The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-18 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR was occupied, the whole morning,
with hearing appeals of no public interest.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY).

JUDGMENT.-ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CROOK.

The MASTER of the ROLLS gave judgment this morning in
this case, which was an information filed by the Attorney-
General, at the information of John Lewis and four other
persons, praying that the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen might
be regulated under the decree of the Court, that a competent
number of poor idiots might be received into the Hospital,
and maintained out of the estate, that the Master of the Hos•
pital should be compelled to perform Divine service in the
Chapel for the benefit of the inhabitants of Holloway, that a
reference might be made to one of the Masters of the Court to
approve of a scheme for the future management of the Charity,
and that certain leases should be set aside. Upon the infor-
mation the origin of the Foundation did not appear; there
seemed to have been originally a Corporation consisting of a
Master, co-brethren, and sisters. At the present moment the
Master was the only member of the Corporation now
remaining ; his office was in the gift of the Crown,
but the Grant contained no statement of what his
duties were. The foundation possessed a Chapel which was
occasionally used for the performance of Divine service; there
were also estates of considerable value, let on leases for lives,
and there was a house used for the reception of idiots and
poor persons. The information stated that the chapel 'ought
to be used for Divine service for the benefit of the people of
Holloway ; that the defendant had procured his office upon
the understanding that he was to perform Divine service there;
that he had done so for a short period, and had then most im-
properly shut up the chapel. Now his Lordship had looked
most carefully through all the evidence on the subject,
and he could not find anything to show that it was the
bounden duty of the master to perform Divine service in
the chapel. That however was the less material in the
present case, as the Court would not interfere upon
that point, but leave it to the visitor to do so if he
thought it necessary. As to the leases, his Lordship was
clearly of opinion that he ought not to make the declaration
that was asked by the information. As to the Hospital, it
was admitted that the House had been used for the reception
of idiots, and they had been there provided for and main-
tained. With respect to the reception of those persons, the
Attorney-General and the defendant differed, the latter con-
tending that they should only be admitted one at a time, and
the former that a competent number should be admitted • but
what a competent number was, there was no evidence to show.
Under such circumstances, it would be in vain to direct any
inquiry, and his Lordship must therefore consider what were
the means of accommodation afforded by the present house
erected in 1760, and limit the number according to that.
As to the sums received and applied by the defendant to his
own use, they had been improperly applied, and must be repaid.
The order that his Lordship would therefore make, would be
to dismiss with costs so much of tho information as sought a
declaration that' the defendant was bound to perform Divine
service in the Chapel, and also so much of the information as
asked a declaration that the leases of the Charity Land ought
not to be granted except at the improved value. His Lord-
ship would also declare that the defendant, as master, was
bound to receive in the Hospital, and to support out of
the rents and profits, so many poor idiots as could be con-
veniently received, supported and protected in the present
Hospital House, and he would refer it to the Master to
enquire how many poor idiots could be supported and pro-
tected in the House, the Master to approve of a scheme for
that purpose, and the defendant to pay the costs of so much
of the information as related to the maintenance of a competent
number of poor idiots in the Hospital, receiving further di-
rectionk and subsequent costs.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

ADMISSION OF ATTORNIES.

At the Sitting of the Court an order was read appointing
the trustees and prothonotaries of the Courts of King's Bench,
Common Pleas, and Exchequer, and certain attornies therein
named, or any five of them, to be examiners of all persons
claiming to be admitted attornies of these Courts, from and
after the last day of the present Term.

SIEBERT AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OP MITCHELL, A BANKRUPT, V

BROWNE AND OTHERS.

Mr. BLACKBURNE moved in this case, which was tried before
Lord DENAIAN at the York Assizes, and a verdict had for the
defendants, for a rule to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a new trial had. The only question
was whether Mitchell had committed an act of bankruptcy.
The case itself was not tried, but the very same question
arose in the case immediately preceding it, and it was ar-
ranged that the question being the same in both, the same
consequences should follow. Mitchell, by a deed bear-
ing date 26th August, 1834, conveyed to William Spooner,
his brother in law, all his household goods, chattels, and effects,
in consideration of a debt due upon a bond, and a further sum
of 90/. lent, and he subsequently conveyed all his freehold pro-
perty to the same person. The trial issued on the 14th of
October, 1834, and it was contended on the other that unless
some absolute fraud appeared in the transaction, it must be
taken as a valid one, and could not constitute an act of bank-
ruptcy. The Learned Counsel now contended that this was
a complete act of bankruptcy, and cited several authorities in
support of his view of the case.
COURT—You may take a rule.
IPSWICH ELECTION.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL begged that the Court would
fix a day for the bringing up of the persons who were ordered
by the House of Commons to be prosecuted for bribery at the
last Ipswich election, to receive the judgment of the Court.
The parties had pleaded guilty, and it would be convenient for
both sides if a particular day—say Monday next, was fixed.
The COURT, after conferring for a few minutes, said, that
this day fortnight would be the most convenient to it.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.

At the sitting of the Court this morning the following rule
of Court was read by the Master :—lt is ordered, that the
several Masters and Prothonotaries for the time being of the
Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, re-
spectively, together with Thomas Adlington, Jonathan run-
drett, George Frere, James William Freshfield, James Hale,
Bryan Holme, W. Lowe, Edward Pickering, S. W. Sweet,
William Tooke, R. White, and Edward Archer Wilde, gen-
tlemen attornies-at-law, be, and the same are hereby appointed,
examiners for one year now next ensuing to examine all such
persons as shall desire to be admitted attornies of all or either
of the said Courts from and after the last day of this present
term, and that any five of the said examiners, one of them be-
ing one of the said masters or prothonotaries, shall be compe-
tent to conduct the said examination in pursuance of and sub-
ject to the provisions of the rule of all the said courts made
in this behalf in Hilary Term last past. Signed by all the
judges of the respective courts.

A paragraph appeared yesterday in the Observer, stating
that thirty-four attornies had been admitted on Saturday, in
the Court of Exchequer—and giving as a reason for the ad-
mission of such a number, that by the new rule for the exami-
nation of persons seeking admission in that court, even old
practitioners admitted only in some of the other courts, must
undergo an examination before being admitted in the Exche-
quer. The master, Mr. Walker, had the paragraph laid be-
fore him, and was pressed by many attornies to lay it before
the barons. He did so, and now requests us to say that the
Lord Chief Baron, and the other Barons, said no such exami-
nation was ever intended to be imposed upon any attornies
already on the rolls of any of the other courts.