The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE CHANCERY COURT, June 23.
(Before Sir J. WICRAM.)
CRUCIFIX v. RoIVE.—FREEMASONS' ASYLUM.

The object of this petition was to obtain the sanction
of the Court to the insertion in the deed of trust of a
proviso for the appointment of new trustees, or that, if
necessary, it might be referred to the Master to settle
and approve of a deed, to be executed by Lord South-
ampton, Lord Aboyne, Colonel George Anson, and Mr.
B. 13. hhell, and the petitioner, Mr. R. T. Crucifix
subscriber to the charity), for the purpose of declarine-
the trusts upon which the funds of the charity were to he
held by the trustees; and that the Master might be di-
rected, in settling such deed, to make provision for keep-
ing um the number of trustees appointed, as any of them
should from time to time die, or otherwise cease to act.
The petition was presented by Mr. Crucifix, on behalf
of himself and all others the subscribers to the charity
called " The Asylum for Worthy Aged and Decayed
Freemasons," except the fi,e defendants. The charita-
ble association was formed in 1835, by several of the
brethren of the order of freemasons, and others, and
considerable sums had been subscribed for the support
of the charity, the management and direction of which
were vested in a committee of the subscribers, but with-
out any deed of trust. The present funds consisted of
about 2,066/., which was vested in the funds in the de-
fendant's names. In 1845, one of the defendants vette
removed from his office of trustee, by a decree of the
Court; and the other defendants declining to act, a re-
terence was made to the Master to appoint five new
trustees. The Master had appointed Lord Southamp-
ton, Lord Aboyne, Colonel Anson, Mr. Cabhell, and the
petitioner trustees.

- Mr. Eldorton appeared for the petitions, Mr. Goren
consenting on the part of the trustees. The order was
wade accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 23.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and a Special Jury.)
NOTTIDGE V. RIPLEY AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of trespass by a maiden lady
against her brother-in-law, and another person, occupy-
ing the position of her trustee, fur an assault and false
imprisonment. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and
alio a plea in justification, alleging that the Vaintiff
was a person of unsound mind, dangerous to herself and
others, and that they had, therefore, caused her to he
placed and lirpt under restraint, using no more violence
than was necessary for her safi.: custody, which was the
trespass now comp!ained of.
Mr. Cockburn (with whom was Mr. Montague Smith)
conducted the case for th© plaintiff; and Sir F. Theeiger
(with Mr. Crowder and Mr. Bovill) represented the de-
fendants.

It appeared from the opening statement of the plain•
tiff's counst 1, as well as the testimony of the witnesses,
that the plaintiff is one of five sisters, and the only one
now unmarried, and that, up to the close of the autumn
of 1846, she resided with her mother at Rose-hill, in
Suffolk. The plaintiff is, and her sisters, previous to
their respective marriages, were, possessed of fortunes
in their own right, amounting to about 6,0001., invest, d
in the Government funds. Three of the plaintiff's
sisters were married about the same time to three per-
sons, named Price, Cobb, end Thomas, who were
members of a sort of religious community, known
as the " .Lampeter llroihren," who entertain
peculiar views upon religious subjects, and
amongst other things denied the ellieacy of
prayer, and did not think the Sabbath entitled to any
particular respect or ohservatice. A number of persons
belonging to this community, amongst whom are the
brothers-in-law of the plaintiff, Price, Cobb, and Thomas,
and their respective wives, have lately established them-
selves in a large budding at Charlidae, in Somerset
shire, which is called " Agapcmone," cr " The Abode
of Love ;" but before this establishment Was prepared
for them they travelled through different parts of the
country. At the close of the year, 1846, the plaintiff,
who, it appeared, was particularly attached to her sisters
(Mrs. Price and Mrs. Cobb), lett heir mother's residence,
and went to the west of Dig:and, and in company with
one or both of her sisters suecesAvely visited and resided
for some time at Weymouth, Bridgewater, and Spsxton.
Before the " Agapemone" was completed and fitted for
the reception of the present occupiers, a Mrs. Prince and
the plaintiff had lodgings at Spawn, at the house of a
person named Waterman, and it was whilst the plaintiff
was residing at this place the occurrence took place
which occasioned the present action. In November,
1846, the defendant Ripley, who is brother-in-law of the
plaintiff, and engaged in business at No. 11, Great Tower-
street, London, accompanied by the other defendant,
proceeded to the cottage where the plaintiff was
living, and having obtained an entrance by the back
of the house, went into the room where she was sit-
ting, and laying hold of her, dragged her out of the
house, notwithstanding her struggles and screams, and
forced her into a carriage, without either bonnet or
shawl, having nothing on her feet but carpet slippers, and
then drove off as fast as they could. Eventually they
brought the plaintiff to London, when they proceeded
to place her in a lunatic asylum belonging to a Dr. Still-
well. Here she was kept, notwithstanding her appeals
to the heads of the house, from November, 1846, to
January 1848, when she eff c:ed her escape, and wrote
to her relatives at Cambridge. Mr. Cobb, one of her
brothers-in-law, instantly came up to London, and met
the plaintiff at an hotel where she was staying after her
escape from the lunatic asylum. He accompanied her
to the railway, with the intention of conveying her
back, but on their arrival at the Farringdon-road sta-
tion, one of Dr. Stillweles keepers met them, and in-
sisted upon re-conveying the plaintiff to the asylum.
Mr. Cobb accompanied the plaintiff and keeper, but
when he got to the place he was turned out, whilst the

lady was kept. Th77c relative, having now ascertained
where the plaintiff was, applied to the commissioners
in lunacy, by whom an inquiry was instituted, of which
the result was the order for her release. After the
plaintiff had obtained her release, through the interven-
tion of the lunatic commissioners, she proceeded to Char.
lidge, and took up her ato ie at the " Agapemone,"
where she is now residing. The action was brought to
recover compensation in damages for taking her by force
from Spaxton, and her subsequent detention in Dr. Still-
well's establishment.

Two or three witnesses were called in the first instance
to depose to the actual circumstances attending the re-
moval of the plaintiff from SpaAton, and to show that
the defendants were the parties by whom her removal
was effected. It was expressly admitted, however, by
the defendant's counsel, at an early stage of the trial,
that they were the persons who had authorised the
plaintiff's removal.
The Rev. Louis Price, the brother-in-law, of the
plaintiff, deposed as follows:—I was married to a sister
of the plaintiff in June, 1845. I have known the plaintiff
since 1844. There has always been a great intimacy
between the sisters. The plaintiff came at the end of
1845 to stay with us at Weymouth. We removed to
Bridgewater. There is another sister married to Mr.
Cobb. Eventually we all went to Charlidge. I had
great opportunities of seeing the state of the plaintiff's
mind. I and my wife dwell at the " Agpemone," and
Mr. and Mrs. Cobb also. It is considered as " a private
family," entertaining religious views of our own, and in
those views the plaintiff concurred. There was no un-
soundness of mind about her. She was very gentle,
quiet, and lady-like. I was not at Spaxton when she
was taken away. We did not know for some time after
where she had been taken to. We heard in 1848, be-
fore April, where she was. Mr. Cobb went up to see
her, and I went up in consequence of the miserable let.•
ter she wrote to us. I went to the defendant Ripley's,
but not to the asylum. I wrote several letters to the
lunacy commissioners, the first on the 9th of April, 1848,
and she was liberated in the next month.

Cross-examined—Ours is not a religious society, but
a " private family," and not an association. It is not a
religious society. We do not call ourselves by any name
now, but we at one time called ourselves " Lampeter
Brethren." This family has existed for a year or two, and
from that time the family has been tiring in "Agapemone.'
Before that we used to go about the country together
and preached anywhere—in the open air, if we could not
get a house. We made announcements of our arrival.
God is the head of our family, and no one under God.
It was not a part of our belief that God was manifested
in the flesh of any individual amongst us; no, nor any
such blasphemy. We did not pay any peculiar homage to
Mr. Prince. If a person said that he was God incarnate,
he was not of sound mind, or at all events he was under
a delusion. I was ordained a priest of the Church
of England, and had a curacy in South Wales. Prince,
after he left Charlidge, was curate at Stoke, in
Suffolk, near to Mrs. Nottidge. The bishop dis-
missed me from my curacy. I cannot tell of my
own knowledge that Prince was also dismissed. Mr.
Thomas was ordained a deacon of the Church of Eng-
land, andpir. Starkie was the rector of Charlidge, but has
ceased to be so some years. We at length.established
"the family" at Charlidge, in the " Agapemone." I had no
money, nor bad the others any until we married the
Misses Nottidge. My curacy in Wales was 701. a year. Mr.
Rouse, the attorney for the plaintiff, is one of " the
family," and lives at "Agapemone." There are 50 or
60 in " the family" circle living in the house. We have
horses and carriages and live in good style. There has
been a farm purchased. There was a chapel there; but
we have converted that into a dwelling. Some of our
friends are in the Bank, and some elsewhere. We ab-
jure prayer altogether as a matter of religion, but we
pray by offering up praises to God, by a life of goodness
to God, and by outward manifestation, such as singing,
and by healthy exercise; aad " hockey" is one. I con-
sider that all we do is to the " glory of God." That is
the commandment of God. I consider that we are
glorifying God when we eat and drink. Every one does
as he pleases on the Sunday. We make no difference
between that day or any other day. All play at
"Hockey," females as well as males. I married Harriet,
Mr. Thomas married Agnes, and Mr. Cobb married
Clara. We were all married on the same day at Swan-
sea. The five sisters were at Charlidge, to be present at
the opening of the chapel. I was married on the 9th of
July 1845, and saw my wife at Brighton in 1844. I
never preached on the sea shore at the time I was a mi-
nister of the Church of England. I knew them before.
Those living in the house are " the family," but we call
every one a " brother" who lives in God.

In answer to the CHIEF BARON, the witness said, if it
be true that once a priest is a priest for ever, then I am
still of the Church of England.
Cross-examination continued —I saw try wife in 1844
at Brighton, but never went to her mother's house there;
and alter they lett Brighton I then corresponded with
her. My wile is about 40, and is older than the plain-
tiff. The day after my wife went to Charlidge Ido not
know that Prince told her that it was the will of God
that she should marry Thomas, and Clara that she
should marry Cobb. He never told me so. I made her
an offer. I considered that it was the will of God that
we should marry, but I did not tell her so. The five
ladies were at Charlidge, and in one day three of them
at'reed to marry three of "the family?' The yo,,ung,
ladies came there with Thomas and `Truer, two 01 the
family." The day after their arrival the matters