The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-12 00:00:00

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1822.

LAW INTELLIG ENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 11.
WAltr) Or COURT.-JACRSON V. FORBES.

Mr. SRADWELL moved that it might be referred back to
the Master to consider his Report, relative to the marriage
settlement to be made on Mr. Middleton and a Miss Ander-
son, an infant ward of the Court, and that/the parties might
be allowed to intermarry. It appeared that Mr. Middleton,
the intended husband of the infant ward, was entitled, under
the will of his grandfather, to the sum of 2,0001. chargeable
on the real and personal estate of the testator ; and he was
also entitled to an estate of the value of 150/. per annum ;
he had also some other property. The infant wcrd, the in-
tended bride, was the illegitimate child of a Mr. Anderson,
and a question had arisen as to how much of her father's
property she was entitled to; it was, however, supposed she
would be entitled to one-third part of it, which consisted of
30,000/. in the Three per Cent. Consols, and of 4,000/. in
specie. The Master, by his report, had proposed to give
her a life interest in the share of her property, with remain-
der to her issue ; but in failure thereof, she was to have the
appointment, and the intended husband's property was to be
settled on himself for life, with remainder to the ward and
the issue of the marriag►e.- His Lordship would see by the
Master's report, that the• intended wife was to be interested
in the husband's property, and he was to have nothing to do
with her fortune.

The LORD CHANCELLOR-44 You stated the infant ward
to be an illegitimate child ; then suppose there should be no
children of the marriage, and that she should die without
making any appointment, what is to become of the property
then ?"

Mr. SDADWELL-" It is to go to her sister; the husband
to be entirely excluded."
The Lotus CHANcEr.Loit—" Take the order."
DEERE V. WARD.

Mr. HART concluded his reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, he would deckle the
case on the evidence before him, without he should think it
necessary to call for further affidavits. He would take a few
days to consider the case before he gave his judgment ; it
was most important in itg several parts. There vere two
views of the case, and they were both very important; one as
a motion for a new trial. There were a Feat number of im-
portant observations to be made on the evidence that had not
been given on the trial of the issue. He could not helmaying,
if he was the Judge that had tried it, he would have thought
it his duty to have called for it ; at the same time it wis only
justice for him to say, that the Chief Justice had tried it most
ably. The other view was also most important; the ci-cum-
stance of the commission of lunacy having issued so far back as
the year 1773, and all the proceedings under it in that Court
from that period had been wrong, the Court being deceivel by
misrepresentation. The. question then was, whether he otght
not to say to the parties he would not hear them, as they had
been deceiving the Court so long, and hand over the estate to
the co-heiresses, and let the parties afterwards fight for it. He
had a great inclination to say so then, but he would refrain
from it. He would give his judgment on Monday inuming
next.—Judgment postponed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECAL
TUNBRIDGE SCHOOL.

TIIE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE SKINNERS' COMI'INY.
In this cause the ATTORNEY-GENERAL filed a bill at the
relation of certain inhabitants of Tunbridge, against the Skin-
ners' Company, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the de-
fendants were entitled to employ, for the general purposes of
their Company, the rents of certain estates situated in the Farish
of St. I'ancras, Middlesex, and Gracechurch-street, in the city
of London, after paying certain- fixed sums ordered by the will
of Sir Andrew Judd, the founder of Tunbridge school, to be
paid thr the support of that school, or whether they were not
trustees of the whole of the rents for the purposes of the school
exclusively.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR, after hearing the case argued in
April, 1820, decreed that the Skinners' Company were trustees
of the rents of the estates for the benefit of the Tunbridge
school exclusively; that it should be referred to the Master to
inquire and report what the value of the estates was, and to
approve of a scheme for the management of the school. The
Skinners Company appealed against the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor, but the Lord Chancellor confirmed it.
Mr. BELT. this day moved on the part of Mr. Knox, the
Master of Tunbridge school, that the Master of the Court
might be directed to make a separate report with respect to the
St. Pancras estates alone. In support of the application he
stated that the St. Pancras estates,which were admitted to belong
to the school, produced an annual income of 2,5001., and were
clearly ascertained; whilst the estates in Gracechurch-street,whicli
at the utmost could afford only from 390/. to 500/. a year, could
not be clearly defined, in consequence of their having become
mixed with other property of the Skinner's Company at the
period of the fire of London. According to the existing decree
of the Court, the scheme for the management of the school
could not be approved. The scheme which had been agreed
upon among the parties, after providing for the support of the
master and usher of the school, set apart the surplus for exhi-
bitions at the two Universities. It was important, therefore,
to have it declared by the Report of the Master, that the St.
Pancras estates belonged to the school, in order that the scheme
might be carried into effect as far as the income of those estates
would permit. When the Gracechorch-street estates could be
ascertained, they could be reported and employed in further-
ance of the scheme. He was unable to suggest to himself any
substantial objection to this motion. It was unreasonable to
delay the execution of the scheme on account of the doubt
which existed with respect to the Gracechurch-street estate,
because, in fact, it was well known that it could never be re-
moved, it being impossible to define the boundaries of those
estates. He was so perfectly convinced of this 'act, that he
would recommend his clients to file a supplemental bill, to
refer it to the Master, to set out an equivalent for the Grace-
chorch-street property.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that it was impossible
to obtain an equivalent for that which could not be ascertained.
Mr. HART, who appeared for the relators, said, that the ap-
plication which had been made to the Court might perhaps
more properly have proceeded from his clients ; however, they
had instructed him to support it. It certainly was most unrea-
sonable that the master of the school should be kept without an
augmented allowance, which he ought to have received many
years ago, when there was a larger income out of which he
might be paid, and upon which no litigation depended. The
collateral income, respecting which dispute prevailed, might in-
crease but could not diminish the fund.
Mr. HEALD, who appeared on the part of the Skinners'
Company, said that his Learned Friend, Mr. Bell, had not
taken a correct view of the facts of the case. He was informed
by Mr. Gregg, the solicitor to the Company, that there did not
exist the insuperable obstacle which his Learned Friend ima-
gined, to the accurate definition of the boundaries of the Grace-
church-street estates. The principal difficulty, which he un-
derstood was now likely to be surmounted, had been to ascer-
tain the site of an inn, called the Falcon, which formerly
stood upon the estate. A meeting of the parties was to
take place to-morrow, and it would perhaps have been as
well to have awaited the result before the motion was made.
As it had been made, however, the Company, who were merely
trustees, did not wish to oppose it for the purpose of litigation ;
they would leave it to the Court to determine whether it
was a proper proceeding. The Company were extremely
anxious that the decree which the Court had pronounced, and
which had been confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, should be
carried into complete effect. As a proof of this he would ob-
serve, that they had refrained from appealing to the House of
Lords, which they were entitled to do.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR made an order, directing that the
Master should make a separate report of the St. Pancras
estates, and also a report of the original scheme provided for
by the decrees of the Court, with liberty to suggest a provi-
sional scheme for the application of the income of the St. Pan_
eras estates alone.

...allow-.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 11.
CONSPIRACY.

TIIE KING, AT THE PROSECUTION OF FOX, V. JACKSON

AND JARVIS.

This was a criminal indictment against the defendants for a
conspiracy, in procuring to be issued a Statute of Bankruptcy
against the younger Jackson, in order to defraud the prose-
cutor.

This case has been already frequently before the public in
various legal proceedings within the last five years. It has
been the subject of two actions, a former indictment for per-
jury against the same parties, but abandoned, however, by the
same prosecutor—a Bill in Chancery still undecided—a former

trial for conspiracy, in which there was a verdictagainat the de-
fendants ; but in consequence of important evidence discovered
by the defendants subsequently to that verdict, the Court on
motion granted a new trial, which came on this day, and occu-
pied the Court from its opening until four o'clock.
The case for the prosecution was opened by Mr.BcAuLt T
with whom were Mr. GAZE LEE and Mr. ADOLPHUS ; Mr
SoLiciToß-GENERAL and Mr. GUILNE Y on the other side.
The circumstances of the case were shortly these :—The pro.
secutor, 31r. Samuel Fox, was some years since an apothecary
and surgeon in Bishop-street, where he kept a shop, and being
desirous to dispose of his business to an eligible purchaser, he
applied to a medical agent for that purpose. An advertise-
ment was published in some of the newspapers to forward this
object, and in consequence, Mr. Jackson, jun. one of the de-
fendants, applied, and was introduced by the _agent to Mr.
Fox ; a negociation was accordingly comgenced. Mr. Jack-
son, jun. had served his apprenticeship to gr. Jarvis, another
of the defendants, at Exeter. He had cone up to London to
attend Lectures and the Hospitals for his improvement, and
was introduced to the prosecutor for the purpose of treating for
the purchase of his business in the latter end of the year 1813.
The prosecutor named his price ; Mr. Jackson had the inspec-
tion of his books for the three years preceding this negociation,
in order to shew him the average profits according to what.had
been sold. It was agreed, in consequence, that after Mr. Jack-
son had consulted his friends, that he was to take a half share
in the business with the prosecutor, for which he was to pay
1,2001., of which COM was to be paid in the first year. Ar-
ticles were accordingly, signed. The prosecutor for sonic time
resided with him in the house, and aided in conducting the bu-
siness. Mr. Jackson, towards the end of 11114, expressed himself
satisfied with the business, and a subsequent arrangement was
entered into between the parties, whereby Mr. Jackson was to
take the whole of the business, and to pay the prosecutor 'altoge-
ther a sum of 2,801., of which sum lie paid, by different instz.l-
- 1,2001. which was advanced to him by his father, another of
the defendants, and he had passed his bond for the balance; but
finding in 1815 that the business fell greatly short of the pro-
duce represented to him, and for which he paid so high a price,
and that he should not be prepared to meet his bond when it
should become due, he wrote to the prosecutor, stated the cir-
cumstances, offered to pay him. 4001. more in discharge of the
bond, hut the prosecutor refused to accept it ; and the defendant
replied, that then lie could offer no better terms, and that he
must consult his friends and his other creditors. The prosecu-
tor, however, entered up judgment on the bond, and put an
execution into the house; but the other defendants, the one the
father, and the other the father-in-law of Mr. Jackson, struck
a docket, and took a statute of bankruptcy against him. Under
this statute, the whole of the debts proved against the bankrupt
amounted to 3,665/. ss. Id., out of which the other defendant,
Jackson, proved a debt due to him of 2,044/. The prosecutor
opposed this claim before the Commissioners, attended by his
Counsel; but the Commissioners admitted the proofs, and the
bankrupt passed his last examination and obtained his certifi-
cate. The prosecutor subsequently adopted the several pro-
ceedings above stated ; and the point to be decided this day
was, whether the debt proved at the bankruptcy by the elder
defendant consisted of fair charges, or fraudulent ones, for the
purpose of founding a surreptitious bankruptcy, to defraud the
proscutor. These charges consisted of sums advanced by the
father, for the son's account, and included his clothing, his
education, his apprentice-fee of 2621., his expences during his
attendance on the hospitals and lectures in London, and various
other sums advanced from time to time; and Mr. Scarlett con.
tended that these charges were for the most part improbable,
and unusual for a father to make against his son, as a very
great part had been advanced long before he came of age, and
more particularly when, for the last sum of 4301. advanced to
his son, he had taken a bond, without having mentioned or
demanded any security for any debt previously in account.
The evidence for the prosecution having closed,
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury on behalf of
the defendants, to the respectability and honour of whose cha-
racters he spoke in terms of high commendation ; and in re-
spect to the charges adduced by the father against the son, he
fully explained, that the son, at an early age, had a freehold
estate bequeathed to him, of which his father was the occupy-
ing tenant : that he had six children to provide for under
limited circumstances, and it was but just that lie should charge
to his son the sums advanced to him for the purposes of his
education and outfit in life. Besides, those charges were satis-
factorily proved, item by item, before the Commissioners of
Bankruptcy, and fully admitted, and therefore substantiated
in law. It had also come out this day in evidence, that the
prosecutor had repeatedly declared in the course of the last five
years that he would spend the last shilling he possessed to
obtain legal revenge of the defendants, only for their failure to
comply with an unfair deception and ruinous bargain to the
injury of all other creditors of Mr. Jackson, and upon these
grounds, and what had already conic out in the evidence for
the prosecution, he would rely on the Jury for a verdict of ac-
quittal without calling any witness.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed up for the.Tury, who,
after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict of—Not

THEATRICAL CONTRACT.—BEDFOI!D V. nu-sN.
Mr. MARRYAT stated that this was an action brought
by Miss Green (now Mrs. Bedford) against Mr. Bunn, the
Manager of the Birmingham Theatre, for the recovery of 37/.,
which was due to her out of the amount of an engagement se-
cured to her by Mr. Bunn. She was to perform for 39 nights at
Birmingham, and to receive 101. a week, and,a benefit secured
to produce 501. The benefit unfortunately produced but 13/. :
for the balance, this action was brought.
Mrs. Green, the mother of the actress, proved the contract on
the part of Mr. Bunn to give her daughter a benefit, which was
secured to produce at least 50/., and which only produced 13/.
In her cross-examination, she admitted that her daughter
was taken ill at Birmingham, and in consequence her benefit
was postponed, and that which was substituted for it was un-
productive.
_ _

Mr. ScAnr. E TT, for the defendant, said, he was prepared to
prove that Ale. Bishop, not Miss Green, was the real plaintiff
in this cause ; and he assigned as the reason for the reduced
amount of Miss Green's benefit, the circumstance of her indis-
position, for which it would be unreasonable the manager should
suffer, in addition to what he had already suffered by her in-
ability to sing on some of the other evenings of her engage-
ment.

A letter from Mr. Bedford, the, husband of Miss Green, to
Mr. Bunn, was read, in which Mr. Bedfbrd said that his wife
had no concern in the present action, and that it was altogether
Mr. Bishop's, through whom Miss reen had been engaged at
Birmingham. The writer also warmly congratulated Mr. Bunn
on the success of his "famous Toin and Jerry."
Mrs. Ingram (formerly Miss Fisher) said she was engaged
at Birmingham in the season of 1821. She remembered Miss
Green's engagement at the same theatre, and her illness during
the greater part of that period, so as to be unable to sing, ex-
cept with great pain. She could not play for several nights,
and apologies were made for her being unable to perform
through illness. When Miss Green's benefit was announced
on the last night of her performance, and an immense house
was expected, to see Guy Mannering, but her illness caused
the postponement of the play, and Warlock in the Glen was
substituted for it, and there was, owing to the disappointment,
a miserable house. Witness was to have played meg Merri-
lies, in Gun Mannering, on the night of the postponement.
Mrs. Waylett said, that she was also engaged at the Bir-
mingham theatre when Miss Green came there, and remem-
bered that lady's indisposition, and consequent inability to per-
form on some particular occasion.
Richard Collier, proprietor at the Birmingham theatre, and
occasionally performer, proved Miss Green's illness, so as to be
unable to admit her performance on specific nights. Apologies
were often made for her, and he remembered a farce being
changed to Fortune's Frolic, as she could not sing. At two
o'clock on the day fixed for her benefit, she had it changed,
owing to her illness, and the house was consequently a poor
one. The house would hold two hundred pounds.
Mr. Bellamy, an apothecary at Birmingham, proved the fact
of Miss Green's indisposition, which had prevented her from
singing at her benefit ; could she have porformed at that time,
she expected a very full attendance. She was also unable to
sing on the night when her subsequent benefit took place.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed- up the evidence to
the Jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 371.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEc. 11.

FROST V. BENGOITGII.

This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of ex-
change for 30/. given by the defendant in 1315. The defend-
ant is a member of the dramatic corps of one of the winter
theatres. The defence to the action was the statute of limita-
tions, by which the plaintiff's claim was barred (more than six
years having elapsed since the defendant had admitted the debt).
The plaintiff now proved a letter to him from the defendant

PRICE SEVEN PEACE.

in 1817, in which he stated, that if he succeeded in Liverpool
he should see him soon after in Bristol, and that at all events
he would arrange with him as well as he could.
The defendant's hand-writing to the bill was also:proved.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, for the defendant, contended that
the evidence was not sufficient to take the case out of the statute
of limitations, and theiefore that the plaintiff could not recover.
Tie Jury though! the letter produced referred to the bill, and
returned a verdict for the plaintifffor the amount of the bill and
the interest.