The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, APRIL 27.
IN THE MATTER OF THE DEVIZES CHARITIES.
Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE (with whom was Mr. Jacob) said this
was the petition of two gentlemen named George White and
Thomas Carter, both inhabitant householders of Devizes, and
praying that a gentleman named Phipps might be removed
from the office of trustee of several charities to which he had
been appointed, and that it might be referred to the Master to
appoint some other and proper person instead of Mr. Phipps,
or otherwise that Mr. Phipps might be ordered to sign a power
of attorney, and unite with his co-trustees in all necessary and
proper acts to enable the trustees to transfer certain funds in
the Three per Cent. Consols from the Bank of England, and
that Mr. Phipps should pay the cost of the petition and order to
be made thereon. This was the petition of two trustees to be dis-
embarrassed of their co-trustee—of a gentleman who, according
to the different views which might be entertained of his conduct,
either from obstinacy or firmness had persisted in refusing not
only to act himself, but also to co-operate with the other trus-
tees, so as to enable them to act in such a manner as he had
not the least difficulty in saying, without intending any disre-
spect to Mr. Phipps personally, was most unjustifiable, because
Mr. Phipps appeared to have taken the same view of his con-
duct himself by proposing at a certain period of their proceed-
ings to pay the costs, on condition of being allowed to continue
in the trusteeship. His Honour would find certain
obvious reasons why that proposal was not consented
to, and the trustees considered they should not have done their
duty to the public at large, or as trustees of these charities,
if they had not brought the subject before the Court. They
wished it to be understood that they did not bring it forward
from any adverse feeling towards this gentleman, but from a
conviction that the line of conduct which he had thought it
his duty to pursue, was such as rendered it impossible there
could be any union between them in any actions that could be
useful to the charities for which they were appointed trustees,
and that therefore they were bound to bring the matter before the
Court, in order that the Court might deal with it as it should
think proper. At a meeting of the trustees held in 1838, a sum
of money amounting to 1451. was paid by the Chamberlain of
the Corporation to the trustees, and at the same meeting it was
resolved that the same should he paid up and invested in the
Three per Cents., in the name of four trustees appointed fur that
purpose. He called his Honour's attention to the circumstance
that four trustees, and four only, were appointed trustees of this
stock. These were Mr. Phipps, Mr. Elliot,llr. Dredge, and Mr.
Bishop. In order to enable these gentlemen to receive the divi-
dends on the Stock, the usual power was signed by three of
the parties, but Mr. Phipps refused to sign, without giving any
reason for such refusal, and he had since constantly refused to
do to. Another meeting was held in the month of De-
cember, 1832, when Mr. Phipps, having again refused
to sign the power, and the trustees being consequently un-
able to pay certain moneys into the Bank of England,
for the purposes of the charities, the matter was referred to Mr.
Anstie, the Solicitor of the Trustees, who again applied to
Mr. Phipps to sign the power, which he again refused to do.
Mr. Anstie then wrote a letter to Mr. Phipps, in his reply to
which Mr. Phipps said that " had the Dissenters, in accord-
ance with their oft-repeated professions, abstained from inter-
fering with Church property, the enormous sums which have
now been expended would not have been incurred in prevent-
ing the income of the charities falling into the hands of the Dis-
set ters. Mr. G. Austie wrote another letter on the sth of April,
1840, and another on the 9th Nov., again applying for Mr.
Phipps's signature. He ( Mr. K. Bruce) did not know whether
Mr. Anstie belonged to the Church or the Dissenters, but at
all events his levers were those of a gentleman and a Chris-
tian ; but these applications were els( without success, the alle-
gations in the petition were all verifiea by affidavits. he ,peti-
tion was delayed until the 15th Dec., 1840, on which day it
was presented. It would have come on to be heard on
the second day of the following Hilary 'term, as an unopposed
petition, but his Learned Friend, Mr. Wray, came and stated
that there would be a compromise, and that it was therefore de-
sirable it should stand out of the paper, which proposition was
accordingly assented to. This compromise, however, went off
in consequence of the conduct of Mr. Phipps, from whose affi-
davit, without speaking disrespectfully of him, it appears that he
was mistaken on several points, and the petitioners, therefore,
thought themselves obliged to make other affidavits, which dis-
posed, in a great degree, of statements made, no doubt, under
excitement, and exhibiting, in a remarkable degree, Sir.
Phipps's want of recollection. Mr. Phipps, in his
affidavit, said that he was appointed Rector of De-
vizes in 1533. Ile (Mr. Knight Bruce) had
.yet to learn
what the misconduct of the Town Council had to do with
the matter, and taking into consideration the long negotia-
tions to obtain his signature to the gentlemanly patience and
forbearance manifested with respect to the polemical letter which
he hail referred to,—considering that this gentleman had had
the opportunity of taking advice, and of considering his affi-
davits, the only conclusion he could come to was that Mr.
Phipps, however valuable as a member of society, was not a
person whose forte it was to act as a trustee. Under these cir-
cumstances, it appeared impossible not to come to the conclu-
sion that Mr. Phipps had committed a breach of trust, and had
continued in this course of conduct up to the moment in which
it was to be made the subject of investigation, when he pro-
posed to adopt a different course, and pay costs.
Mr. JACOB followed on the same side. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to state the contents of some of the
affidavits. That of the Rev. Richard Ellott, sworn the 11th
of March, and filed the day following set forth that for 37 years
he was minister of St. Mary's Chapel in the borough of De-
vizes ; that he was one of the charity trustees, and acted as Ho-
norary Secretary to that body ; that they held their first meet-
ing on the 15th of February, 1837, and that he was present at
that meeting. The deponent further stated that he hail
read Sir. Phipps's affidavit, and that it was not true,
as stated by Mr. Phipps, that no account was ren-
dered by the Town Council until the 23d of July,
1838, inasmuch as the Charities' trustees, prior to that, were
furnished with copies of entries in the books of the Town-
council. The copies of the entries so furnished were in pos-
session of the trustees previous to July, 1838. The deponent
further set forth, that the trustees of the charity received much
interruption in the discharge of their duty from Mr. Phipps.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to read extracts from the affi-
davit of Mr. George Evans, a schoolmaster residing for the
last ten years in Devizes, and a trustee of the charity, and from
the affidavits of several others of the trustees, which were
to the same effect, and which he would not therefore trou-
ble the Court by reading at length. There was one circum-
stance to which, however, he would advert ; it was a complaint
of a very odd nature indeed, which was made by Mr. Phipps.
The trustees had foun'l it necessary to apply to Counsel for
advice as to what course they ought to pursue to compel Mr.
Phipps to do his duty, and Mr. Phipps now complained that
the solicitor for the trustees would riot inform him of the nature
of the proceedings about to be established against hiM. Such
were the erroneous views entertained by that gentleman
of the manner in which business ought to he conducted. For
very nearly two years the receipt of the payments of the
stock was stopped through Mr. l'hipps's means, without any
reason being assigned by that gentleman for such stoppage.
Because the Lord Chancellor had ordered that one year's
amount of the revenues of the charity should be applied to
defray law expenses, Mr. Phipps had therefore thought fit to
order that the succeeding years' revenue should be locked up
in the Bank. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Court
ought to prevent the charity from being again exposed to
the difficulties in which it had been placed by that gentleman ;
that the steck ought not to be continued standing in his (Mr.
Phipps's) name, and that he ought not to be continued one of
the trustees. Counsel therefore hoped that the Court would
make the order prayed for.
Mr. COLERIDGE followed on the same side. His Honour
would not forget the part:of Mr. Phipps's letters addressed to
Mr. Anstic, the solicitor for the petitioners, in which he ac-
cuses the Dissenters of interfering with the Church Charities ;
but how does he maintain this charge in his affidavits ; By alto-
gether itbstaining from the repetition of it—by giving it up altoge-
ther. He would observe that throughont the whole of the affida-
vit of Mr. Phipps there was not the slightest imputation upon the
character of his co-trustees. There were fifteen trustees ; of
these there were only five Dissenters, the remainder being
members of the Established Church, and therefore any step
they might take, which might be considered prejudicial to the
interests of the charity, would be altogether futile, as they
would be out-voted by the larger number who were of a dif-
ferent religious belief. The reasons assigned by Nlr. Phipps
for refusing to do his duty, were of the most ridiculous cha-
racter, and he would not again trouble the Court by re-
peating them. Wheh Mr. Phipps was asked to execute the
bond, instead of assigning any good and valid reasons it would
appear from the affidavit of one of the trustees that so far back
as Nov. 1N39, when asked to assign his reasons for refusing to
dr, so, he absolutely refused to give any. The affidavit of Mr.
Carter was to the same effect, and in fact throughout the whole
opist,thion u
the affidavits the statements were the same, and with the ex-
e the extraordinary observation be made respecting the
Dissenters, not one of them even heard him assign any reason
for refusing to execute the power of attorney. The offer of
Mr. Phipps to pay the costs was worth 1 ttle or nothing, be-
cause the offer was extremely vague and undefined. There
was no party who could deride
upon what the costs were,
nor was there any guarantee that he would pay the sun;
that was agreed upon. Under all the circumstances he trusted.
the Court would make the orudheormas rayed for.
Mr. RICHARDS (with
Wray). said he
appeared on behalf of the Rev. as
Phipps against
the petition. His Learned Friend
rueedes .st Wigram was
introduced on behalf of two
of the trustees were
anxious to oppose the petition ; and his Learn
Mr.
James Parker appeared on behalf of four of the trusteenea
wh
were willing to acquiesce in any order the Court miehtthirok
proper to make. Of the other trustees he might observe, that.
two were dead, two were residing abroad, and one, Mr. San.
ders, took no part in the matter one way or another. Tne ap..
plication to the Court was, in reality, that the rector of the
parish might be discharged from being a trustee of these chari-
ties for alleged misconduct which was attributed to him in the
petition, or that he might be directed to execute a power of
attorney in order that the dividends might be received. The
object of the application it was plain, from the letter which had
leen read by his Learned Fi iersd, was to remove Mr. Phipps,
the two gentlemen who wrote the letter stating that they saw
no prospect of his conducting himself properly
The VICE-CHANCELLOR-IS Mr. Phipps willing to exe-
cute the nower of attorney?
Mr. Rierioans—slir. Phipps was willing to do so if his
Honour was of opinion that lie ought. He had been most
improperly brought into a Court of Equity, but he stated his
willingness
to act in such a way as the Court might think
proper to direct him. If the Court thought the money ought
to be applied in the way the petitioners had stated, still the
Court had authority and jurisdiction under the circumstances
to make such an order. Mr. Phipps was perfectly ready to
acquiesce. He referred to ' the provisions of Sir Samuel
Romilly's Act as regarded charities, and the question
was whether, when the avowed object was as to what
channels the trust should now through, the Court could
make an order upon petition without
anyinformation being
filed. His Learned Friend had not served the Attorney-
General with the petition, andit was a question for the Court
whether it would be fit and proper to deal the funds in the
way suggested, in the absence of the Attorney General. He
would, however, again repeat, that if the Court- thought the
apower of attorney should be executed Mr. Phippsffioioauvlidt
do so. Be would now refer his Honour to the
of Mr. John Bailley and thirty-six inhabitants of De-
vizes, who stated what their opinion was of the cOnduct
of
the rector, Mr. Phipps, and as to the coarse he had adopted in
the management of the funds in question. The deponents
stated that they had heard with regret of the petitffinnne thnatat
they were acquainted with the proceedings of the trustees of
these charities, of whom the Rev. Mr. Phipps was one, and
they were convinced that he had used his utmost exertions to
benefit the charity, and that he had not been influenced by any
personal objects or motives in the course he had taken, but had
been anxious to see them properly and judiciously managed. They
stated that a portion of these funds were for repairs of the Church
and the benefit of persons connected therewith that Mr. Phipps,
in his capacity of Rector, was the distributor of the `produce
of the trust fund; and it was desirable for the benefit of the
charity that he should continue to act as such, and that his re-
moval would be a serious loss to the trust fund, and materially
Impair the confidence of the inhabitants and the public in
the management of these funds. He hardly knew whether it
would be necessary to trouble his Honour with what had been
alleged in the affiavits on the other side as to the dismissal of
31r. Phipps from
pthhie trusteeship. He would remind his
Honour that Mr.
was appointed a trustee in 1836,
when the report of tgr'e As
asthter was confirmed by the Lord
Chancellor. The question
perein, and the only question, was
whether subsequently to the shed when that gentleman was
appointed one of the trustees he had been guilty of such con-
duet as would induce his Honour to
come to the conclusion
that he was not fit to continue in the tr
objection that had been urged againsabins teeThiP• The only
as, that he had re-
fused to execute a power of attorney. Now, be submitted to ,