador in this country for the
time being should be the perpetual president of the
society, and the consul-general of France in this country
for the time being and the chaplain of the French Chapel
in George-street, Portman-square, should be the per-
petual vice-presidents of the society." Mr. Devaux him-
self was absent from this meeting, but the resolution
was proposed by a Mr. Levilly, and was unanimously
rejected. Mr. Devaux thereupon resigned, but at a
meeting of the committee in May he attended and pro-
duced a lithographic circular letter, and stated that he
had received large subscriptions towards the objects of
the society. The circular was as follows :

" 62, King William-street, City, May 9, 1853.
"Dear Sir,—We have opened a subscription on be-
half of the committee for the relief of distressed French-
men in this country. The institution will deserve your
support, and we shall esteem it a favour if you will
allow us to put your name down as a donor or annual
subscriber to this charity.—We remain, dear sir, yours
very truly,

" C. DEVAUX and Co.
Mr. Devaux was re-elected a member of the committee,
and as such, at a general meeting of the society in June
last, again proposed the former resolution, which was
negatived by a majority of three-fourths of the meeting.
Mr. Devaux and several other members immediately
refused to continue zlembers. The bill alleged that the
defendants were now engaged in establishing a new so-
ciety, and that they intended to apply the subscrip-
tions received to its purposes.
Mr. Glasse and Mr. Walford appeared in support of
the motion, and contended that the funds received were
clearly the property of the original society, and that
the subscribers must have so intended them ; and that
the intention of Mr. Devaux to form another society
arose merely from pique in having had his motion nega-
tived, and from a desire to show his former associates
his power over the subscribers. It could never be con-
tended that an individual collecting subscriptions for
one society could apply them to another. How could
subscriptions for the Middlesex Hospital, for instance,
be applied to St. George's Hospital ?
The Vice-Chancellor—lf the money were subscribed
for the " sick," the subscribers would probably not care
to which hospital it was given.
Mr. Bolt and Mr. Waley appeared for the defendant,
but were not called upon.
The Vice-Chancellor said he should refuse the mo-
tion, with costs. It was purely speculative. The story
told by the plaintiffs was the most inconsistent that
could be imagined. Mr. Devaux having been defeated
in his resolution, thought it would be a beneficial pro-
ceeding to collect subscriptions for a society governed
by the principle contained in that resolution. In fact,
there seemed to have been a regular treaty going on
between Mr. Devaux and the members of the committee
from which he had seceded as to the propriety of adopt-
ing his views. The only evidence of the plaintiffs to
support their improbable supposition as to defendant's
conduct and motive 4 was the circular, and that by its
very terms would imply that there was to be a new sub-
scription for a new purpose. It is said the circular
spoke of a "committee," but it was very well known
that circulars were distributed, signed by one individual
only—were frequently distributed—witk the intention
of forming a committee so soon as funds bad been col-
lected. The history of the case seemed to be a very
simple and plain one on the part of the defendant. There
did not seem to be anything irrational in his going
about collecting subscriptions for distressed Frenchmen
at a time when the plaintiffs and others were antagonistic
to his views.

Mr. Glasse said it would be desirable to consider the
case as now at hearing, as the case would be immedi-
ately taken by appeal to the Lords Justices.
Mr. Rolt said the only order now made was that the
motion should be refused with costs.