The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-10 00:00:00

GERRARD V. HUMPHREY.

Mr. CHAMBERS moved for a rule Nisi for a new trial in
this case. It was an action tried before Mr. Baron Bol-
land, at the first sittings in the present term ; it was brought
fer the hire of a quantity of silver plate for the use of the
Westminster Reform Club, of which the defendant was a
member ; the verdict was for the defendant. The Learned
Gentleman said the evidence adduced at the trial showed
the plaintiff claimed for three items ; the first was for plate
hired from Feb. 19, 1835, to May 10, the second from
May 10 to June 24, an& the other for plate hired on the
23d of May, without any other specification. They called
Mr. Fry, the Secretary to the Club,. who deposed that the
defendant was proposed and elected a member of the Club
on the Gth of March, 1835, and that he (Fry) wrote him a
letter stating so, within a week after. He did not, however,
see the defendant until the 23d May in the same yea ;on
which occasion there was a public dinner amongst the
members. The defendant, before going down to dine, paid
him 101. 10s., the admission fee, and .5/. ss. as his sub-
scription for the year. In his cross•examination, he said
there were printed rules which governed the Club, and
they were read on the 23d of May. A member, however,
might dine in the Club, though he had not paid the fees.
He considered the defendant became a member upon his
election. The Steward of the Club ordered the articles by
orders from the Committee. The Learned Judge ruled that
the plaintiff was obliged to put in these printed rules,
which he did, and the defendant relied upon the 10th
rule, which was to the effect, " That no member should
be allowed to dine in the Club, or to ballot or vote upon
any subject whatever, without having previously paid up
his admission fees and his subscription for the current year."
Upon this, it was contended that the defendant had not
become a member until the 23d of May, when he paid his
fees, but he (Mr. C.) had now to submit to the Court, that
Mr. Humphrey, having acted upon and acknowledged his
being elected, from that moment he became a member of
the Club, and lee for its contracts. It could not be
said that the ru treeten if they were binding, had come
into operation until tl3,ey were read ; and if they were
put out of the way, then the defendant was clearly liable.
The COURT—Was there any proof that the election of
the defendant took place upon any application from him ?
Mr. CHAMBERS said that it did not appear, and he
hoped it would not be laid down, that it was necessary that
such a fact should be proved, for if so, then in all actions
against members of a club it would be necessary to call the
proposer and seconder of every one sued. The defendant
in this case had acknowledged his election by paying his
fees, and the presumption therefore was that he had been
proposed by his own consent.
The COURT said there was nothing in the case to shew
the liability of the defendant. He did not become a mem-
ber of the club till the 23d of May, at fire o'clock, when
he paid his fees and subscription, by which time all the
contracts had been entered into. They would not disturb
the verdict.—Rule refused.

ARCHES COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER.)
BROWN V. MORLEy.

The arguments in this case were resumed till to-day. It
is a proceeding in which the officer of the Judge is pro-
moted by the Churchwardens of Newport Pagnell against

the Rev. Mr. Morley, for an alleged act of brawling and
chiding on the part of the defendant, and for a refusal on
his part to respect the authority of the Rev. and Venerable
Archdeacon, while on a visitation to the parish church of
which Mr. Morley is the incumbent.
On the last Court day, Dr. LUSIIINGTON, on behalf of
the Churchwardens, was heard in support of the libel ex•
hibited against the Rev. Mr. Morley. From the statement
of the Learned Gentleman ,it appeared that the brawling
charged against Mr. Morley consisted in the use of angry
words, applied to the Archdeacon, who had given a decision
in a case where the parishioners were concerned that exas-
perated the Rev. Gentleman.
Sir HERBERT JENNER said the Court must be satisfied
that the conduct of Mr. Morley amounted to brawling, or
It could not interfere.

Dr. ADDAMS, on behalf of Mr. Morley, should submit
with confidence that the suit ought never to have been
brought, and that the office of the Judge had been pro-
moted, not by the Churchwardens, but by the Very Rev.
and Venerable Archdeacon himself. The Learned Civi-
lian proceeded to comment upon the evidence at conside-
rable length, to show that the Rev. Mr. Morley had not
acted in that improper mode as to induce the Court to come
to the conclusion that a breach of the peach had been com-
mitted—that there had bee❑ no brawling, and that the de-
fendant must be dismissed.

The case was proceeding when our Reporter left.

CARPENTER'S CHARITY.-BREAD-

STREET WARD.

A meeting of the inhabitants of Bread-street Ward was
this day held at the White Horse Tavern, Friday-street,
for the purpose of receiving a report from Mr. Williams,
M.P., of proceedings in the Court of Chancery relating to
Carpenter's Charity, and for devising the best mode of ap-
propriating a sum of about 20,0001., which, by the report of
the Master, now appears unapplied in the funds.
Mr. JOHN LAWRENCE was called to the Chair, and having
read the notice calling the meeting,
Mr. WILLIAM 3 proceeded to detail the object of the
meeting. He said that, though he ceased to be connected
with the Ward, he felt a deep interest in every thing
which affected, the interests of the inhabitants. The
matter upon which they were called together arose out of
a suit instituted by Mr. Bateman and himself, relating to
Carpenter's Charity, which 105 years ago was instituted
for the exclusive benefit of the Ward. At that time Mr.
Carpenter bequeathed 1,000/. for the purpose of giving out
loans to young men commencing business, in sums from
50/. to 100/. In consequence of a sufficient number of
persons not appearing to claim these loans, the funds
considerably accumulated, and that in a great mea-
sure from the fact that the existence of the Cha-
rity was not generally known. He (Mr. Williams) was
twelve years living in the Ward before he heard of such a
Charity. In 1826, he called on the trustees to state the
amount of the funds, and the only answer he received was,
that the Ward had nothing to
,do with the matter. He
called on the Alderman to convene a meeting on this sub-
ject, which he consented to do, but he subsequently changed
his opinion, and declined to act as he had promised. On
St. Thomas's Day, 1827, he (Mr. Williams) made a se-
cond application to the trustees, but again met with a re-
fusal. The inhabitants were not satisfied that one-
fourth of the sums which they believed were then in the
funds could be expended according to the will of the donor,
and the trustees themselves applied to the Court of Chan-
cery for leave to extend the loans to 3001. At length Mr.
Bateman and himself instituted the proceedings in Chan-
cery, but before they could go forward it was necessary to
procure the consent of the Attorney-General, and upon re-
ference to Sir James Scarlett, and subsequently to Sir
Thomas Denman, when they held that office, they refused
their approbation, and the suit was consequently
stayed ; but when Sir John Campbell was ap-
pointed, he at once saw the propriety of allowing
them to go on. The trustees were then for the first
time bound to answer, and they admitted almost every
thing contained in the memorial. He regretted they had
not done -so at first, because they would then have saved to
the Charity a sum of 300/., 4001., or 500/. By the will of
Mr. Carpenter, the trustees were seven or eight persons—
a vacancy to be filled up by the survivors ; 'so that the
matter was quietly disposed of, without reference to the in-
habitants. These were the highest bred Tories in the Ward.
The Court of Chancery decided in the very words in which
the petitioners preferred their memorial, and agreed to extend
the uses of the Charity. It appeared that there were only
four loans of 2001. each, besides other in smaller sums, in
all amounting to 3,400/. The remaining question was to
what purposes they should apply the surplus funds, which,
he thought, would now amount to about 23,000/, and he
was required to put in a scheme for its appropriation.
Now he was opposed to going out of the Ward, though, by
the decree they were permitted to do so, and he thought they
might apply it to beneficial purposes within it. Besides pro-
viding amply for the objects contemplated in the will, they
might take that course which would best accord with the in-
tentions of the benevolent donor, and education being the best
mode of promoting the future interests of young men through
life, he was sure the establishmeht of schools would merit
the approbation of the inhabitants. He meant a school not
alone for instruction in reading, writing, &c., but where
the pupils might receive clothing, feeding, &c., and such in-
struction as would fit them for any situation in society.—
(Hear, hear.) He also would suggest the establishment of
alms-houses for the reception'of persons in the Ward who,
at one time respectable and independent, were, from re-
duced circumstances, placed in a condition to require relief.
He only threw out these ideas—it would be for theinhabi-
tants to adopt or reject them, and he would conclude by
moving that a Committee be appointed to consider the sub-
ject; and report their opinions thereon.
Mr. WILLIAM LAWRENCE seconded the resolution, and
noticed the absence of the trustees from the meeting.

A desultory conversation took place on the subject of
due notice having been given to those gentlemen ; after
which a Committee, consisting of thirteen persons, was
nominated, and the cordial thanks of the meeting were re-
turned to Mr. Williams for his conduct in the transaction.
The usual vote was given to the Chairman, and the meet-
ing then separated.