The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

• COURT OF CHANCERY' Dye.
WART) OF COURT.
TENNANT v. 'JAMES.
• An order had been issued, dated the 3d of July last, to re-
strain a marriage between 'Alice 31'newnell and the defendant,
with-Whom' she had eloped. The parties eluded the serving of
the order, and. were married by bans on the 13th of July, hay.
"big represented to the clergyman, ,Mr. Fivans, that James was
26 yeare (W, and Maim& 16 years of age, and that they
were marriedy consent of parents. James had since left the
country. • The lady was restored to her guardian. The motion
asked that the matter be referred to the Master, who should he
called on to choose a proper' 41tuation in widch the ward might
be placed, ns the phdatiff wished to he rid of his charge ; it also
suggested that the Court should pronounce in some way upon
the marriage:
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not be troubled about the
marriage ; it, would be time enough to consider that when the
parties should venture to-come fbrward to prove the marriage.
It was very unfortunate for Mr. Evans, the clergyman, if he
had married a ward of the Court in ignorance of her condition,
AS he was now clearly in contempt. Mr. James, when be ap.
peered, would" be able, perhaps, to explain why he represented
that hls was a marriage with consent of parents. The plaintiff
was allowed to take the order for referring the choice of a rest.
denee to' the Master.
HIGHGATE, CFIARtTV.
TOE ATTORNEY.GENERAL v. LOUD SIANRFIELD.
Die documentary evidence was tendered upon which the re-
lators founded their case, consisting of letters-patent of the
Queen, the liilthoo grant, thedeed of feoffinent of Sir Roger
Cholmondeley, sundry leases, the appointments of schoolmasters
(by which it nmeared that thepresent appointment differed from
all the preceding), the evidence of Miss Felton, daughter of the
school-master who lust taught. Latin grammar, and that of two
persona who had learnt Latin on the foundation, under the
father of NI iso Felton, and a list of the school' library.
Mr. IVETHER.r.m, advised that the ;catalogue - should he
read : there was one book, Opera Pelri hand, a very consider.
able performance In German theologY.
Mr. flonliE said, that there was a Stapaire Luken,- Cieeft
tie o.feiis, C(e.taeko Collynintorks, 41.7,1, and various other
books stied in eduestio6.-
Other evidence wits offered to show that the chapel had no re.
(entree to the spiritual wants of the neighbourhood ; and a let.

ter was read, in whieltthe agent to the trusteesitod denied to
one of the inhabitants any right to a pew in the school chapel. •
'rho Lorti) CI.TANtjEt.Lo it would not receive'the report of
the'Parliamentary Connnissioners as evidence, because the
avowed object of that cominission was the reforniation of pub-
lic charities, which object did not in any way asree with the
jurisdiction of the Court. fie apprehetitted that it was of little.
moinent whether the chapel was or was not a parochial Chapel
of ease for the use of the inhabitants. The question was, hew
far the funds of the school might be applied or diverted, even -
to the extinction of the school, to enlarge or.atipport the chapel.
He threw this out, that hi's mind might be either relieved trout
that consideration or confirmed in the opinion So fanned. •
111 r. TE3tPLE then spoke at considerable length in support
of the argument urged by Mr.' fhwillestivlay, *that the chap:l
was not endowed for the advantage. of the inhabitant:: hut for
use of the school, and that the founder's design was to have it
schoolmaster employed who would be capable of the functions"
of both Aces. lie expatiated•generally upon the tight of the
relators to call upon the r' 1, to file this informa-
tion, and upon the imparative duty ,of the Court to require the
trustees to administer the charity fv;ie6iTity-tti the win of the
founder.
The IJnitp-CITANCrLy.ott' ' nbscrvccl, that • too chapel wits
styled in the letters-patent nail 01.0 deeds. of fetal:l/lent "
chapel of ease for the inhabitants of Highgate." It was
another question whether it was to be cid Irged as the popula-
tion increased, et the expellee of the school fundS. Ile wished
.to know if the rector of the parish received 'any fees for rite
chapel.
.The Counsel against the bill answered, that the rector re-
ceived burial fees. It appeared that until the enlarging of the
chapel in IMO, there was no burying ground .attatthed to the
chapel, that no fees of any kind were collected either fin. fune.
rats, christenings, or. trarrutOs, anti that afterwards the pare-.
chial rector required custoninry fees to be paid tohia church lbr
funerals in the newly consecrated grniind.
111 r. 1171;Tirritt: for the Governors, contended that the
.ostentation of the chapel of ease was a concomitant trust with
the support of the school, and that it had existed' before the
feundstion of' the school. lie apprehended that he should tint
have to contest the point of law with his leareed friends, that 'a-
chapel of ease might be made a subject of trust as well ar
a charity school. They second indeed, by the framing of
their argument, to wish to have it suppo aid otherwise, and they
spoke as if they bed concluded the question by showing'that
one of the subjects, and therefore the' only subject, of the trust'
in question, was a grammar school. If they were' inclined
to dispute the point, however, he hatl'only' to refer t•liem to the
Statute of t.itles, and there they would Soe.ityrovidcd in express
terms that a church might be made a subject of trust ; nay,
there was an instanmin which the payment of lif:ceutl .i.....at.
that time the prevailing method of taxation-glad been ntade
the subject of trusts. His learned friends thought ti:. !boy
had completely met' that part of the case which the
Bishop's title by showing Sir Roger CholmondelevN grant and
feoflinent, and the subsequent feoffinent and release of one
Farnham, together with one of the trustees. In all this time it
was argued.as lithe Bishop never had title or possession of the
chapel or any part of the property; but ell was the gift of tile.
generous 'founder. Undoubtedly, the endowment Vra.s= made in
the name anti exclusively to the honour or Sir ft,igcr Cholmon-
&ley,. but not so entirely at his expcnce as lind n ropres.-.2nt.
ed. Mach had lic,ot said about a grit or cave iu wititli it'lllink
alight have resided, or a:hermit; and they were referred rof
the origin of this chapel to the supposition of some holy titan
hying in devoted and romantic solitude, in safentiA or cave
amidtattle wilds of Highgate. The Court would yerhaps he
surprised to learn that this medium, which in the instruments
was more frequently and properly calit-t1 at ca ells, had been
a chapel in the possession and gift of the Bishop of London,
for time beyond legal Memory. He hail be tbre him two
grants made of this chapel by the' Bishop of • Irondon : one
'dated 1385, the other 1631. The latter -Was made for pllrpOSN
which, under the Statittes of Dissolotinn, the
.first etf which
passed in the very next year, might-have been held tic fall
in the forfeitures for endowments to stiperstitious trtes. Ire
was prepared, however, to malithin, that up to the time
founding theschool, whatever might have becti-the good fortune
of JohnTarnhain in obtaining.a temporary title to it, this -pro.
perty was in the Bishop of London. 1 t was undoubtedly be-
stowed' by Bishop ()Amite on Sir lto.,•er Chohnondeley, not
merely by a concession of the Bishop, in his character of hoist
(tithe Manor of ijornsey, hut hv expr,:SN deed of iconic:a of
the chapel and two acres of land in question, and that for a con-
sideration no less clearly expressed in. die sante instrunient,,
namely, the endowment of a charity tich,ol. Here, then, was
a chapel of ancient establishment', which the Blehop-was bound-
,
by his functions, to maintain,: and in the granting of which the
same care must have been deputed to the grantee, the same.re--
servation was to be implied, that the chapel must be kept tip as
'heretofore for the accommodation of the inhabitants of nigh-
gate, Ile was ready to admit with his bearped Friends that
the charity school must also he considered as an equally ito4
portant trust—but not us a trust of more importance. They
were alarmed; fearing that the trust or the chapel, in the ad-
ministration of dr.: fm olai should over-ride the school. Ile host*
to call upon the Court to prevent the trust of the school' titan
over,riding that of the chapel. As to the argument that'tha
graminar-.chirp was the common designation of the trust in
the letters. patent there was nothing in that to exclude the
'existence of the other trust. A Royal grant was not necessary
at that time for the endowment of a chapel : it was necessary
for a school ; and hence the frequent mention of the school in
the grants, without any very express mention of the chapel
the saute instruments. •

The Lora) CHANCELLOR remarked, that the feoffment of
the chapel and lands by Bishop Orindal appeared to be made
to the use of the school for ever : and there was not-a single
passage which he could find' in any of the instruments for pro.
viding any thing for the services or repairs of the chapel out of
the funds.
WxTur.riEr.t. was not so rash as to assume any thing
obviously contrary to the tenour of the instruments, neither
could lie be so weak as to rive up to his Learned Friends the
fair advantage to which his argument was entitled from the
distinction frequently taken and admitted in law, between an
express provision for a trust declared, and a provision which
was to be implied for a trust no less 3pecillenlly created.
The Loup CHANOELLOR did not mean to deny that the
chapel might beii part of this trust; but he urged the question
again, which he had so often mentioned before—was it to be
maintained that this chapel of ease might be enlarged according
to the increase in the population. of Highgate, at the expellee
of the school funds ? As to the the mode of educations clearly
that must be managed agreeably to the will of the founder.
He might feel fin the Rev. clergyman who had undertaken the
office of teaching with a positive understanding that he was not
to be required to do those duties. But what conk' thettsutt
do for him in such a care? In the case of the York school,
which was once before the Court, it was held that the roaster
must stoop to the, drudgery, as was supposed, of teaching the
boys grammar after the A BC, and the primer; and that it
was not a sufficient compliance with the will of the founder to
appoint a person of inferior knowledge to teach the scluitil up.
on it lower scale of ethication.—Argument deferred till the first
seal after the holidays.

VIOE-CD'ANCIMIt)It'S COURT. DEC. 17.
'.4IARIIIIALL V. '.ll-1E MAYOR AND CORPORATION or Quitrie-
11011OUGH.
Mr, SUOIEN, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated that the Bill
was filed for the specific performance of a contract. In the
year 1808, the plaintiff took a piece of waste ground from the
defendants fin 60 years, at the rent of ten shilling u year, which
piece of ground was bounded by the channel; of the creek. The
plaintiff built four houses on the ground t anti, soon after they
were finished, found that the water of the creek wee undermin-
ing the.foundation of the houses ; in consequence of which he
ftpplied to the defendants when assembled in their corporate
Capacity, and stated the injury his houses were likely to receive
from the water of the creek, and applied for leave to make an
embankment for their security, and to be at liberty to use the
same ae a Wharf; to which application a majority of the COrpo-
ration, including the Mayor, gave their consent, and came on
the premises and saw the extent of ground which the plaintiff
was to be permitted to enclose measured out to him: and said,
as the ground was of no value, they would not charge him any
rent for it ; in consequence of which the plaintiff made an em-
bankrnent„ to which the Corporation did not object till the year
1819, whenthey served him with a notice to abate the same as a
nuisance. Mr. Kugden argued, that although in law a Corpora-
tion was only bound by a deed, to which they had affixed their
(.;orporation Seal, yet in Court of Equity they must be hound
by a pareie agreement as an individual ; and that their allow
ing the. plaintiff' to make tha,embankment was not without COM
mideratlon, as the (.4oporation possessed the fee of the ground,'
and was therefore interested in the preservation of the houses ;
and it was proved by the witnesses exlimined in the cause, that
the houses would be undermined and destroyed if the embank.