The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-17 00:00:00

Prom Me LONDON GAZETTE, Dec. 16.

BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED.
Chase Armstrong HoII, Worcester, printer, from Dec.l6 to
Feb. 4.
BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.
Llewellyn Watkins Williams, proprietor of the New Surrey
Theatre.
BANKRUPTS. - .

Joseph Bailey, Liverpool, merchant, to surrender Jan. 5,0,
27, at the George Inn, Liverpool. Solicitors, Messrs. Lowe,
Sou th ampton-build in gs, Chancery-lane.
William Ferrer, Friday-street, Cheapside, victualler, Dec.
20, Jan. 3, 27, at the Bankrupts' Court, Basingliall-street..--
Solicitors, Messrs. Spence and Desborough, Sise-lane.
I !Joseph liVagstaff, Worcester, saddler, Dec. 29, 30, Jan. 27,
at the Rein Deer Inn, Worcester. Solicitors, Messrs. Cardale,
Buxton, and Parlby, Gray's-inn.
John Holbrook, Derby, grocer, Jan. 2,3, 27, at the King's
Arms Tavern, Derby. Solicitor, Mr Wmgg, Ave Maria-
lane.
John Spencer, Norwich, bombasin-manufacturer, Dec. 30,
31, Jan 27, at the Castle Inn, Norwich. Solicitors, Messrs.
Taylor and Roscoe, King's Bench-walk, Temple.
Robert Reeves, Stockport, shopkeeper, Dec. 24, 30, Jan.
27, at the Red Lion Inn,ficaton-Norris,Lancashire. Solici-
tors, Messrs. !AMC and Son, Southampton-buildings, Chan.
cery-lanc.

DIVIDENDS.
Dec. 20, N. Ketcher, Bratlwell, Essex, shopkeeper—Jan.
10, T. Bates, Cushion-court, Old Broad-street, merchant—
Jan. 9, J. liliddletturst, Blackburn, Lancashire, grocer—Jan.
-10, J. Avison, Eaxthurn, Yorkshire, butter-factor—Jan. 20,
J, and J. Silver and A. Boyson, Sine-lane, merchants—Jan.
9, J. Roper, Norwich, woollen-dealer—Jan. 10, J. Fraser,
New-court, Swithin's-lane, merchant—Jan. 0, T. Wills,
Portsmouth, grocer—Jan. 6 R. Harrison, Coleshill, 'War-
wickshire, tanner—Jan. 6, Hudson, Birchin-lane, merchant
—Jan. 6, S. Humphries, Charlotte-street, Portland-place,
merchant—Jan. 9, S. Roylance, Liverpool, merchant.

CERTIFICATES, JAN.
Thompson, Wolverhampton, draper—W. Herbert, Jun.,
Goldsmith-street, Wood-street, riband.manti the-
turer—.l. and J. Langton, Liverpool, rronniongers—W.
nell, Colchester-street, Savage gardens, wine-merchant—G.
New, I,eadenhall-street, silk-mAnufacturer— T. Starie, Ring.
tk:rect, Seven Dials,' stove-grate-manufacturer—J. Ilemming,
tipion, Oxfordshire, dealer—T. noose, Liverpool, baker—.E.
Robertson, Frenchlhorn-yard, Dean-street, high Holborn)
coach-smith—T. Oreetharn, Liverpool, ship-chandler.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Robson, T. Howarth, and A. Thomson, Manchester, so
far as regards J. Robson—R. avid P. Appleton. and J. Plant,
Manchester, so far as regards R. Appleton—J. Storr, jun. and
T. Denison, jun., Smalley-Bite, Yorkshire, tnaltsteg—J.
Evans, Jun., and W. Thomas, Portheven, Cornwall, millers—
R. Bond, J. Godfrey, W. P. 11, White, W. Thorne, and J.
Marsh, proprietors of the Devonshire Freeholder newspaper—
W. 'Woodward and C. and J. Adams, Rainow, Cheshire,
cotton-spinners—M. Hubert and W. Bowman, George-street,
Spitaltields, sugar-refiners---T. E. and T. Tblswell, Manches-
ter—S. and 'l'.B. Tidswell, Manchester—D. Haigh, J. Mar-
shall, B. Thlswell, W. Haigh, J. E. Marshall, and T. E.
Thiswill, Manchester—T. Darweli, J. Leigh, and J. Hall,
Manchester--.. 1. and A. R. Poole, Newgate-street, wholesale
stationers—W..J. Ileac! and 0. 1. Baker, Northampton-place,
Kent-road, linen-drapers—C. Bray and P.Tatton, Little Queen-
street, Holborn, coach-makers—A. J. Lawrie, Robert-street,
Adellshi, army-agents.

Tunis, 1)t c. 4.—8) wtpress- from Mess'om of
the lihh NoveMber, we have received the following maim.
choiy intelligence :—" In the night of the 14th of this month
a terrible storm of thunder and lightning, and very heavy rain,
burst over this city. The water, which poured in torrents from
the surrounding hills, entered the villages. overthrowing and
laying waste whatever opposed its progress, destroying churches,
mills, magazines, cottages, and flocks, and covering the fields
and gardens with slush' clay, and stones. Many of the inha-
bitanti were surprised and fell victims to this sudden calamity.
The waters did not spare the city itself, but did very consider,
able injury; the damage is estimated at two of ounces,
and the number of dead bodies hitherto found is a hundred and
thirty.nine."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CTZsiIT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER 16.
lIIGHtiIATE CHARITY SCHOOL.

THE ATTORNEY.OENERAL v. LORD MANSFIELD AND
°TIMM.
This was a bill filed by his Majesty's Attorney-General, as
the relation of the Rev. Dr. Owen, and several of the most re.
spectable inhabitants of Highgate, against the defendants, as
trustees of Sir Roger Cholmondeley's Charity, calling upon
them to declare how the funds of that Charity bad been ap-
propriated, and praying fir such relief as to the wisdom of the
Court should seem fit.
The history of the Charity was involved in considerable ob-
scurity. It appeared, however, that in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, Sir R. Cholmondelry, willing to confer upon the
hamlet of Highgate and its vicinity 6' a great blessing," en-
dowed a certain Free Grammar School. At this time he was
in possession of certain houses, one of which was called the
Chapel, or Sneenum. This Chapel was part of the property of
the Bishop of London, and, as the plaintiff's contended, held
by him as Lord of the Manor of Ilornsey, which was tly,-,,
called !Jarringly; but this allegation was denied on the rifil°'
the defendants. The Bishop on certain stipulations pee p°s"
session of this property, and it was finally attache , the
School. The bill stated, that certain conditions were "111)"!cd
wpm that the both upon the master and trustees, and char
,-atter connived at
for-
mer had neglected to perform, and that the
his neglect of these duties. The bill pr ed, that under an
adhfully discharged
order of that Court the duties should be
of that Charity.
Mr. Holm v., for the relators in ti-113 case, said, that there
ho• in all the proceedini from

was bet the one
their earliest date, and that was
Charity referred
,thee ,gs
Free Grammar School.—
•
In the answer to their bill it,„.„eas said, that the present mode
of education was most agre `able and advantageous to the in-
habitantseilt was admitted, too, that the Free
Grammar School w
of Highgate.
1, now degraded into what was called a
National School,
whe re 120 boys received their education from
a competent Sex where they were instructed, not in the
teelng
liberal eilucatine which was implied in the terms of a "Free
ee
Grammar Sc), ""'""
The Loreto CHANCELLOR--I take it that a " Free Gram-
mar Schel°ll means a school
.where the. learned languages are
taughte.; and I suppose they will needispute. so obvious a pro.
• eon. The question in this case is, what the author of the
pose. .
celerity intended. The trustees had no right to thwart the will
'of the founder.
Mr. Il otterE—Certainly not : The' founder directed that
A, B, C, which was a hook edited by no less a personage
than King Henry the Eighth, should therein be taught,—
and also, that ass soon as the boys were ripe thereto, they
should be taught Latin. The Similar): was then granted
by the BiShop of London. This was granted to Sir Itoger
upon the condition that he weuld convey them to Sir
Willikm Hewitt for the purposes of the Charity—for the use
`and benefit Of -the Free Grammar School. The schoolmaster
was apPointed' in that character. In the year 1765 all the
property was conveyed hy.Sie Roger Cholmondelcy to Sir 'Wil-
liam Hewitt anti the trustees, according .to the desire, of the
Bishop of London. Such was the property—such the state of
the grant in litigation. The first question to be asked was,
whether this grant, this property, could be held, except for the
" maintenance and sustentation" of- the school. If the gentle.
men'on the other side %hewed in a single instance the nomina-
tion clergyman distinct from the appointment of. school-
master, then I will admit that they have some ground to stand
upon ; but there is not the trace of such an appointment. It
appear.: that soon after the execution of that conveyance, in
1571, Sir Roger Cholmondeley died, and certain Statutes were
made by the Governors, to which he should pre-
sently have occasion to advert. But he should first mention that,
in the 19th of Elizabeth, that Illustrious Personage found that.
this. Sacellum, having become forfeited to the Crown, as the
property of some Monk, she took it upon herself, stating that
she had mistaken the title of it before; she granted it to a
person named John Fermin, whether a successful courtier or
not he (Mr. Horne) could not say, and 'Fermin bargained
with a person named Puffin, one of the governors ; and Putrin
in the 25th of Elizabeth having .obtained this property, nego.
elated-with his brother trustees, and in this corporate capacity
released this Sate/lent to them. From that period the property
remained in the Trustees. .1 shall now call your Lordship's
attention to the statutes and ordinance* to which I referred.
They were passed on the 14th of December 1571, after the death
of Sir Roger Cholmondeley, who, as it would seem died sud
denly. • They stated the death ot Sir • Roger, the grant to him
by letters patent, the names of the Governors, and then the
laws were specified. In the first place, accordine to the will
and intention of the late. Sir Roger, it was declared that a
schoolmaster, a lit and proper person,. ehoeld he appointed, an
honest and teemed schoolmaster, to tench the A. B. C. and.
such useful learning, and that he should teach the Latin-grem-
mar to such of Alm scholars as were ripe thereto—that he
must he it good and sober man, and not. a person of light.
conversation; and that he shall take the reward. beyond
that which was hereafter specified, The second regulation
provided that the master should reed to the scholars the morn
eng and evening service, as: by law appointed, in the Chapel
aforesaid—that he should accept no cure elsewhere, nor read
service in any other chapel. The third regulation guarded the
property from any wilful Waste, and visited with punishment
upon the mast:me-such as fines of three shillings and fourpence,
for the felling a tree. There were other regulations as to the
length of time that the icholmaster should be absent from
school.
• The Loath CHANcuLton—Suppose private individuals
were placed in the trust of a Chapel of Base, would such trus-
tees—l ask for inforMation—would they be justified in ex-
' tending that chapel according to the wants or wishes of an in-
creasing neighbourhood ?
Mr. llowitit-LThat is a question they will find it difficult to
answer on the other side. l'nere were other rules as to the con-
duct and duties of the schoolmaster, which lie would peculiarly
recommend to the attention of the present respectable school-
master.—" Acknowledging God—l read the words of one of the
laws—acknowledging God to be the author of all virtue and
goodness, we do enjoin that every morning et seven o'clock the
master read prayers to the boys, and that At their departure he
again say prayers with them, the boys kneeling." The master
Was allowed the sum of Aim-pence on the entrance of every boy;
and this money was ordered _to be expended upon a library.—
He was also allowed from the wood of Hornsey, of which the
Bishop of London was Lord, eight loads of wood ; and it was
finally commanded, that the master should himself endeavour
continually to the perfecting in humane learning all the scholars
entrusted to his care. And unless all this. was a dead letter, •he
apprehended that the rules of the founder were to be observed ;
or if there was any thing to cherge, it must be effected by a re-
gular scheme consistent with the will of the founder. It was
not for him to state how such alterations were to be effected ;
whether the Charity would afibra college exhibitions; all that
would much more wisely.be, entrusted to his Lordship's deter-
mination. It was the business of the trustees to clear tip obscu-
rities as to the evidence of instruction ; but he should furnish
his Lordship with the imperfect, but still the best
.information
he had obtained on the subject. It was in evidence—there were
many living witnesses of the facteethat the Latin language had
been taught in that school ; and if any of the gentlemen who
had been educated in that sexed were then in Court, they would
feel no displeasure in his saying, that it was perhaps to the edu-
cation they received there they owed their present elevation.
Could it be contended on the other side, that under the judi.
cious direction of the worthy Sexton they could ever have at
tained such un education. But there was another circum-
stance of a most impoetant nature connected with the chapel,
clearly proving that it was Merely entellintY to the school.—
Until very recently the rooms, the bed-ch mbere of the scholars,
were placed over this very chapel. . With all these consider-
ations, how could it be contended, even for a Moment, that
the school was auxiliary to the chapel ? anti if not, bow greatly
had the wish and intention of the founder been disappointed !
imputed no blame to the Clergyman who at present
officiated at the chapel; on the contrary, he deserved well
of the people of Highgate for the peremnance—the volun-
tary performance of spintention.
-offices; bat they must not be
performed to the exclusion of the founder's He
had been instructed to state this case respectfully as it regarded
the trustees; they had acted in error; but corrupt motive, he
was perfectly satisfied, influenad no part of their conduct. •
At the conclusion of Mr. Horne's argument the Lord Chan-
cellor rose, having first observed that he would hear Mr. We..
therell on the other side to-morrow—(this day.)'

WURT or KING'S BENCH, Dm IC.

COUNT POIITM.I3 G-EOIIOIEIIfI V. MELVILLE AND AN

OTHER.

This was an action of trover, to recover the value of fiVe Pros-
bonds-.--three for 1,0001. and two for 007. each—wrong.
fully converted by the defendants to their own use.
The 60 r, t it-ti n shortly stated the ease on behalf
of the plainta lie was it well-known Prussian Count, to
whom Messrs.- Agassiz and Co. were general egtnts,-
and
had deposited the bonds in question for safe custody in their
bands. They, in order to raise money, had pledged these bond*
'to the defendants, who, now that Agasslz and t.ki. had become
insolvent, refused to deliver them up to the plaintiff without
payment of their advances. Now he apprehended the law on
this subject to be, that a factor had no right to 'pledge the
goods of his principals ; be might, indeed, Pledge bills or notes,
which were negotiable securities and, on the ::t9mr,ebdjytrainpc:iltey,
exchequer bills, to which the legislature intended to give free
currency ; but he could not pledge India bonds,
of reaeanting, bonds of the Prussian Governmeat.. in ei,endertt
however, of this point, which would apply even if the defend_
ants received the bonds in full confidence that they were the

/

property of Messrs. Agassiz and Co., he expe
circumstances, that they must have known tied to show by
7-the contrary, and
therefore ought never to have accepted. 1.
Mr. Arthur David Jervis Agassiz staid, that his fine received
for them, which was produced
these bonds from the plaintiff tor saf ustody, and signed a re-
ceiptments had remained for some tam /
in their possession, they raised
money on them, and having re, and read. After these docu-
ments
eemed them, repeated the prac.
rice, and about Dec. 1821, posited them with Mievelle and
Co. on a similar occasion. hey allowed him to cut olio small
part of each bond to en e him to receive the dividends then
accruing, and to
.ismit them to the agents of the Count.—
They gave no intimation to the defendants that the bonds were
not their own operty ; and were themselves general mer-
chants, repres ting many foreign houses as their agents for
y
commercial,. urposes. They had pledged other bonds before,
fror
and had vedeemed them.
The isdonds being put in, appeared to be payable to bearer
and ccording to the testimony of Mr. Wettenhall, who was
caved to prove the value of the bonds at the time of the dennind
,ad refusal, were transferrable from hand to hand without en-
edorsement.

Mr. MARRYAT, for the defendants, submitted to the Court,
that in point of law, the factors had a power to pledge the bonds ;
and contended before the jury, that in point of fact there was
not the slightest pretence for supposing that the defendants
knew the bonds to belong to the plaintiff.
The LORD CIIIEr JUSTICE told the Jury, that he was
clearly of opinion that if Messrs. Mieville and Co. had no
reason to suppose the bonds the property of the plaintiff, they
had a right to detain them, because, the pledge was lawful • but
if they knew that Messrs. Agassiz were for offering in pledge
the property of another, they then had acted illegally, anti
ought to pay their value. In reference to this question of fact,
it was important to observe that the defendants had allowed
part of the bonds to be cut off, in order that Messrs. Agassiz
might obtain the dividends; and had they allowed this to be
done before the securities were pledged for the last time, the
fact would have thrown strong suspicion on the case ; but it
was not till afterwards, and Mr, Agassiz swore he never inform-
ed the defendants that the bonds did not belong to his firm.
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the defendants.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE gave the Solicitor-Ceneral
leave to move the Court on the point of law respecting the right
of a factor to pledge Prussian bonds.