The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10 1810.

CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY•)

FAULKNER V. DANIEL —JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in this case, in
which the plaint ff, who was entitled to a charge of 5,000/.
upon a West India estate, filed his bill for the purpose of
obtaining the appointment of a receiver. His Lordship
was of opinion that the plaintiff had failed in making out
a case for a receiver, and decreed accordingly.

THE ATTORNEY•GENERAL V. THE EARL OF STAMFORD—THE
MANCHESTER GRAMMAR-SCHOOL.
The Loan CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
which was argued before his Lordship in the course of the
present year. The Information prayed that the present
trustees of the Manchester Grammar-School might be
diimissed, that new trustees might be appointed, and that
the: scheme of 1833, obtained by the present trustees,
might be wholly set aside, awl a new scheme might be
approved of by the Master for the future administration
of the charity. His Lordship, in giving judgment, ob-
served that the Act which had passed in the last Session
would for the future guard against many of the difficulties
which had attended upon cases of a similar description to
the present ; but it was a satisfaction to his Lordship to
know that there was sufficient in the present case
to enable him to deal with it to the satisfaction of all
parties. There was no doubt that, according to the sta-
tutes, the trustees of the school were to be composed of
honest men, resident in the town of Manchester, but that
principle had been departed from for a great length of
time, in favour of the most sapient and respectable persons
in the neighbourhood, and his Lordship thought that the
school had derived great advantage frJrn their zeal and
protection. Whatever advantage, however, they might
have derived, it was one thing to disturb what had taken
place, and another to sanction it for the future. His
Lordship was of opinion that the state of things was now
very difnrent, and that Manchester presenting in-its resi-
dents a large class of persons from whom trustees should
be selected, that in future they should be taken from that
class. The information then complained that a large sum
of money had been unnecessarily expended in the erection
of a house for the master and boarders. It was unhappily
too late to remedy that ; but what his Lordship proposed
to do was, to refer that matter to the Master, allowing the
Attorney-General to make what suggestions he should think
proper, in order to ascertain how far the funds of the
charity might be applied more properly to the education
of all classes, his Lordship being of opinion that it was the
original intention of the founder not only to make it a
grammar school, but also a school in which lms were to
be prepared for becoming- acquainted with the learned
languages. With respect to the exhibitions it had been
proved that the larger proportion had been given to
boarders, his Lordship proposed for the future to make a
decree with respect to that part of the matter, prohibiting
the boarders from participating altogether in those exhi-
bitions, but allowing those to be paid which had already
been granted. His Lordship was also of opinion that the
question of whether the salary of the master was greater
than it ought to be, should come under the attention of the
Master. With respect to the schenie of 1833, although there
were many parts of it most objectionable : yet there were,
other parts of it entitled to praise, and his Lordship thought
it would not be expedient now to disturb it, but he must
take occasion to express his disapprobation of the Attor-
ney-General's being excluded from any proceedings of
that description, and if partial reports were to be had in
that manner under Sir Samuel Romilly's Act, it would
tend to make that Act an injury instead of a benefit to the
public. It such proceedings were afterwards found to
prevail in the Master's Office, he would take measures to
prevent it. Upon the whole, therefore, he was of opinion
that the matter must be referred to the Master, with
liberty to the Attorney-General to make such suggestions
as he should think proper with respect to the future ad-
ministration of the charity funds.

11USGRAV6 V. NEWTON.

His LORDSHIP also gave judgment in this case, in which
the plaintiff, by his bill, prayed to be relieved as surety to
a bond for a bond for 2,0001., which, in the event of a
good title being made to the estate was to be of no eff:et.
The plaintiff assertad, by his bill, that a good title had
been made ; but his Lordship was of opinion that those
allegations were not sup}•ortcd. 11, however, the plaintiff
thought proper, at his own peril, to go before the Master,
far the purpose of ascertaining whether a good title could
be made, he might do so; if he did not, the bill must be
dismissed with costs.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BALLS V. MARGRAVE.

This case was argued yesterday, and came before the
Court upon a demurrer to a bill of discovery in aid of are
action at law. The action was brought upon a covenant
which could only be restrained upon the footing that the
plaintiff had the legal estate, and the plaintiff stated in
the bill of equity that be was "seized or well entitled."
To this the defendant alleged that as it was put in the al-
ternative, " seized or well entitled," be bad a right to
take the statement most against the pleader, and to con-
sider that it meant " seized, or otherwise entitled"—other-
wise entitled might mean that there was an equitable
title ; and if the plaintiff had an equitable title there would
be no foundation for the action at law, and consequently
nn use in the discovery sought by the bill. On these
grounds the defendant demurred to the bill. The
Counsel for the plaintiff contended that any ex-
pression in the bill was to be taken most against. the
pleader, must depend not upon any single detached state-
ment, but upon the whole, and the Master of the Rolls
yesterday stated, that he would look into the bill, and
see if there were any such expressions in it as would take
it out of the rule, although be had seldom seen a de-
murrer that was less likely to WI a real benefit to any
party in the cause.
His LORDSHIP on coming into Court this morning staled
overnk t
hteh e
sbui lb!
s, e
qa rui de n
tu p oanll
ecgoantsi iota tlun
htheat
dhide hnadet re
ta
hd
as-
sisted the uncertainty of the first statement, although
the demurrer was of a very frirolcus nature, yet
it appeared to him that, in strictness, greater certainty
than was to be found in the statements in the bill was re-
quired. He must therefore allow the demurrer, but
would give the plaintiff leave to amend. Under the cir-
cumstances, however, he would not allow any costs of the
demurrer.

The COURT, after disposing of the consent petitions and
short causes, heard the arguments of Counsel upon two
petitions in a case of
HALES:V. DARRELL.
The question arising upon which was, whether two an-
annuities of 5001. and 9001. a-year, bequeathed by the will
of Sir Edward Hales to his two sisters, amounted to a
performance of the covenants in certain annuity deeds, by
which 3001. a-year to each of them vc as chargeable on his
estate.

The case was not concluded when the Court rose.

QUEEN'S BENCII-(TIIIS DAY.)

The Grand Jury of Middlesex were sworn in this morn-
ing before Mr. Justice Littledale, who briefly addressed
them on the nature of the duties they had to perform.

IRISH LORD CHANCELLOR.
It was rumoured this morning in Westminster Hall that
Sir John Campbell, the Attorney-General, had been sent
for to the Home Office, for the purpose of tendering him
the Irish Chancellorship, which there is little doubt the
Hots, and Learned Gentleman will accept. It is under-
stood that the official announcement of his appointment
will appear in the Gazette of this evening.
It is also said that Mr. Justice Littledale has declared
he will not go another Circuit.

BAIL COURT._(TIUS DAY.)

(Bcfore Mr. Justicc PATTESON. )

the JuE_
on various
the ►
liberty
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF HERTFORDSHIRE.
8 tehS eSi rate ,forand
Mr. CHAMBERS moved for a rule calling upon
tices of Hertforgshire to show cause why their order fur
pay 201.
quashing a rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of
Watford, should not be quashed. A poor-rate had been
made by the overseers of Watford, and against this rate
grounds, one
oanned
olifenvilielhV.wJa.s Ca adpeefel,otbaind
paopiPnetaolefdform.
The
oAflagsistt.ratAealbasnist : i nhga
di n q
upaes
ititeyd
ordered
the respondents, about fifty in number, to
the appellant for costs. Now, as the ordpers
the rate did not set forth that Watford was i
the
liberty of St. Albans, he contended that the the
valid, valid, neither did the order contain any all . e was
egation that
notice had been given to the respondents. The Learned
Counsel also contended that. the Justices had no
111)1 t
o dai e r to
award costs, and that it was essential to the the v
ty of
the order that the grounds on which the rate Was quashed
should be distinctly set forth.
ne twf forth that
ft hqaut
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Take a rule.
MANDAMUS—THE QUEEN V. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF EXETER.
oinwarranto, one
consequence
Mr. ROGF.RS applied for a rule, calling upon the Town
Council of Exeter to show cause why a mandamus should
not issue, ordering them to proceed imtned'ately to the
election of an Alderman of that city. The affidavits on which
of the Aldermen had last year been displaced. The time
othfccaeirTaliincaptrioonceriedaisnfgosu
appointed by the statute for the election of Aldermen, had
this year expired, and the vacancy had not been filled up.
Mr. Justice PATTESON granted the application.
CERTIORARI..—TIIE QUEEO V. MAUDE AND ANOTHER, JUS-
TICES OF MANCHESTER.
Mr. CORBETT applied
undnedders
fora rule for a certiorari to re-
move into the Court of Qaeen's Bench the conviction of
a man named Higginbotham, who had been convicted by
the Manchester justices 111 ,ntpenalty of 201., under
the 39th George 111. cap; 79, 1 ituled "An Act for the
suppression of seditious
and
treasonable societies. It ap-
peared that at the Hall of
Science at Manchester, a lecture
had been deli%ered "on the Formation of Character."
Higginbotham had received moziey for the admission of
persons to this lecture at the door. As the room was not
I ccused, the Justices held that an offence had been com-
muted under the Act referred to, and ep,ivicted Higgin-
botham accordingly. TP Learned Counsel now con-
tended that the statute alluded to had expired, and that
tlc conviction, if made at all, could only he upon a prose-
ctvion by the Attorney or Solicitor-General. There were
also several technical objections to the conviction.
Mr. Justice PaTTEsoN granted the application.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION—THE QUEEN V. MEE.

Mr. CCCKBURN applied to the Court fi.r a rule nisi for
athcerilml) en sa tl Kinefti7trna'aagainst Mr. Mee, the proprietor of
Guardian, for the publication of a libel
reflecting on the character of Mr. hare John Dodd,
a messenger in the Dockyard at Chatham. It
appears that in Chatham party spirit has been
run very high, particularly on the subject of Church-rates.
Mr. Dodd it appeared was conscientiously opposed to
Church-rates, and had been in consequence subjected to
repeated attacks from the supporters of that impost.
veral attacks had appeared upon him in the West Kent
Guardian, and it was in consequence of these attacks that
the present application had been made. A mong other attacks
there was one which assumed the shape of a letter to Lord
Melbourne, signed W. Barron, in which Mr. Dodd bad
been accused of riotous and insulting conduct, of dese-
crating the Church at one of the Church-rate meetings,
. • • A« had nign