The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-15 00:00:00

MORNING STI N

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 14.
NEILSON V. HARFORD.
His LORDSHIP on entering Court proceeded to give
judgment in this case. The motion was one to review an
Injunction. The injunction had been dissolved by the
late Lord Chancellor, the defendant undertaking to keep
an account, and the plaintiff either to bring, or to pro-
ceed in, an action at law for the purpose of trying. the
validity of the patent. The question had been since
tried, and judgment had been entered in the
Court of Exchequer. It was under those circum-
stances almost a matter of course that the injunc-
tion should be allowed, but some objections had been
made on the part of the defendant. It had been stated,
on his part, that the Learned Judge who tried the case,
and who was one of the Judges of the Court where the
question was finally decided, dissented from the opi-
nion of the rest of the Judges of the Court ; and it was
also stated, on the part of the defendant, that, from the
course which the proceedings took, he was deprived of
the right of bringing a writ of error. Now, he did not
find that the Learned Judge, to whom reference had
been made, had dissented from the opinion of the rest of
the Court. The Learned Judge had said undoubtedly
that it was a case of great nicety, and that he en-
tertained doubts upon the question ; but he him-
himself delivered the judgment of the Court,
and said in the course of delivering the judgment, that
he could not see that the construction put by the Court
upon the specification was wrong. It was also objected
that the defendant was deprived, by the course of the
proceedings, of his right to bring a writ of error. The
facts of the case were these :—Towards the conclusion
of the trial, the Learned Judges suggested, as a proper
course to be pursued, that the facts should be stated in
the shape of a special case, or that they should be put
upon the record, in order that the case might necessarily
go to the last resort. The Counsel for the plaintiff ac-
ceded to this suggestion. The Counsel, however, for the
defendant, the late Attorney-General, finding that the
opinion of the Learned Judge was with him, thought it
more advantageous to adopt a different course ; and lie
insisted that the verdict should be entered on the issue.

Now he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that in pursuing
such a course he waived any future right to a writ of
error, and made his election to abide by the decision of
the Court of Exchequer. His Lordship was the less
disposed to depart from the usual course in cases of the
kind, after having considered the judgment of the Court
as competent with the specification ; and he thought the
construction put upon the specification was a rea-
sonable construction. The plaintiff allowed the de-
fendant to use the patent by way of trial,
for a certain period. He did use it for that period, and
kept an account and rendered that account. He was
allowed to make the trial with a view to his afterwards
taking a license, and paying, if he thought proper, a cer-
tain allowance for the use of the patent. He did not
take the license, but he afterwards continued to use the
patent, and refused to render any further account ; in
consequence of which notice was given to him to discon-
tinue to use the patent. After that notice it was clear
that if be continued to use the patent, and he did con-
tinue, he was liable to be proceeded against ; and for
these reasons his Lordship was of opinion that the in-
junction should be allowed.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OF STANFORD

AND OTHERS.

This was a bill filed by her Majesty's Attorney-
General at the relation of several inhabitants of Man-
chester, for the purpose of obtaining a better ad-
ministration of the funds of the Manchester Free
Grammar School, of which the defendants were
trustees. The case had already been heard at length
before the late Lord Chancellor, who delivered
his judgment in the matter ; but a caveat having been
entered against the decree, the case came before the Court
to-day for re-hearing.
It appears from the statement of Mr. BETHELL, who
opened the case for the Attorney-General, that the in-
come of the school, which had been founded for the
purpose of giving gratuitous instruction to the children
of the poor of the neighbourhood of Manchester,
amounted at present to more than 5,0001. The relators
complained—first, that the entire revenue was not
effectually devoted to the objects of the charity
secondly, that it was not confined to those who were
really the persons who should be benefited by it ; and,
thirdly, they complained of the mode of electing the
trustees of the fund. Not more than two hundred chil-

dren were educated in the school; and of these a portion
were the children of persons living in various parts of
England, and residing at the houses of different masters
of the school as borders, for the purpose of participat-
ing in the education, which the immense revenues of
the establishment enabled the masters to give. Those
boys were generally the children of men of property,
and did not in any way come within the inten-
tions of the founder of the charity. Again,
the trustees were elected almost exclusively from
a class of persons who, though men of rank, and no
doubt men of honourable intentions, were, from the very
station which they filled, incapable of attending to such
an institution, and unacquainted with the means of con-
verting the trust to the best use. In the year
1825 the Commissioners of Education laid before
Parliament a Report, from which it appeared
that the revenues of the school amounted at that time to
upwards of 4,0001., while the expenses of the school were
little more than 2,0001., n ith a balance, in addition, in
the hands of the trustees of 11,0001. The Commissioners
concluded their Report by recommending an extension of
the system of education then adopted in the school, and
that means should be taken to afford opportunity fur
educating a greater number of children. No attempt
had been ra..de to carry that recommendation into ef-

feet until the year 1833, when an application had been
made to the Court of Chancery, on the part of
the trustees of the charity, for further powers
to enable them to extend the system of edu-
cation contemplated by the original grant. The
relators, however, complained of the nature of the powers
thus granted, and stated that the charity was still diverted
from its original destination.
The address of Mr. BETnELL occupied the Court from
an early hour in the morning until its rising, after three
o'clock ; and the further arguments on the case were
ordered to be resumed to-morrow.

VICE CHAIV CELLORS' COURT, Dec. 14.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. THE LORDS OF THE

TREASURY.

The further arguments in this case, which turned upon
the interpretation of certain Acts of Parliament, were
resumed this morning at considerable length.
His lloNoun said it was evident that there was a
blunder in the Act of Parliament, which professed to
extend the powers of the Lords of the Treasury in rela-
tion to the purchase of certain tenements for the erection
of the new Custom•house; and that those powers were
not really extended by the terms of the Act. Under those
circumstances he should make no order, and the Com-
pany would therefore be liable to the costs.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
CLIFFORD V. TURRILL.

The bill was filed for the specific performance of a
parole an between the defendant and the plaintiff,
by which the defendant an-reed to allow the plaintiff an
annuity of 401. a year for life, and a house to live in
worth 101. a year. The case was part heard on Satur-
day, and the arguments were concluded yesterday.
Mr. Coo per and Mr. Tripp appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. bimphinson and Mr. an cCh dl ss for the de-
fendant.

His lloNoun, in giving judgment this morning, said
the plaintiff had proved a case entitling him to the speci-
fic performance of the agreement alleged in the bill. In
the account to be taken between the parties, the annuity
of 40/. a year was to be considered as commencing on the
22d of January 1840 ; and with respect to the other part
of the agreement, the plaintiff was to have the option of
having a house to live in of the value of lOta year, or that
sum in money for his life. With regard to costs, the
plaintiff having asked for more than he was entitled, and
made charges against the defendant which he had not
been able to sustain, his Honour said he was of opinion
that he ought not to give costs up to the hearing of the
cause.

COCKBURN v. SINCLETO
This was a suit instituted by Dr. Cockburn , the Dean
of York, against Mr. Singleton, who had held the situa-
tion of his agent, and another defendant of the name of
Milner, for the purpose of setting
aside
tures of lease, dated the 29th August, 1835, on the
te
and Mi of
lner.
of fraud and misrepresentation on h
Singleton, and of collusion between Singleton
The bill also prayed an injunction, and certain accounts
alleged to be unsettled between the Dean and Mr. llts
• -,4
n-
gleton.
Mr. COOPER opened the case for the plaintiff. The
plaintiff had not thought it necessary to enter into any
evidence in support of his case, and he could not, there-
fore, push the case beyond;an inquiry. It was contended
by the defendant that the account had been settled as far
back as 1835 ; but notwithstanding that, he trusted the
Court would come to the opinion that the plaintiff was
entitled to an account. _ _

Mr. ABRAHAMS followed on the same side.
The further hearing of the arguments was postponed
till Monday next.
(Before Vice-Chancellor IVIGRAm.)

SLADE V. SLADE.
The bill was filed for the administration of the
estate of a lady named Anna Slade. It was filed
by one of the next of kin against some others
who administered the estate, and also parties in
distribution as others next of kin. The defendants
Pleaded in answer, that Anna, in March, 1839, a few
daysi after she came of age, had settled an account with
them, by which she agreed to accept 2,1401. as her
share of the property. In the amended bill it was al-
leged that the defendants had taken advantage
of Anna's ignorance of such proceedings ; that
the property' of her father amounted to up-
wards of 50,000/., and that her share in that pro-
perty amounted to about 11,0001. To this bill the de-
tenetuts novr demurred, on the ground of multifarious-
ness, improperly mixine• up matters which related to
two separate estates. b
Mr. Sutton Sharpe and Mr. Freeling appeared fur the
defendants; Mr. Teed and Mr. Wilcock for the plaintiff:
Thee question turned en the rules of pleading in equity.
ease was part-heard yesterday, and his Honour
this morning overruled the demurrer, allowing six weeks
time to answer.