The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-03 00:00:00

This was an information filed against the President and
Fellows of Sion College for the purpose of having the funds
of that institution distributed according to the intention of
the founder. The College was founded in the reign of King
James the First by the Rev. Thomas White, who by his
will bequeathed a sum of 3,0001. to found a College wherein
the Recto's, the Lecturers, and the Curairs of the Esta-
blished Charch in London might meet for the purposes of
mutual information, instruction, and edification, and for the
correction ot any incorrect opinions in point of doctrine that
might arise amongst them. The testator also directed the
foundation of an almshouse for the support of ten poor
men and ten poor women. To carry into execution the
trusts of the bill the testator decided that a mortmain to
the amount of 400/. per annum should be purchased by his
executors, andthat 1201. of that sum should be applied for
the support of the alms-house and 401. for the College.
The executors of the will were the Rev. Mr. Simpson and
Sir J. Keeling and these gentlemen bought an income of
1201. upon a manor named Beechey, and 40/. upon one
named Bradwell. The question which now came before
the Court was between the College and the almshouses,
and arose in this way :—The property of the charity having
greatly increased in value, the College maintained that, un-
der the will of the testator, it was entitled to all rents and
advantages derived, or which might be derivable, from the
property appropriated to its support, as to the rents of the
Bradwell estate, and that the almshouses were but entitled
to 1201. per annum, or at most to the income derived from
the manor of Beefily.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said that he should look
over the papers, and give his opinion in a few days.

VICE-CHANCERY.-WEDNESD AY.

BARRYMORE V. BARRYMORE.

This case has been before the Court since Saturday last.
In 1761 Richard Earl of Barrymore conveyed his Irish es-
tates to Messrs. Hammersley and Morland in trust to raise
a sum of 130,000/. by debentures for the payment of his
creditors, among whom 120,0001. was to be divided, and
the remaining 10,0001. was to be reserved as an auxiliary
fund, should the rents be insufficient for payment of the in-
terest. At the end of ten years there was a power of sale
given. Lord Barrymore died shortly afterwards, and a dis-
pute arose between the present Lady Barrymore, who was
his widow, and Henry the next Earl of Barrymore as to
the right to administer to his estate. To put an end to
this disagreement, it was arranged akt Lady Barry-
more, upon resigning the right,to administer, should re-
ceive an annuity of 100/. English money, for her life, and
this annuity was secured to her by deed, executed in
1794, which in effect granted her a rent-charge to that
amount, for • the payment of which Lord Barrymore's in-
",.ferest in the 10,000/., set apart by the deed of 1791,
was also charged. Shortly after this transaction, Lady
Barrymore married Major Williams, both being at that
period minors ; and, in 1812 Lady Barrymore and her hus-
band, Major Williams, joined in signing an annnity of
325/. Irish currency to the defendant Miss Atkyns, in con-
sideration of a sum of 2,27.5/. This deed of grant was re-
gularly registered in Ireland, and the deed being extremely
informal there was much discussion whether it was to be
considered as a grant of a new annuity, or an assignment of
the existing annuity ; and also whether the deed was to be
considered as an English or an Irish deed, it having been
La
executedlvilliams bit);
Dudby Barrymorelin.However,in
thLeoando
annuity
and
tyconbtiy Major
nuedto
be ever since regularly paid, till at length, in the present
suit, Lady Barrymore contested the validity of the deed,
and filed the present bill to set it aside, submitting to pay
what had been advanced with interest.
Mr. KNIGHT appeared in support of the bill ; Mr.
SPENCE, Mr. WIGRAM, and several others, for the nume-
rous defendants.
His HONOUR, after detailing all the facts most minutely,
and examining the evidence, dismissed the bill with costs.