The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-13 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nor. 12.
BRANDON V. BRANDON.

This was a petition by several persons interested in the es-
tates of the late Mr. Brandon, to remove Mr. W. J. B. Bran-
don, the receiver, and Mr. Pettingall, one of the trustees,
from their offices. The substantial charge made against these
gentlemen was, that they had received one hundred pounds of
the trust property, which they had sedulously kept from the
knowledge of the parties, with the intention of appropriating
it to themselves. The occurrence arose out of the renewal
of a lease of an estate called the Three Falcons Estate,
which was held under the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury.
Tho time for septennial renewal having arrived in August,
1837, the Dean and Chapter named 1,7991.55. as the amount
of the fine. This: sum exceeded the preceding fine by seve-
ral hundred pounds, and the trustees appointed Brandon and
Pettingall as a deputation to go and treat with the Dean and
Chapter on the subject, The Dean and Chapter afterwards
consented to reduce their claim by 1501., but Brandon, at the
desire of the trustees, wrote a letter, offering 1,600/. This
letter represented that the parties interested in the estate were
utterly unable, on account of the very heavy and serious law
expenses, to meet so great a demand as the Dean and Chapter
were making, without subjecting themselves to the greatest
possible privations, and that the parties must that year
he deprived of any income whatever. A subsequent
interview took place, at which the Bishop of Oxford (the
Dean), " who was fully aware," as Brandon represented it,
"of the trouble, time, and expense which had been occupied
and incurred by the members of the deputation in attending at
Canterbury upon the several occasions," informed the depu-
tation that the fine could not be reduced, but the Dean
and Chapter eould"make them a present of 1001. A meeting of
the trustees was shortly afterwards held, at which the deputa-
tion stated that no reduction could be obtained of the fine, and
it was agreed that the amount should be paid. But as to the
present nothing was said, save that it was intimated by Mr.
Pettingall, that when all was settled some present might be
made to them, the members of the deputation. NJ import-
ance, however, said Mr. Scargill, the solicitor of the pe •
titioners, was attached to the observation. On the 6th of
January the deputation again went to Canterbury and gave
their cheque for 1,649/. 55., and received on the other hand a
cheque for 1001. payable to themselves. Brandon, in his of
fidavit, stated that he and Pettingall believed this money was
intended as a gratuity to the deputation for their trouble and
loss of time, but that he had determined on passing his ac
counts to state the circumstances to the Master when the item
of the payment of the fine was arrived at, and in case the Master
should be of opinion that he was entitled to retain the present,
he would have struck out of the account his coach-hire and
expenses..
His HONOUR, without calling for a reply, delivered judg-
ment, and must confess he heard the case with great pain.
His Honour then detailed all the circumstances from the affi-
davits to the effect already stated, and observed, if it had been
the intention of Pettingall and Brandon all along to introduce
this matter into their account—for that is the statement in
their affidavit—they ought to have introduced the item at once
into their account, and have at the same time stated the cir-
• cumstances connected with it. Although it might be true that
in departments of life not within the cognizance of the Court,
there was a degree of taking of bribes, and so on, practised ;
and although in the higher departments of life, for anything
he knew, it did go on to some extent, and without that degree
of censure which, if the matter were coolly viewed, it would
be found to deserve ; yet in all cases between agent and em-
ployer, trustee and cestuique trust, the Court always held
that the agent could not withhold any benefit he bad received
from the employer or cestuique trust. They must be re-
moved with costs, and a new receiver and another trustee
must be appointed.